Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of edible fishes from South Indian Rivers

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298562/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of edible fishes from South Indian Rivers

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298562/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The occurrence of microplastics MPs in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of the five different fish species (Chanos chanos, Chanda nama, Chelon macrolepis, Gerrus filamentosus, and Carangoides malabaricus) from the Kollidam River and Vellar River of Tamil Nadu, Southern India were evaluated. A maximum of 23 individual fishes was sampled from both Rivers and alkaline digestion was performed to extract the MPs in the GI tract of fishes. The results revealed that a total of 315 MPs were isolated from the GI tracts of all fishes sampled from both Rivers with fibres and fragments. The average size of ingested MPs was ranged between 108.72 to 129.11 µm and 181 to 284 µm in the fishes sampled from Kollidam and Vellar River respectively. In the morphological examination of MPs, fishes from both Rivers showed the maximum level of fibres, followed by fragments. The colour pattern of the ingested MPs was dominated by blue, transparent, red and other colours in both rivers. In this study, MPs in the GI tract of fishes indicated that the MPs pollution in studied Rivers can cause significant threats to aquatic fauna.

Plastics are synthetic polymers that originated from the derivatives of fossil fuels and are used widely due to their higher durability with great applications on commercial products. At present, plastic industries have become a major contributor to the applications of various industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, energy generation, aerospace research, automotive, construction, electronics, packaging, textiles, etc (Plastic Europe 2019). On another hand, plastic pollution has become a very serious threat to the environment all around the globe, due to mismanagement and poor recycling rates of plastics. India was lifted to the 15th position of the plastic polluting country in the list of nations with the lower amount of recycling rates in terms of plastic waste treatment (Geyer et al. 2017). Microplastics (MPs) are very tiny particles that are all less than 5mm in size and widespread in all water bodies throughout the globe. Primary MPs were originated and reduced in size by the environmental processes, in order of photo-oxidation, thermal stress and wave actions (de Sá et al. 2018). MPs have been reported for several detrimental effects, on feeding, reproduction, intestinal damage, and disturbances of energy metabolism in various aquatic animals (Campanale et al. 2020; Hurley et al. 2017; Jiang et al. 2020; Koelmans et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2018). MPs have been encountered in the following invertebrates the zooplankton, amphipods, polychaete worms, tubifex worms, molluscs, echinoderms, etc. It is also encountered in chordates such as fishes, birds and mammals (Desforges et al. 2015; Fossi et al. 2018; Herzke et al. 2016; Hurley et al. 2017; Long et al. 2015; Rummel et al. 2016). Nearly 20% of MPs came from Fishing practices and 80% of MPs from were came from terrestrial activities which include personal care products, air-blasting process, improperly disposed plastics and leachate from landfills (Cole et al. 2011).

Microplastics entered to river ecosystem led to transfer to the ocean which can disturb the river and marine ecosystems (Dris et al. 2015; Free et al. 2014). A wide range of organisms ingests the MPs which accumulate and creates an adverse effect on the biology and physiology of organisms. Most of the effects are often related to a disruption to the digestive system like blockage of the intestinal tract, false sensation of satiation, etc (Cole et al. 2013; Farrell and Nelson 2013). Earlier studies reported that the accumulation of MPs in marine organisms including fish and shellfishes (Jonathan et al. 2021; Murray and Cowie 2011; Selvam et al. 2021; van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015). Nevertheless, the information on the accumulation of MPs in the organisms from the freshwater environment is limited that also can be applied to the freshwater bodies in India. Accumulation of MPs in the digestive tracts of animals including fish, molluscs, crustacean can affect their nutritional gain, energy reserves and poor survival and growth due to the reduction in feeding (Cole et al. 2013; Lu et al. 2016; von Moos et al. 2012; Wright et al. 2013).

In India, most of the studies focused on the occurrence of MPs pollution in the marine environment, while the impact of MPs pollution in the freshwater environment is very limited. Hence, the present study aims to evaluate the occurrence of MPs in the gastrointestinal tracts of edible fishes from Kollidam and Vellar Rivers in South India. The selected Rivers for the study, are serving as a habitat for the various faunal diversity and livelihood for the local fishermen communities until they end up in the Bay of Bengal Sea Kollidam and Vellar Rivers are flowing in sub-parallel patterns to each other. Both Rivers are geographically located in the Cuddalore District along the southeast coast of Tamil Nadu, India. Kollidam River in the Northern distributary of Cauvery River, which splits from Cauvery near Srirangam. It flows about 150 km and empties into the Bay of Bengal near Sirkali in Nagapattinam District. Vellar River originates in Chittori hills of the Eastern Ghats in the Salem district of Tamil Nadu at an elevation of 900 m, and it has a total length of 210 km runs through Salem and Cuddalore districts in Tamil Nadu enter into the Bay of Bengal near Parangipettai, in Chidambaram district.

Study area and sample collection

Fishes were collected from the selected sites of Vellar (11°26′23.00″ to 11°26′27.15″ N, 79°33′53.35″ to 79°33′57.05″ E) and Kollidam (11°19′58.30″ to 11°20′23.19″ N, 79°42′42.82″ to 79°43.07′71″ E) Rivers (Fig .1) with the help of local fishermen during February to May 2020. Collected fishes were anaesthetized and stored in a sterile sample container and transported to the laboratory for further examination. Fishes were cleaned by using de-ionized water to remove the debris and minimize external MPs contamination. The lengths and weights of sampled fish were ranged between 11.7 to 27.8 cm and 21.77 to 217.72 g respectively.

Identification of fishes

Collected fishes were identified based on their morphological features using standard manuals and the data obtained from the Fish Base website Froese and Pauly (2021). Identification keys of length, shape, depth, mouth, distribution and nature of fish spines, scales were used to identify and categorize the taxonomical information of these collected fishes. Totally 23 fishes were examined and identified as five different species. Among these, Chanos chanos and Chanda nama were identified from the Kollidam River, Carangoides malabaricus and Gerrus filamentosus were identified from the Vellar River, and Chelon macrolepis identified from both Kollidam and Vellar Rivers.

Sample processing for extraction of MPs

The gastrointestinal tract (GI) from each fish was dissected out in an aseptic condition and rinsed by using ultrapure water to reduce the chances of plastic contamination, dissected guts were transferred into sterile glass containers for further digestion. Digestion of fish guts was done by using the alkaline digestion method of Karami et al. (2017). In brief, dissected guts of the fishes were transferred into sterile 100 ml wide mouth glass beakers, followed by 10% of KOH w/v solution was added and the mixture was kept at 40ºC for 72 hours in an incubator to compete for the digestion process. The digested mixture was filtered by using a 0.8 µm polycarbonate membrane filter to isolate the remaining residues from the mixture. Density separation was performed by the addition of 15 ml of 4.4 M sodium iodide into a beaker containing filter membrane with residues and kept for 5 min- at room temperature. Further, the filter membrane containing beaker was sonicated at 50 Hz for 5 min using Labman Ultra Probe Sonicator, followed by the beaker was agitated by using orbital shaker at 200 rpm for 5 min, and the solution was centrifuged at 500× g for 2 min. The supernatant was obtained from the centrifuge tube was vacuum filtered using a vacuum filtration unit (0.8µm pore size). The density separation was repeated on the settled precipitate remains from the centrifugation step.

Morphological observation of extracted MPs

Filter membranes were obtained from the vacuum filtration unit and viewed under the Magnus stereomicroscope with 20-40× magnification. Suspected particles were treated with a hot needle test to observe the melting points of the particles to identify the MPs (de Witte et al. 2014).Photographs of the suspected particles were taken by using Ultrascope 9.0v camera and the particles sizes were measured by using ImageJ software v.1.50i, (http://imagej.nih.gov). The morphological characterization of MPs was done by using the distinguishing method criteria like size, shape, colour, etc (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012).

Scanning electron microscope analysis of extracted MPs

Extracted MPs from both rivers were quantified and picked up by using 0.3×0.15mm tip-sized micro forceps and segregated for surface morphological analysis using a Field Emission Scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) (FEI Quanta 250 FEG).

Data Analysis

The data obtained from all the parameters were expressed as mean ± SD. Significance variations in MPs, colour, size and shape were determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple range test. The significance level was fixed at p < 0.05. All the statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (16.0) software.

Contamination Measures

Adequate care was taken from the sample collection GI tracts of fishes were dissected out within a sterile condition in order to avoid cross contamination. Along with that, cotton lab coats were used to wear and clean, and acid-washed glassware was used while processing the GI tract samples. Samples were not exposed to any open environmental conditions. Types of equipment were cleaned by using 90% ethanol and kept in an aseptic condition before use. In sample processing, solvents and chemicals were prepared by using pre-filtered de-ionized water. Digestion, density separation, filtration and microscopic observations are carried out within a laminar cabinet system. Procedural blanks and controls were prepared and used to examine and minimize the aerobic contamination of MPs.

Abundances of MPs in the GI tracts of fishes

In the present study, a total of 315 MPs was isolated from the GI tracts of fishes sampled from both Rivers sites. Totally 128 MPs were isolated from GI tracts of fishes collected from the Kollidam River and 187 MPs were isolated from GI tracts of fishes collected from the Vellar River. Among the examined fishes from the Kollidam River, the maximum number of MPs were isolated from C. chanos (10.00 ± 5.5), followed by C. macrolepis (7.80 ± 3.11), and C. nama (13.00 ± 14). In the case of fishes sampled from the Vellar River, a higher abundance of MPs was found in the GI tract of G. filamentosus (22.75 ± 4.92), followed by C. macrolepis (14.75 ± 5.56), and C. malabaricus (18.50 ± 7.77) (Table 1). The MPs concentration on fish/individuals did not show any significant (P > 0.05) difference in-between the species collected from each sampling location. However, the total number of MPs per individual was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the fishes collected from the Vellar River than that of Kollidam River, which denotes the higher amount of MPs pollution in the Vellar River compared to the Kollidam River (Table 1). The abundance of MPs in the examined fishes from this study showed that higher rates than the previous literature, on MPs in the fishes from other locations. This might be due to the small-scale examination measurements. Similarly, MPs accumulation the been reported in the GI tracts of fishes such as C. carpio, Carassius auratus, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, Pseudorasbora parva, Megalobrama amblycephala, and Hemiculter bleekeri sampled from Taihu Lake, China which showed the MPs pollution in the sampled environments (Jabeen et al. 2017). Similarly, 10-13 MPs in the fishes such as Dorosoma cepedianum, Catostomus commersonii, Pimephales promelas, Carpoides cyprinus, Notropis stramineus, Notropis hudsonius, Fundulus diaphanus, Micropterus sp., Notropis atherinoides, Neogobius melanostomus, and Cyprinella spiloptera has been noticed from the major tributaries of Lake Michigan, the USA which is similar to the outcome of our present study (McNeish et al. 2018). Likewise, the mean abundance of MPs in fish guts showed 4.3 items per grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) (Cheung et al. 2018), and 2.4 pieces of MPs per individual in Demersal fishes (Evynnis cardinalis, Inegocia japonica, Repomucenus richardsonii, Solea ovata, and Lutjanus stellatus) were observed from a fish farm in Cheung Sha Wan at Hong Kong, China (Chan et al. 2019). MPs ingestion in the fishes (C. carpio, Pelteobagrus fulvidraco, Mystus macropterus, and Pelteobagrus vachelli) from Lijiang River in Guangxi, Southwest China has also been studied (Zhang et al. 2021). In this study different fish species exhibited different levels of MPs ingestion which suggests that the ingestion of MPs by fishes may vary based on the size, density, and colour. Moreover, an inspection of the fish GI tract is a more realistic way instead of tissues for MPs examination. A piece of supporting evidence to this, the high level of MPs abundance in the GI tract of fishes (Prochilodus magdalenae and Pimelodus grosskopfii) has been observed than tissues (Garcia et al. 2021).

Table 1

Abundances of MPs in the GI tracts of fishes collected from the Kollidam and Vellar River
Site	Species	No. of MPs	No. of MPs/ Indiv.	F- Value	Level of Sig. (<0.05)
Kollidam	C. chanos	50	10.00 ± 5.5^a	0.460	0.644
	C. macrolepis	39	7.80 ± 3.11^a
	C. Nama	39	13.00±14^a*
	∑	128
Vellar	C. macrolepis	59	14.75±5.56^a*	1.984	0.208
	G. filamentosus	91	22.75±4.92^a*
	C.malabaricus	37	18.50±7.77^a*
	∑	187
∑ Kollidam + Vellar		315	Overall	2.716	0.056
Each value at the number of individuals is mean ± SD of the respective grouped fish species, (n=23) Mean values within the same column of both sites sharing same alphabetical letter superscripts are not statistically significant at P<0.05; Whereas *, denotes the significant difference of MPs in fishes between locations (one-way ANOVA and subsequent post hoc multiple comparisons with DMRT).

Lengthwise distribution of MPs in the GI tract of fishes

The mean length of 128 MPs isolated from the fishes C. nama, C. chanos and C. macrolepis from the Kollidam River was recorded. The length of MPs lay within the ranges from 32.14 to 267.083 µm, 11.602 to 273.389 µm, and 18.40 to 333.916 µm in C. nama, C. chanos and C. macrolepis respectively. In the case of MPs isolated from fishes C. macrolepis, G. filamentosus and C. malabaricus sampled from Vellar River had shown length between 13.01 to 506.248 µm, 19.404 to 377.536 µm, and 19.637 to 487.611 µm respectively (Table 2). In this study, the mean length of MPs isolated from fishes of Kollidam River showed an insignificant (P > 0.05) difference when compared to each other. Whereas, mean length of MPs isolated from G. filamentosus showed a significant (P < 0.05) increase when compared to MPs isolated from other fishes from the Vellar River. However, the mean length of MPs isolated from C. macrolepis and C. malabaricus showed an insignificant (P > 0.05) difference sampled from the Vellar River (Table 2) (Figure 5 and 7). Moreover, the mean length of MPs was significantly (P< 0.05) higher in the fishes collected from the Vellar River than that of Kollidam River which indicates the ingestion of a high range of MPs by fishes in the Vellar River compared to the Kollidam River (Table 3; Fig. 5, 6 and 7). Also, the much deviation in the MPs isolated from the GI tract of fishes indicated that the high rate of fragmentation led to ingestion by fishes as false feeding in the sampled environments. Similar to our study, 0.3 to 0.6 mm sized MPs has been observed in the fishes C. Carpio, Carassius cuvieri, Lepomis macrochirus, Micropterus salmoides, Silurus asotus, and Channa argus from Han River, South Korea (Park et al. 2020). A report from South-West Nigerian Eleyele Lake revealed that the fishes (Coptodon zillii and Oreochromis niloticus), ingested about 124 and 126 µm sized MPs (Adeogun et al. 2020). Also, the majority of MPs in the GI tracts of Oreochromis niloticus, Clarias gariepinus, C. carpio, and Carassius carassius at Lake Ziway, Ethiopia which had a length between 0.2 to 5 mm (Merga et al. 2020). Microplastics from the GI tracts of fish C. auratus caught from the Poyang Lake, China, has shown majorly above 0.5mm length (Yuan et al. 2019). The size of MPs ranged between 1.2 to 4.68 mm in the GI tract of different marine fish species from the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia has been reported earlier (Baalkhuyur et al. 2018). In the present study, the size of MPs is much lower than the above-cited previous studies which suggested that the continuous fragmentations of plastics led to a higher ingestion rate. Moreover, the smaller plastics particles can serve as a vector for carrying toxic metals to the organisms, and size determination factors that also determine the metal pollution carriage by the MPs (Hildebrandt et al. 2021).

Table 2

Length-wise distribution of MPs among the fish species collected from the Kollidam and Vellar River
Location	Species	No. of MPs	Length of MPs (µm)			F- Value	Sig.(P<0.05)
Location	Species	No. of MPs	Minimum	Maximum	Mean length	F- Value	Sig.(P<0.05)
Kollidam	C. chanos	50	18.404	333.916	120.66 ± 72.62^a	0.754	0.473
	C. macrolepis	39	11.602	273.389	108.72 ± 74.05^a
	C. nama	39	32.14	267.083	129.11 ± 75.01^a*
Vellar	C. macrolepis	59	13.01	506.248	201.993 ± 97.75^b*	5.694	0.004
	G. filamentosus	91	19.404	377.536	284.233 ± 83.26^a*
	C. malabaricus	37	19.637	487.611	181.29 ± 95.43^b*
Overall						2.716	0.056
Each value at the number of individuals are mean ± SD of the respective grouped fish species, (n=23) Mean values within the same column of microplastic mean length sharing same alphabetical letter superscripts for the Kollidam site are not statistically significant at (P>0.05) and the mean values of the MPs length of Vellar river sharing different alphabetical letter superscripts are statistically (P<0.05) significant; Whereas *, denotes the significant difference of MPs in fishes between locations (one-way ANOVA and subsequent post hoc multiple comparisons with DMRT).

Table 3

Morphological distributions of MPs in the GIT of fish species from the Kollidam and Vellar River according to their Shape
Location	Species	No. of MPs	Shape of MPs
			Fibre	Fragment
			No. of MPs/Fish	No. of MPs/Fish
Kollidam	C. chanos	50	13	-
			3	1
			13	2
			13	1
			4	-
	C. macrolepis	39	8	5
			3	2
			6	1
			4	2
			5	3
	C. nama	39	25	4
			3	-
			7	-
	Total	128	107	21
Vellar	C. macrolepis	59	12	-
			7	4
			11	12
			13	-
	G. filamentosus	91	21	-
			19	-
			27	3
			20	1
	C. malabaricus	37	12	1
	C. malabaricus	37	21	3
	Total	187	163	24
Overall percent			85.70%	14.30%
Values of each shaped microplastic fibres and Fragments were provided with their percentage for both Kollidam and Vellar Rivers

Morphological distribution of MPs in the GI tract of fishes

In the present study, the morphological distribution of MPs indicated that the fibres were the dominant shapes in the GI tract of fishes sampled from both Rivers which constituted nearly 85.71% of the total 315 MPs, followed by fragments with 14.29%. MPs isolated from fishes belonging to the Kollidam River was categorised as fibres and fragments with 83.59% and 16.41% respectively, Among the fish species from the Kollidam River, C. chanos had the maximum number of fibres, followed by C. nama and C. macrolepis, whereas, the fragments were found to be higher in the order of C. macrolepis > C. chanos > C nama (Table 3; Fig. 8). In Vellar River, the GI tract of G. filamentosus showed a maximum level of fibres, followed by C. malabaricus and C. macrolepis, whereas, the fragments level was maximum in the GI tract of C. macrolepis compared to other fishes (Table 3; Fig. 8) In the present study, a maximum level of fibres suggests that the mismanaged fishing nets and gears are the major source for the MPs invasion in fish guts. Rivers can be a major contributor to the discharges of plastic litter into marine environments (Napper and Thompson 2016; Roch et al. 2019). The earlier study also indicates that the abundance (>80%) of MPs fibres in the GI tracts of fish Rutilus rutilus sampled from River Thames in the UK (Horton et al. 2018). The fish Gambusia holbrooki from wetlands of Melbourne, Australia ingested MPs were majorly found in the fibre shape (Su et al. 2019), which is similar to our present study. Similarly, the alien fish Piaractus brachypomus sampled from Ramsar wetland Vembanad Lake, Kerala India was accounted for 50% of fibres in their GI tracts (Devi et al. 2020). Report on the fish species Platichthys flesus and Osmerus eperlanus collected from the River Thames, London was revealed higher fibre particles rather than other types of MPs (McGoran et al. 2017). Also, the GI tracts of fishes (Esox lucius, Catostomus commersoni, Notropis atherinoides, Pimephales promelas, and Eucalia inconstans) were sampled from Prairie Creek in Saskatchewan, Canada showed an elevated level of fibres and fragment shaped MPs (Campbell et al. 2017). Defragmentation of plastic wastes into secondary MPs are the major contributor to the plastic litters of the rivers. In the study areas of the present study, the fibre shaped MPs were occupied a higher level of distribution in the GI tract of all sampled fish species, this might be due to plastic debris originating from commercial fishing gears and urban activities.

Colour pattern of MPs in between in the GI tract of fishes

In the current study, the colour-wise distribution of MPs in fish guts showed major differences in their pattern of accumulation among fish species of both Kollidam and Vellar Rivers. The blue-coloured MPs, followed by transparent colours were dominant in the GI tract of fishes sampled from both Rivers (Table 4; Fig. 9). MPs in the GI tract of fishes sampled from Kollidam River showed the colours in the order of Blue > transparent > red > white > yellow, whereas, the colour pattern of MPs in the fishes sampled from Vellar River showed in the order of blue > transparent > red > yellow > white (Table. 4 and Fig. 9). In this study, the dominant blue colour of MPs in the GI tract of fishes suggests that the false feeding of fishes on fragments of fishing gears that look like copepods. The blue colour of MPs was similar to the copepods in aquatic conditions, which led to more false feeding by fishes (Ory et al. 2018). The remaining-coloured MPs might be direct false feeding or transferred from other prey. Similarly, a different colour pattern of MPs has been reported in fish species including Argyrosomus regius, Caranx crysos, Dentex dentex sampled from the Mediterranean Sea Turkey (Güven et al. 2017). Previously on fish species of Dicentrarchus labrax, Diplodus vulgaris, Platichthys flesus from Mondego estuary western coast of Portugal showed dominant blue, transparent and black coloured MPs particle (Bessa et al. 2018). Colour pattern mediated alterations in the ingestion rate of MPs has been reported in fish species such as Myctophum aurolanternatum, Symbolophorus californiensis, Cololabis saira, Hygophum reinhardtii, Loweina interrupta, and Astronesthes indopacifica collected from North Pacific Central Gyre (Boerger et al. 2010). The colour distribution blue, clear, yellow, grey, green, red, black, and white of ingested MPs in fishes Coregonus wartmanni, Lota lota, Perca fluviatilis, Alburnus alburnus, Gymnocephalus cernua, Squalius cephalus, Rutilus rutilus, Gasterosteus aculeatus, Abramis brama, Esox lucius, Stizostedion lucioperca, Leuciscus leuciscus, and Barbatula barbatula from the lakes and river sampling sites located at Baden-Württemberg (Germany) which are similar to the present study (Roch et al. 2019). Further, different proportions of colours on ingested MPs from the GI tracts were observed on fish species of Oreochromis niloticus and Cirrhinus molitorella from the Rivers of Guangdong province, south China (Sun et al. 2021). The colour distribution of MPs can greatly affect the ingestion rate in fishes due to the difficulty in differentiating the feeds. Moreover, transparent MPs are non-identical in the aquatic systems and blue colour is predominately used in fishing nets and their different colours and buoyance have resembled the planktonic feeds.

Table 4

**Colour distribution of MPs extracted from the GI tracts of fishes from both Kollidam and Vellar River**
Study site	Species	Color of MPs
		Transparent		Blue		Red		Black		White		Yellow
		No	%	No.	%	No.	%	No	%	No.	%	No.	%
Kollidam	C. chanos	1	22	8	48	4	18	-	4	-	4	-	4
		1		2		-		1		-		-
		3		9		1		1		1		-
		4		5		4		-		1		-
		2		-		-		-		-		2
	C. macrolepis	2	17.94	5	35.89	-	10.25	-	12.82	5	15.4	1	7.7
		1		3		-		-		1		-
		3		3		1		-		-		-
		-		1		2		1		-		2
		1		2		1		4		-		-
	C. nama	-	5.12	7	30.76	5	12.28	8	23.07	5	15.4	4	2.83
		-		3		-		-		-		-
		2		2		-		1		1		1
Total		24	18.75	50	39.06	18	14.06	16	12.5	14	10.93	6	4.68
Vellar	C.macrolepis	-	18.64	10	49.15	-	8.47	-	19.94	-	-	2	6.8
		3		4		2		1		-		1
		8		9		1		4		-		1
		-		6		2		5		-		-
	G. filamentosus	9	26.37	2	28.57	3	9.89	6	29.67	-	1.10	1	4.4
		4		8		2		4		-		1
		9		3		1		16		-		1
		2		13		3		1		1		1
	C. malabaricus	3	21.62	7	43.24	3	18.91	-	10.81	-	-	-	5.4
	C. malabaricus	5	21.62	9	43.24	4	18.91	4	10.81	-	-	2	5.4
Total		43	22.99	71	37.96	21	14.22	41	5.88	1	0.53	18	9.62
Overall		67	21.26	121	38.41	39	12.38	57	8.57	15	4.76	24	7.6
Values of each coloured MPs extracted from the fishes collected from both Kollidam and Vellar River along with their Percentage.

SEM- analysis of extracted MPs

The surface morphological characteristics of MPs was carried out with a cluster of MPs picked up from the filter obtained from the extraction step. Fig. 10a denotes the complex surface topography of the extracted MPs which indicates that the linear strings due to the heavy of accumulation of fibres in the GI tracts of fishes collected from both sites. Surface of the MPs strings were convex, rough non-porous and with many folds. These strings were appeared in irregular in shape, brittle body with both sharp and blunt edges, these damages may be caused by the environmental factors like continuous mechanical disturbances caused by water current flow in the river and photo-oxidative weathering of MPs caused by UV radiation etc (Kalogearkis et al. 2017; Ding et al. 2019; Zbyszewski et al. 2014). The damages and peeled spots were also observed on the surface of the MPs strings in the FE-SEM analysis (Fig. 10b).

Results of the present study revealed that the overall occurrence of MPs per individual fish, mean length of MPs were significantly higher in the GI tract of fishes sampled from the Vellar River compared to fishes sampled from the Kollidam River which indicates the higher level of microplastic pollution in Vellar River than that of Kollidam River. Further, the fibre content was higher in the GI tract of fishes sampled from both Rivers, it suggested that the mismanaged fishing gears might be the major sources of fibres in the GI tract of fishes. Therefore, these findings suggest that the MPs were added to the diets of fishes, which may carry to the next level of the food chain in the ecosystems with potential risks. Moreover, both Kollidam and Vellar Rivers are the sources of the Bay of Bengal Sea, and they can serve as a carrier of pollutants along with their water current, which may carry the plastic litter into the marine environment which seems to be serious threats to the marine biota.

Ethics approval: This paper does not need any ethical approval.

Consent to participate: Not Applicable

Consent to Publish: Not Applicable

Funding: The research was supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, New Delhi in the form of DST-FIST Programme (No.SR/FST/LS-II/2017/111 (c); Dt: 25.01.2019).

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Author Contributions: K. Anandhan: Investigation, Writing original draft. K. Tharini: Investigation, Writing original draft. S.H. Thangal: Software & Formal analysis. A. Yogeshwaran: Resources; T. Muralisankar: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing - review & editing.

Data availability statement: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Adeogun AO, Ibor OR, Khan EA, Chukwuka AV, Omogbemi ED, Arukwe A (2020) Detection and occurrence of microplastics in the stomach of commercial fish species from a municipal water supply lake in southwestern Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27: 31035–31045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09031-5
Baalkhuyur FM, Bin Dohaish EA, Elhalwagy MEA, Alikunhi NM, AlSuwailem AM, Røstad A, Coker DJ, Berumen ML, Duarte CM (2018) Microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes along the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast. Mar Pollut Bull 131:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.marpolbul.2018.04.040
Bessa F, Barría P, Neto JM, Frias JPGL, Otero V, Sobral P, Marques JC (2018) Occurrence of microplastics in commercial fish from a natural estuarine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 128:575–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.044
Boerger CM, Lattin GL, Moore SL, Moore CJ (2010) Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 60:2275–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.007
Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, Locaputo V, Uricchio VF (2020) A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041212
Campbell SH, Williamson PR, Hall BD (2017) Microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of fish and the water from an urban prairie creek. FACETS 2:395–409. https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2017-0008
Chan HSH, Dingle C, Not C (2019) Evidence for non-selective ingestion of microplastic in demersal fish. Mar Pollut Bull 149:110523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110523
Cheung LTO, Lui CY, Fok L (2018) Microplastic contamination of wild and captive flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus). Int J Environ Res Public Health 15 (4): 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040597
Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Goodhead R, Moger J, Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ Sci Technol 47:6646–6655. https://doi.org/10.1021/es400663f
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2011) Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar Pollut Bull 62(12): 2588-2597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
de Sá LC, Oliveira M, Ribeiro F, Rocha TL, Futter MN (2018) Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Sci Total Environ 645:1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207
De Witte B, Devriese L, Bekaert K, Hoffman S, Vandermeersch G, Cooreman K, Robbens J (2014) Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types. Mar Pollut Bull 85:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.006
Desforges JPW, Galbraith M, Ross PS (2015) Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 69(3):320-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
Devi SS, Sreedevi AV, Kumar AB (2020) First report of microplastic ingestion by the alien fish Pirapitinga (Piaractus brachypomus) in the Ramsar site Vembanad Lake, south India. Mar Pollut Bull 160:111637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111637
Ding J, Li J, Sun C, Jiang F, Ju P, Qu L, Zheng Y, He C (2018) Detection of microplastics in local marine organisms using a multi-technology system. Anal. Methods 11:78–87. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ay01974f
Dris R, Imhof H, Sanchez W, Gasperi J, Galgani F, Tassin B, Laforsch C (2015) Beyond the ocean: contamination of freshwater ecosystems with (micro-)plastic particles. Environ Chem 12:539. https://doi.org/10.1071/en14172
Farrell P, Nelson K (2013) Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ Pollut 177:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046
Fossi MC, Pedà C, Compa M, Tsangaris C, Alomar C, Claro F, Ioakeimidis C, Galgani F, Hema T, Deudero S, Romeo T (2018) Bioindicators for monitoring marine litter ingestion and its impacts on Mediterranean biodiversity. Environ Pollut 237:1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.019
Free CM, Jensen OP, Mason SA, Eriksen M, Williamson NJ, Boldgiv B (2014) High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Mar Pollut Bull 85:156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.001
Froese R Pauly D Editors. (2021) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (08/2021)
Garcia AG, Suárez DC, Li J, Rotchell JM (2021) A comparison of microplastic contamination in freshwater fish from natural and farmed sources. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:14488–14497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11605-2
Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3:e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Güven O, Gökdağ K, Jovanović B, Kıdeyş AE (2017) Microplastic litter composition of the Turkish territorial waters of the Mediterranean Sea, and its occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of fish. Environ Pollut 223:286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.025
Herzke D, Anker-Nilssen T, Nøst TH, Götsch A, Christensen-Dalsgaard S, Langset M, Fangel K, Koelmans AA (2016) Negligible Impact of Ingested Microplastics on Tissue Concentrations of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Northern Fulmars off Coastal Norway. Environ Sci Technol 50:1924–1933. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04663
Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M (2012) Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ Sci Technol 46:3060–3075. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505
Hildebrandt L, Nack FL, Zimmermann T, Pröfrock D (2021) Microplastics as a Trojan horse for trace metals. J Hazard Mater Lett 2:100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2021.100035
Horton AA, Jürgens MD, Lahive E, van Bodegom PM, Vijver MG (2018) The influence of exposure and physiology on microplastic ingestion by the freshwater fish Rutilus rutilus (roach) in the River Thames, UK. Environ Pollut 236:188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.044
Hurley RR, Woodward JC, Rothwell JJ (2017) Ingestion of Microplastics by Freshwater Tubifex Worms. Environ Sci Technol 51:12844–12851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03567
Jabeen K, Su L, Li J, Yang D, Tong C, Mu J, Shi H (2017) Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ Pollut 221:141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.055
Jiang X, Chang Y, Zhang T, Qiao Y, Klobučar G, Li M (2020) Toxicological effects of polystyrene microplastics on earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Environ Pollut 259:113896. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2019.113896
Jonathan MP, Sujitha SB, Rodriguez-Gonzalez F, Villegas LE, Hernández-Camacho CJ, Sarkar SK (2021) Evidences of microplastics in diverse fish species off the Western Coast of Pacific Ocean, Mexico. Ocean Coast Manag 204:105544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105544
Kalogerakis N, Karkanorachaki K, Kalogerakis G, Triantafyllidi EI, Gotsis AD, Partsinevelos P, Fava F (2017) Microplastics generation: Onset of fragmentation of polyethylene films in marine environment mesocosms. Front Mar Sci 4:84. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMARS.2017.00084/BIBTEX
Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo CK, Romano N, Ho YB, Salamatinia B (2017) A high-performance protocol for extraction of microplastics in fish. Sci Total Environ 578:485–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.213
Koelmans AA, Bakir A, Burton GA, Janssen CR (2016) Microplastic as a Vector for Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment: Critical Review and Model-Supported Reinterpretation of Empirical Studies. Environ Sci Technol 50:3315–3326. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.5B06069
Long M, Moriceau B, Gallinari M, Lambert C, Huvet A, Raffray J, Soudant P (2015) Interactions between microplastics and phytoplankton aggregates: Impact on their respective fates. Mar Chem 175:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2015.04.003
Lu Y, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Jiang W, Zhao Y, Geng J, Ding L, Ren H (2016) Uptake and Accumulation of Polystyrene Microplastics in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) and Toxic Effects in Liver. Environ Sci Technol 50:4054–4060. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.6B00183
McGoran AR, Clark PF, Morritt D (2017) Presence of microplastic in the digestive tracts of European flounder, Platichthys flesus, and European smelt, Osmerus eperlanus, from the River Thames. Environ Pollut 220:744–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.078
McNeish RE, Kim LH, Barrett HA, Mason SA, Kelly JJ, Hoellein TJ (2018) Microplastic in riverine fish is connected to species traits. Sci Rep 8(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29980-9
Merga LB, Redondo-Hasselerharm PE, van den Brink PJ, Koelmans AA (2020) Distribution of microplastic and small macroplastic particles across four fish species and sediment in an African lake. Sci Total Environ 741:140527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140527
Murray F, Cowie PR (2011) Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Mar Pollut Bull 62:1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.032
Napper IE, Thompson RC (2016) Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar Pollut Bull 112:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025
Ory N, Chagnon C, Felix F, Fernández C, Ferreira JL, Gallardo C, Garcés Ordóñez O, Henostroza A, Laaz E, Mizraji R, Mojica H, Murillo Haro V, Ossa Medina L, Preciado M, Sobral P, Urbina MA, Thiel M (2018) Low prevalence of microplastic contamination in planktivorous fish species from the southeast Pacific Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull 127:211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.016
Park TJ, Lee SH, Lee MS, Lee JK, Lee SH, Zoh KD (2020) Occurrence of microplastics in the Han River and riverine fish in South Korea. Sci Total Environ 708:134535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134535
PlasticEurope (2019) Plásticos – Situación en 2019. Plastic Europe 46. https://plasticseurope.org/es/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/10/Plastics_the_facts-Mar2019-esp.pdf
Roch S, Walter T, Ittner LD, Friedrich C, Brinker A (2019) A systematic study of the microplastic burden in freshwater fishes of south-western Germany - Are we searching at the right scale? Sci Total Environ 689:1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.404
Rummel CD, Löder MG, Fricke NF, Lang T, Griebeler EM, Janke M, Gerdts G (2016) Plastic ingestion by pelagic and demersal fish from the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 102:134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.043
Selvam S, Manisha A, Roy PD, Venkatramanan S, Chung SY, Muthukumar P, Jesuraja K, Elgorban AM, Ahmed B, Elzain HE (2021) Microplastics and trace metals in fish species of the Gulf of Mannar (Indian Ocean) and evaluation of human health. Environ Pollut 291:118089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118089
Su L, Nan B, Hassell KL, Craig NJ, Pettigrove V (2019) Microplastics biomonitoring in Australian urban wetlands using a common noxious fish (Gambusia holbrooki). Chemosphere 228:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.114
Sun D, Wang J, Xie S, Tang H, Zhang C, Xu G, Zou J, Zhou A (2021) Characterization and spatial distribution of microplastics in two wild captured economic freshwater fish from north and west rivers of Guangdong province. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 207:111555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111555
Van Cauwenberghe L, Devriese L, Galgani F, Robbens J, Janssen CR (2015) Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Mar Environ Res 111:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.007
von Moos N, Burkhardt-Holm P, Köhler A (2012) Uptake and Effects of Microplastics on Cells and Tissue of the Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an Experimental Exposure. Environ Sci Technol 46:11327–11335. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302332w
Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Curr Biol 23(23): R1031–R1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.068
Xu B, Liu F, Brookes PC, Xu J (2018) Microplastics play a minor role in tetracycline sorption in the presence of dissolved organic matter. Environ Pollut 240:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.113
Yuan W, Liu X, Wang W, Di M, Wang J (2019) Microplastic abundance, distribution and composition in water, sediments, and wild fish from Poyang Lake, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 170:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.126
Zbyszewski M, Corcoran PL, Hockin A (2014) Comparison of the distribution and degradation of plastic debris along shorelines of the Great Lakes, North America. J Great Lakes Res 40:288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.02.012
Zhang L, Xie Y, Zhong S, Liu J, Qin Y, Gao P (2021) Microplastics in freshwater and wild fishes from Lijiang River in Guangxi, Southwest China. Sci Total Environ 755:142428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142428

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of edible fishes from South Indian Rivers

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results And Discussion

Abundances of MPs in the GI tracts of fishes

Lengthwise distribution of MPs in the GI tract of fishes

Morphological distribution of MPs in the GI tract of fishes

Colour pattern of MPs in between in the GI tract of fishes

SEM- analysis of extracted MPs

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1