Micro‐ and nano‐plastic loads in fish and macroinvertebrates in a tropical river

This study examines microplastic contamination in river macroinvertebrates and fish within a rapidly urbanising tropical catchment, and provides data on the quantity of microplastics ingested by various taxonomic and functional feeding groups. We employed both a widely used low‐resolution visual ins...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Freshwater biology 2024-09, Vol.69 (9), p.1338-1352
Hauptverfasser: Ng, Yong Sin, Selvam, Sivathass Bannir, Ting, Kang Nee, Chen, Hui Ling, Muthoosamy, Kasturi, Gibbins, Christopher
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1352
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1338
container_title Freshwater biology
container_volume 69
creator Ng, Yong Sin
Selvam, Sivathass Bannir
Ting, Kang Nee
Chen, Hui Ling
Muthoosamy, Kasturi
Gibbins, Christopher
description This study examines microplastic contamination in river macroinvertebrates and fish within a rapidly urbanising tropical catchment, and provides data on the quantity of microplastics ingested by various taxonomic and functional feeding groups. We employed both a widely used low‐resolution visual inspection method, capable of identifying microplastics ranging from 0.1 to 5 mm, and a novel automated method specifically designed to identify smaller plastics in the nano size range, from 0.004 to 0.1 mm. Analysis using the low‐resolution method indicated that a significant portion of fish (95%) and macroinvertebrates (44%) contained larger microplastics. The composition of microplastic within the animals differed from that in river water and on the river bed: microplastics in the water and on the bed were predominantly fibres (98% and 92% respectively), whereas the animals exhibited a more even mix of fibres (c. 35%), fragments (c. 43%), and film (c. 22%). Microplastic loads in aquatic organisms correlated with feeding group and body size, although patterns were not always consistent. Larger individuals generally contained more microplastic, especially among macroinvertebrates, but this trend was not observed uniformly among fish species. Additionally, differences in body loads among macroinvertebrate taxa and feeding groups varied depending on whether loads were expressed per individual or per unit weight. Use of the high‐resolution enumeration method revealed a substantially higher microplastic count compared to the low‐resolution method, highlighting the potential underestimation of contamination levels by the latter. The study underscores the non‐random uptake of microplastics by aquatic biota, influenced by feeding mode, and stresses the necessity of high‐resolution sample processing for accurate quantification of contamination levels and risk assessment for smaller organisms.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/fwb.14309
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3092865316</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3153737198</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2209-c290f9356c567591e349fe67b8a2b916b00e8efe7ad8367264bce4afea425fc23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10M1OAyEQB3BiNLFWD77BJl70sC0fCyxHbayaaLzUeCQsHSLNdrfC1qY3H8Fn9EmkXU8mcoBJ5gdh_gidEzwiaY3dphqRgmF1gAaECZ7TgspDNMC4EDnHEh-jkxgXGOOSSzpAsydvQ_v9-ZWZZp41ptnVq9rEztusbs08Zr7JnI9ve7A0SfvmA0IHVTAd7Nsm60K78tbUWfCpd4qOnKkjnP2eQ_QyvZ1N7vPH57uHyfVjbinFKu0KO8W4sFxIrgiwQjkQsioNrRQRFcZQggNp5iUTkoqislAYB6ag3FnKhuiyf3cV2vc1xE4vfbRQ16aBdh01I5xJJokqE734QxftOjTpdzqFRUvBGRFJXfUqTRljAKdXwS9N2GqC9S5fnfLV-3yTHfd242vY_g_19PWmv_EDnql9bw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3092865316</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Micro‐ and nano‐plastic loads in fish and macroinvertebrates in a tropical river</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Ng, Yong Sin ; Selvam, Sivathass Bannir ; Ting, Kang Nee ; Chen, Hui Ling ; Muthoosamy, Kasturi ; Gibbins, Christopher</creator><creatorcontrib>Ng, Yong Sin ; Selvam, Sivathass Bannir ; Ting, Kang Nee ; Chen, Hui Ling ; Muthoosamy, Kasturi ; Gibbins, Christopher</creatorcontrib><description>This study examines microplastic contamination in river macroinvertebrates and fish within a rapidly urbanising tropical catchment, and provides data on the quantity of microplastics ingested by various taxonomic and functional feeding groups. We employed both a widely used low‐resolution visual inspection method, capable of identifying microplastics ranging from 0.1 to 5 mm, and a novel automated method specifically designed to identify smaller plastics in the nano size range, from 0.004 to 0.1 mm. Analysis using the low‐resolution method indicated that a significant portion of fish (95%) and macroinvertebrates (44%) contained larger microplastics. The composition of microplastic within the animals differed from that in river water and on the river bed: microplastics in the water and on the bed were predominantly fibres (98% and 92% respectively), whereas the animals exhibited a more even mix of fibres (c. 35%), fragments (c. 43%), and film (c. 22%). Microplastic loads in aquatic organisms correlated with feeding group and body size, although patterns were not always consistent. Larger individuals generally contained more microplastic, especially among macroinvertebrates, but this trend was not observed uniformly among fish species. Additionally, differences in body loads among macroinvertebrate taxa and feeding groups varied depending on whether loads were expressed per individual or per unit weight. Use of the high‐resolution enumeration method revealed a substantially higher microplastic count compared to the low‐resolution method, highlighting the potential underestimation of contamination levels by the latter. The study underscores the non‐random uptake of microplastics by aquatic biota, influenced by feeding mode, and stresses the necessity of high‐resolution sample processing for accurate quantification of contamination levels and risk assessment for smaller organisms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0046-5070</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2427</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/fwb.14309</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Aquatic animals ; Aquatic biota ; Aquatic organisms ; automation ; Biota ; body loads ; Body size ; Catchment area ; Contamination ; Enumeration ; Feeding ; Feeding behavior ; Fibers ; Fish ; limnology ; Loads (forces) ; Macroinvertebrates ; methodological comparison ; Microplastics ; plastic contamination ; Plastic debris ; Plastic pollution ; Risk assessment ; River beds ; River water ; Riverbeds ; Rivers ; stream channels ; Visual inspection ; Water pollution ; watersheds ; Zoobenthos</subject><ispartof>Freshwater biology, 2024-09, Vol.69 (9), p.1338-1352</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2209-c290f9356c567591e349fe67b8a2b916b00e8efe7ad8367264bce4afea425fc23</cites><orcidid>0009-0001-2390-4921</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Ffwb.14309$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ffwb.14309$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ng, Yong Sin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Selvam, Sivathass Bannir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ting, Kang Nee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Hui Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muthoosamy, Kasturi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibbins, Christopher</creatorcontrib><title>Micro‐ and nano‐plastic loads in fish and macroinvertebrates in a tropical river</title><title>Freshwater biology</title><description>This study examines microplastic contamination in river macroinvertebrates and fish within a rapidly urbanising tropical catchment, and provides data on the quantity of microplastics ingested by various taxonomic and functional feeding groups. We employed both a widely used low‐resolution visual inspection method, capable of identifying microplastics ranging from 0.1 to 5 mm, and a novel automated method specifically designed to identify smaller plastics in the nano size range, from 0.004 to 0.1 mm. Analysis using the low‐resolution method indicated that a significant portion of fish (95%) and macroinvertebrates (44%) contained larger microplastics. The composition of microplastic within the animals differed from that in river water and on the river bed: microplastics in the water and on the bed were predominantly fibres (98% and 92% respectively), whereas the animals exhibited a more even mix of fibres (c. 35%), fragments (c. 43%), and film (c. 22%). Microplastic loads in aquatic organisms correlated with feeding group and body size, although patterns were not always consistent. Larger individuals generally contained more microplastic, especially among macroinvertebrates, but this trend was not observed uniformly among fish species. Additionally, differences in body loads among macroinvertebrate taxa and feeding groups varied depending on whether loads were expressed per individual or per unit weight. Use of the high‐resolution enumeration method revealed a substantially higher microplastic count compared to the low‐resolution method, highlighting the potential underestimation of contamination levels by the latter. The study underscores the non‐random uptake of microplastics by aquatic biota, influenced by feeding mode, and stresses the necessity of high‐resolution sample processing for accurate quantification of contamination levels and risk assessment for smaller organisms.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aquatic animals</subject><subject>Aquatic biota</subject><subject>Aquatic organisms</subject><subject>automation</subject><subject>Biota</subject><subject>body loads</subject><subject>Body size</subject><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Enumeration</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Feeding behavior</subject><subject>Fibers</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>limnology</subject><subject>Loads (forces)</subject><subject>Macroinvertebrates</subject><subject>methodological comparison</subject><subject>Microplastics</subject><subject>plastic contamination</subject><subject>Plastic debris</subject><subject>Plastic pollution</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>River beds</subject><subject>River water</subject><subject>Riverbeds</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>stream channels</subject><subject>Visual inspection</subject><subject>Water pollution</subject><subject>watersheds</subject><subject>Zoobenthos</subject><issn>0046-5070</issn><issn>1365-2427</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10M1OAyEQB3BiNLFWD77BJl70sC0fCyxHbayaaLzUeCQsHSLNdrfC1qY3H8Fn9EmkXU8mcoBJ5gdh_gidEzwiaY3dphqRgmF1gAaECZ7TgspDNMC4EDnHEh-jkxgXGOOSSzpAsydvQ_v9-ZWZZp41ptnVq9rEztusbs08Zr7JnI9ve7A0SfvmA0IHVTAd7Nsm60K78tbUWfCpd4qOnKkjnP2eQ_QyvZ1N7vPH57uHyfVjbinFKu0KO8W4sFxIrgiwQjkQsioNrRQRFcZQggNp5iUTkoqislAYB6ag3FnKhuiyf3cV2vc1xE4vfbRQ16aBdh01I5xJJokqE734QxftOjTpdzqFRUvBGRFJXfUqTRljAKdXwS9N2GqC9S5fnfLV-3yTHfd242vY_g_19PWmv_EDnql9bw</recordid><startdate>202409</startdate><enddate>202409</enddate><creator>Ng, Yong Sin</creator><creator>Selvam, Sivathass Bannir</creator><creator>Ting, Kang Nee</creator><creator>Chen, Hui Ling</creator><creator>Muthoosamy, Kasturi</creator><creator>Gibbins, Christopher</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2390-4921</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202409</creationdate><title>Micro‐ and nano‐plastic loads in fish and macroinvertebrates in a tropical river</title><author>Ng, Yong Sin ; Selvam, Sivathass Bannir ; Ting, Kang Nee ; Chen, Hui Ling ; Muthoosamy, Kasturi ; Gibbins, Christopher</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2209-c290f9356c567591e349fe67b8a2b916b00e8efe7ad8367264bce4afea425fc23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aquatic animals</topic><topic>Aquatic biota</topic><topic>Aquatic organisms</topic><topic>automation</topic><topic>Biota</topic><topic>body loads</topic><topic>Body size</topic><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Enumeration</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Feeding behavior</topic><topic>Fibers</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>limnology</topic><topic>Loads (forces)</topic><topic>Macroinvertebrates</topic><topic>methodological comparison</topic><topic>Microplastics</topic><topic>plastic contamination</topic><topic>Plastic debris</topic><topic>Plastic pollution</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>River beds</topic><topic>River water</topic><topic>Riverbeds</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>stream channels</topic><topic>Visual inspection</topic><topic>Water pollution</topic><topic>watersheds</topic><topic>Zoobenthos</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ng, Yong Sin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Selvam, Sivathass Bannir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ting, Kang Nee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Hui Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muthoosamy, Kasturi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibbins, Christopher</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Freshwater biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ng, Yong Sin</au><au>Selvam, Sivathass Bannir</au><au>Ting, Kang Nee</au><au>Chen, Hui Ling</au><au>Muthoosamy, Kasturi</au><au>Gibbins, Christopher</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Micro‐ and nano‐plastic loads in fish and macroinvertebrates in a tropical river</atitle><jtitle>Freshwater biology</jtitle><date>2024-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1338</spage><epage>1352</epage><pages>1338-1352</pages><issn>0046-5070</issn><eissn>1365-2427</eissn><abstract>This study examines microplastic contamination in river macroinvertebrates and fish within a rapidly urbanising tropical catchment, and provides data on the quantity of microplastics ingested by various taxonomic and functional feeding groups. We employed both a widely used low‐resolution visual inspection method, capable of identifying microplastics ranging from 0.1 to 5 mm, and a novel automated method specifically designed to identify smaller plastics in the nano size range, from 0.004 to 0.1 mm. Analysis using the low‐resolution method indicated that a significant portion of fish (95%) and macroinvertebrates (44%) contained larger microplastics. The composition of microplastic within the animals differed from that in river water and on the river bed: microplastics in the water and on the bed were predominantly fibres (98% and 92% respectively), whereas the animals exhibited a more even mix of fibres (c. 35%), fragments (c. 43%), and film (c. 22%). Microplastic loads in aquatic organisms correlated with feeding group and body size, although patterns were not always consistent. Larger individuals generally contained more microplastic, especially among macroinvertebrates, but this trend was not observed uniformly among fish species. Additionally, differences in body loads among macroinvertebrate taxa and feeding groups varied depending on whether loads were expressed per individual or per unit weight. Use of the high‐resolution enumeration method revealed a substantially higher microplastic count compared to the low‐resolution method, highlighting the potential underestimation of contamination levels by the latter. The study underscores the non‐random uptake of microplastics by aquatic biota, influenced by feeding mode, and stresses the necessity of high‐resolution sample processing for accurate quantification of contamination levels and risk assessment for smaller organisms.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/fwb.14309</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2390-4921</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0046-5070
ispartof Freshwater biology, 2024-09, Vol.69 (9), p.1338-1352
issn 0046-5070
1365-2427
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3092865316
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Animals
Aquatic animals
Aquatic biota
Aquatic organisms
automation
Biota
body loads
Body size
Catchment area
Contamination
Enumeration
Feeding
Feeding behavior
Fibers
Fish
limnology
Loads (forces)
Macroinvertebrates
methodological comparison
Microplastics
plastic contamination
Plastic debris
Plastic pollution
Risk assessment
River beds
River water
Riverbeds
Rivers
stream channels
Visual inspection
Water pollution
watersheds
Zoobenthos
title Micro‐ and nano‐plastic loads in fish and macroinvertebrates in a tropical river
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T17%3A19%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Micro%E2%80%90%20and%20nano%E2%80%90plastic%20loads%20in%20fish%20and%20macroinvertebrates%20in%20a%20tropical%20river&rft.jtitle=Freshwater%20biology&rft.au=Ng,%20Yong%20Sin&rft.date=2024-09&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1338&rft.epage=1352&rft.pages=1338-1352&rft.issn=0046-5070&rft.eissn=1365-2427&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/fwb.14309&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3153737198%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3092865316&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true