
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)13401-9
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37370
e37370
Research Article
Microplastic pollution in aquafeed of diverse aquaculture animals
Mohsen Mohamed ab
Lin Jibin a
Lu Kangle a
Wang Ling a
Zhang Chunxiao cxzhang@jmu.edu.cn
a⁎
a Xiamen Key Laboratory for Feed Quality Testing and Safety Evaluation, Fisheries College, Jimei University, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, 361021, PR China
b Department of Fish Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, 11884, Egypt
⁎ Corresponding author. Faculty of Fisheries, Jimei University, 43 Yindou Road, Xiamen, Fujian, 361021, PR China. cxzhang@jmu.edu.cn
03 9 2024
15 9 2024
03 9 2024
10 17 e373706 6 2024
30 8 2024
2 9 2024
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Microplastics have emerged as pervasive contaminants, and determining their occurrence in aquafeed is key for evaluating their risks to farmed animals and, by extension, humans. However, knowledge about microplastic in aquafeed is still limited. Herein, we determined microplastic characteristics in aquafeed for five important aquaculture animals with different feeding habits. Aquafeed samples were collected for spotted sea bass, shrimp, grass carp, Tilapia, and frogs from main companies in China. The samples were digested using chemical digestion, and the residuals were subjected to a density separation. Microplastics were identified under the microscope and characterized by their shape, color, size, and polymer type. The results showed that microplastics are highly abundant in the feed of frogs, followed by spotted sea bass, Tilapia, grass carp, and shrimp. We found that feed size contributes to the total microplastic abundance in the feed. Further, microplastics were mainly in microfiber form, and the dominant polymer type was propylene, suggesting that packaging and processing are the main sources of pollution. Additionally, the most abundant size of microplastics was 100–1000 μm. Calculating microplastic ingestion risk, the spotted sea bass had the greatest recorded risk of microplastic ingestion, followed by grass carp, frogs, Tilapia, and shrimp. This study lays a foundational step toward understanding microplastic effects on aquaculture animals and calls for further environmentally relevant laboratory experiments to assess the risk of microplastic ingestion on animals and potential transfer to humans.

Graphical abstract

Image 1

Highlights

• Larger feed sizes contain more microplastic.

• Frog feed showed the highest microplastic level.

• Propylene and microfiber are the main microplastics found.

• Spotted sea bass face high ingestion risk.

Keywords

Contaminants
Ingestion risk
Fiber
Polypropylene
Feed size effect
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

In the last century, the exponential growth of plastic production and utilization has transformed human civilization, revolutionizing industries, enhancing convenience, and enabling technological advancements [1]. However, this proliferation has initiated an unintended consequence - the widespread contamination of the environment with plastic debris [2]. These debris, known as microplastics (≤5 mm), originate from diverse sources, contributing to their pervasive presence in aquatic environments [3]. Primary microplastics are intentionally manufactured small particles used in products like personal care items (microbeads in exfoliants and toothpaste), industrial abrasives, and medical applications. Secondary microplastics result from the fragmentation of larger plastic debris due to environmental degradation processes such as UV radiation, physical abrasion, and microbial action [4].

Because of their widespread sources and persistent nature, microplastics have become ubiquitous in the environment [5]. Once released, microplastics are transported by wind, water currents, and human activities, leading to their accumulation in diverse ecosystems [6,7]. Microplastics are prevalent across marine environments, freshwater systems, terrestrial landscapes, and even the atmosphere [8]. They accumulate in ocean sediments, freshwater bodies, and agricultural soils and have been found in remote locations such as Arctic ice [9]. Additionally, microplastics have infiltrated the human food chain, being detected in seafood, drinking water, and even table salt [10].

The pervasive presence of microplastics extends into aquafeed, a primary source of nutrition for farmed aquatic species, thereby introducing these synthetic particles into the diets of farmed animals [11]. The ingestion of microplastics by these animals might not only affect their health and growth but also pose a risk of transferring these pollutants up the food chain to humans who consume seafood [11,12]. Ingested microplastics might lead to physiological stresses such as impaired growth, reduced reproductive success, and behavioral changes [13]. Also, these contaminants can accumulate in digestive tracts, penetrate tissues, and cause cellular damage, thereby facilitating pathogen spread and antibiotic resistance [13]. Therefore, extending our understanding of microplastic pollution in animal feed is required to evaluate their potential impacts on aquaculture species and, ultimately, human consumers, as these particles can accumulate within the food chain [14]. Also, quantifying microplastics in aquafeed could help to identify the main sources of contamination, inform risk assessment, and guide the development of mitigation strategies to reduce microplastic exposure in aquaculture systems.

Despite many studies concerning microplastic pollution in the ecosystem, knowledge about microplastic pollution in feed is limited, especially in China, the leading country in aquaculture. China holds a pivotal role in global aquaculture production, being the largest producer worldwide and contributing significantly to the supply of various seafood species. Its vast aquaculture industry meets domestic demand and substantially influences the international market, shaping trends and availability across the seafood industry [15]. Aquaculture relies heavily on formulated feed to optimize the growth and health of farmed species [16]. In the feed of European sea bass, 3.9 particles g−1 were found [17]. Also, all fish feed samples collected from Bangladesh contained microplastic with an average of 0.5–2.2 particles g−1 [18]. Another study from Bangladesh reported that fish feed contained an average of 0.55–11.6 particles g−1 [19]. Similarly, a study analyzing feed samples found microplastic contamination ranging from 0.05 to 0.16 items g−1 in shrimp feeds, 0.06 to 0.23 items g−1 in fish feeds, and 0.09 to 0.33 items g−1 in chicken feeds [20].

In the current study, we aimed to characterize microplastics in the feed of animals with different feeding habits, representing omnivorous fish (Tilapia), carnivorous fish (spotted sea bass), and herbivorous fish (grass carp), as well as crustaceans (shrimp) and amphibians (frogs). We further explored the potential ingestion of microplastic by these important farmed species. Comprehensive research is imperative to assess the potential risks posed by microplastics in the diets of farmed animals and to develop sustainable practices mitigating their impact on aquatic life and consumers.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Feed samples and chemicals

Different pelleted commercial aquafeeds were collected from feed companies in China. To widen our understanding of microplastic presence in aquaculture feeds and their potential impacts on different aquaculture species, we purchased five commercial feeds representing diverse dietary habits. We included omnivorous fish (Tilapia), carnivorous fish (spotted sea bass), and herbivorous fish (grass carp), as well as crustaceans (shrimp) and amphibians (frogs). These species are commercially valuable and widely farmed aquaculture species consumed by many people worldwide. Batches of 100 g pelleted feed were collected for five farmed animals, with three samples per area. Samples were placed in clean, airtight bags, accurately labeled, shipped in sealed packaging to the laboratory, and kept in airtight containers until inspection. Feed for frogs was collected from Shantou, Zhangzhou, and Chongqing. Feed for Tilapia was collected from Beijing, Chengdu, and Zhangzhou. Feed for grass carp was collected from Jiangmen, Binzhou, and Lianjiang. Feed for shrimp was collected from Zhangzhou, Jieyang, and Chengdu. Feed for spotted sea bass was collected from Foshan and Guangzhou. Zinc chloride was purchased from Macklin Biochemical Technology (Shanghai, China). Hydrogen peroxide was purchased from Xilong Science Company (Shanghai, China). Potassium hydroxide was purchased from Sangon Biotech Company (Shanghai, China).

2.2 Microplastic extraction

A sub-sample of 5 g from each feed sample was randomly collected with three replicates. The subsamples were transferred to 500 beakers under a fume hood. These samples were subjected to a previously documented chemical digestion with slight modification [21,22]. The chemical digestion used was a mixture of 180 mL of 10 % KOH and 15 mL of H2O2 30 % at 60 °C for 6 h. We applied less amount of H2O2 (30 %) and less time than previous studies. According to preliminary tests, the digestion was successfully sufficient to dismantle feed pellets compared to using 10 mL of H2O2 (30 %) or 5 mL (30 %) of H2O2. However, a floatation test was needed to recover microplastics from the residuals. Therefore, after filtering the digestion solution through an 8 μm filter, ZnCl2 solution (1.5 g m−3) was added to the residuals. The solution was then stirred for 1 min and kept settling down. Then, the supernatant was filtered through an 8 μm filter paper. All filters were added to a new Petri dish and kept in the fume hood until inspection.

2.3 Microplastic characterization

A stereomicroscope was used to examine each Petri dish both horizontally and vertically. Initially, microscopic observation recognized microplastics due to their color and lack of cellular structure. Then, microplastics were subjected to fragmentation resistance when subjected to a tweezer or needle pressure [23]. Recognized particles were kept in a new petri dish and pictured through a fluorescent microscope equipped with a Nikon camera (Tokyo, Japan). The size of the imaged particles was determined using ImageJ software. The particles were kept in a petri dish until polymer-type examination.

2.4 Polymer-type examination

Individual microplastic particles were isolated and subjected to Micro-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (μ-FTIR) analysis using a specific model stereomicroscope coupled with a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer equipped with relevant accessories. About 50 % of the isolated microplastics were subjected to polymer inspection. Spectra were acquired within a specific spectral range and subsequently analyzed using dedicated software for peak identification and comparison with established spectral libraries. Polymer types were identified by correlating characteristic absorption peaks with reference spectra of known polymers, with matches over 70 % being accepted. A total of 11 particles were identified as non-microplastic particles, including cotton. Quality control measures included analyzing control samples alongside environmental samples and ensuring reproducibility through duplicate or triplicate analyses.

2.5 Microplastic contamination control

Controlling contamination throughout the microplastic experimental processes is crucial. All equipment, tools, and laboratory surfaces were meticulously cleaned to mitigate potential contamination. Previously cleaned beakers and handling tools were employed to collect, store, and manipulate samples, minimizing the introduction of extraneous particles. Also, all reagents were filtered through an 8 μm filter paper before use. During sample processing, isolation procedures were conducted in a controlled environment to prevent airborne contamination, often under laminar flow hoods. Stringent protocols, including the use of clean gloves, tweezers, and individualized sample handling, were implemented to avoid cross-contamination between samples. Additionally, blank controls were included in all analyses to monitor and identify potential background contamination from laboratory reagents or handling procedures, ensuring the reliability of results. Regular validation of cleaning procedures and methodological controls was performed to maintain high contamination control standards throughout the entire experimental workflow.

2.6 Potential ingestion risk

Calculating the potential ingestion risk is key to assessing the impact of microplastics on the health and growth of aquaculture species. The potential ingestion of microplastics in aquafeed by the five animal species was calculated according to the following formula:Microplastic ingestion = microplastic abundance × feed intake

Feed intake = feed conversion ration × market weight of the animal

Microplastic abundance represents the number of microplastics in the feed (particles g−1). Feed ingested by the farmed animals during the farmed period was calculated based on the feed conversion ratio and the market weight of the animals [14,22]. The feed conversion ratio measures the efficiency with which animals convert feed into body mass. The average feed conversion ratio of the animals used in the current study was reported previously [24,25]. The market size of the animals, on average, was considered 800 g for spotted sea bass, 300 g for frogs, 350 g for Tilapia, 1000 g for grass carp, and 23 g for shrimp.

2.7 Statistical analysis

In this study, the normality of data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test to ensure compliance with assumptions underlying parametric statistical tests. The p-values for all groups were greater than 0.05, indicating that the normality assumption was satisfied. Homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene's test, which yielded a p-value of 0.7938, confirming that the variance across groups was homogeneous. Subsequently, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to determine significant variations among the samples. ANOVA was selected due to its effectiveness in comparing means across multiple groups. Post hoc analysis using the Tukey test was performed to identify specific pairwise differences between groups when ANOVA detected significant differences. Pearson correlation was used to calculate the relationship between feed size and microplastic abundance. All calculations were performed using R software.

3 Results and discussion

Determining the number of microplastics in aquafeed is key for assessing the risk of these pollutants, including the potential for physical harm and chemical toxicity to animals, the risk of bioaccumulation and subsequent human exposure to microplastics through the consumption of animal products, and the contribution to environmental pollution. In the current study, we found microplastic in all feed samples. A total number of 33 particles g−1 was extracted from all samples, with an average microplastic number of 2.2 particles g−1 in all samples, and the highest number of microplastics was found in the feed of frogs and spotted sea bass.

3.1 Microplastic amount in aquafeed

The total number of microplastics extracted from all aquafeed samples was 167 particles without detecting microplastics in the blank replicates. The average microplastic number extracted from the feed of spotted sea bass, frogs, Tilapia, grass carp, and shrimp was 3.07, 3.93, 1.73, 1.20, and 1.20 particle g−1, respectively (Fig. 1) (microplastics were calculated for every 5 g of feed and converted for every 1 g for comparison with other studies). The range of the total microplastic number from the feed was 0–1.6 particle g−1 for spotted sea bass, 0.2–2.6 particle g−1 for frogs, 0–1 particle g−1 for Tilapia, 0–0.8 particle g−1 for grass carp, and 0–0.6 for particle g−1 shrimp. Compared to other studies, 3.9 particles g−1 were found in the feed of the European sea bass [17], comparable to the number of microplastics found in the feed of the Chinese sea bass in the current evaluation (3.07 particles g−1). Furthermore, the average of microplastic particles found (1.2–3.7 particles g−1) was comparable to or less than those found in aquafeed from Bangladesh, with an average of 0.5–2.2 particles g−1 [18], but less than another study from Bangladesh found an average of 0.55–11.6 particles g−1 [19]. Furthermore, microplastics found in the current study were higher than those found in shrimp feeds (0.05–0.16 items g−1) and fish feeds (0.06–0.23 items g−1) collected from India [20]. This variation is likely due to varied feed ingredients, processing/packaging environment, and feed size.Fig. 1 Average microplastic number of every gram of feed for different animals (columns) and potential ingestion risk of microplastics (line). Different letters between the two groups indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).

Fig. 1

Furthermore, to determine whether feed size can influence the number of microplastics in the feed, we calculated the correlation between them. The Pearson correlation coefficient between feed size and the number of microplastics in the feed is approximately 0.6525, with a p-value of 0.0084 (Fig. 2). This indicates a moderate positive correlation, suggesting that as the feed size increases, the number of microplastics in the feed also tends to increase. However, while this correlation is significant, it does not imply causation, and other factors could be influencing the presence of microplastics in animal feed. The highest number of microplastics was found in the feed of frogs and spotted sea bass, likely because of their feed size, which was the largest compared to other feed samples. However, feed ingredients and the processing environment can also contribute to microplastic pollution in the feed. Evidence for these reasons is the moderate positive relationship between feed size and microplastic number, indicating that other factors, such as aquafeed ingredients and the processing environment, could contribute to the microplastic abundance in feed samples [14].Fig. 2 The correlation between the microplastic number and the size of the feed.

Fig. 2

3.2 Microplastic characteristics

The color of microplastics was mainly blue, followed by transparent, black, green, red, and yellow (Fig. 3). Six colors were found in all feed samples, varying in percentage between different types of feed. This observation aligns with previous studies where similar color distributions of microplastics were found in various feed samples. For instance, blue and transparent microplastics were prominently reported in the feed samples analyzed by Muhib and Rahman (2023), where blue, white, black, transparent, and red were the common colors. Siddique et al. (2023) also identified a similar color spectrum, with white being an additional prominent color not highlighted in the current study. This similarity suggests that blue and transparent microplastics are widespread in aquafeed, potentially due to their common use in packaging and processing materials [17,29].Fig. 3 The color variety of microplastics detected in aquafeed samples.

Fig. 3

For the type of microplastics, microplastic fiber was the highest type of microplastic found in all aquafeed samples (Fig. 4). This is similarly observed from the feed of European sea bass farmed in a recirculating aquaculture system [17]. Microfibers were also dominant in fish feed samples collected from Bangladesh [18]. These microfibers are recognized as a predominant form of microplastics detected across various global environmental samples, from the deepest oceans to remote mountainous regions [26]. Microfibers are considered hazardous mainly due to their shape, which allows them to be easily ingested by aquatic and terrestrial organisms, potentially leading to physical blockages and chemical toxicity [27]. These fibers can absorb and carry pollutants, such as heavy metals [28], introducing these harmful substances into the food chain.Fig. 4 Microplastic types found in aquafeed samples.

Fig. 4

The size of microplastics ranged from 113 to 7602 μm, with an average of 1294 μm. The most abundant size was 100–1000 μm microplastics, and a few numbers exceeded 5 μm (Fig. 5). This size distribution overlaps with previous findings in different studies, indicating a similar range of microplastic sizes in the feed samples. Siddique et al. [18] reported microplastic sizes ranging from 13 μm to 5000 μm studies, and 100–1500 μm size was highly abundant. Also, Muhib and Rahman [19] reported microplastics in the feed samples ranging from 14 μm to 4480 μm. The significant presence of microplastics in the 100–1000 μm range is noteworthy as it indicates the potential for these particles to be ingested by a wide range of farmed species, posing health risks and potential bioaccumulation [3].Fig. 5 The size of microplastics extracted from aquafeed samples.

Fig. 5

3.3 Microplastic polymer type

Ten polymer types were identified for microplastics isolated from aquafeed samples (Fig. 6). Various polymers were identified from different shapes and colors (Fig. 7A–H). Three polymers were identified in the feed of seagrass carp, including polypropylene, cellophane, and polyethylene terephthalate. In frog feed, 4 polymers were identified, including polypropylene, polyethylene low density, polyethylene terephthalate, and nylon. In spotted sea bass feed, 5 polymers were identified, including polypropylene, polyethylene low density, polyethylene terephthalate, cellophane, and polyester. For shrimp feed, 6 polymers were detected, including polypropylene, rayon, polyethylene low-density, cellophane, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyvinyl acetate. In the Tilapia feed, 6 different polymers were identified, including polyethylene low density, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, cellophane, polyethylene high density, and polybutadiene acrylonitrile.Fig. 6 Polymer-type composition of microplastics extracted from feed samples.

Fig. 6

Fig. 7 Examples of microplastic shapes and colors and their identified polymers. A: a green piece of microplastic identified as polyethylene low density (scale: 300 μm); B: a blue fiber of microplastic identified as polyethylene terephthalate (scale: 200 μm); C: a black fragment microplastic identified as polypropylene (scale: 300 μm); D: a blue piece of microplastic identified as polyethylene low density (scale: 100 μm); E: black fragment microplastic identified as polypropylene (scale: 200 μm). F: a blue piece of microplastic identified as polyethylene low density (scale: 100 μm); G: a green piece of microplastic identified as polypropylene (scale: 300 μm); H: a red piece of microplastic identified as polypropylene (scale: 300 μm).

Fig. 7

Polypropylene was the predominant microplastic type found in the current study, which is similarly reported from aquafeed samples collected from Bangladesh [19]. However, propylene was not the major polymer type found in other studies that collected feed samples from Portugal [17] and Bangladesh [18]. This variation is likely due to different pollution sources in feed ingredients or processing and packaging environments. Polypropylene microplastics in environmental samples primarily originate from the breakdown of larger polypropylene items used in various consumer and industrial applications [30]. These include packaging materials, textiles, automotive parts, and household goods. These items can degrade into smaller fragments during use and disposal, releasing microfibers into the environment.

3.4 Potential ingestion risk

In the current study, we calculated the potential ingestion of microplastics by multiplying the number of microplastics found per gram and the feed intake of the five animals. This ingestion risk might vary greatly according to feed size, processing and packaging environment, and feed intake. The potential ingestion risk of microplastics for the five farmed animals was 4661, 2160, 2122, 1029, and 47 for spotted sea bass, grass carp, frogs, Tilapia, and shrimp, respectively. The highest value of microplastic ingestion risk was recorded for spotted sea bass, followed by grass carp, frogs, Tilapia, and shrimp (Table 1). This was because of the high number of microplastics found and the feed intake amount. It was found that Tilapia could potentially consume 225 microplastics from contaminated fishmeal until reaching a weight of 250 g [22]. Also, shrimp may consume 37 microplastic until reaching 18 g [22]. These ingestion risks are lower than the potential ingestion risk reported in the current study, which is likely because the feed contains ingredients other than fishmeal that can contribute to the potential ingestion risk through feed in addition to the processing and packaging environment [14].Table 1 Microplastic ingestion risk by the five aquaculture animals.

Table 1Species	AVG microplastics (n)	AVG FCR	AVG market weight (g)	Feed intake (g)	Plastic ingestion risk	References	
Frogs	3.93	1.8	300	540	2122	[24]	
Sea bass	3.07	1.9	800	1520	4661	[25]	
Tilapia	1.73	1.7	350	595	1029	
Shrimp	1.20	1.7	23	39.1	47	
Grass carp	1.20	1.8	1000	1800	2160	
AVG: Average.

3.5 Laboratory studies realism in microplastic effects on aquaculture animals

It is crucial to investigate the impact of microplastics on aquaculture animals because of the increasing dependence on aquaculture for food production and its significance in global food security. This information is essential for protecting the health and well-being of aquaculture species and guaranteeing the quality and safety of aquaculture products for human use. For instance, exposure to polypropylene microplastic (500 and 5000 μg/L) in the spotted sea bass led to accumulation in spleen and kidney tissues, cytotoxicity, and weakened antiviral response. This impaired the immune system, increased virus replication, and lowered immune gene expression in tissues, raising the susceptibility to viral diseases [31]. Also, Nile tilapia exposed to dietary ingestion of propylene microplastics with concentrations of 100 and 500 μg of polypropylene/kg for 30 d showed adverse consequences. These effects manifested as systemic inflammatory disturbances attributed to liver function alterations, leukocyte profile, organ morphometry, and changes in the intestinal flora [32]. Additionally, grass carp exposed to 100 and 500 μg L polystyrene microplastics resulted in a noticeable reduction in growth rate and alteration in oxidative stress and intestinal microbial community [33]. Furthermore, dietary exposure to 40 and 400 μg polystyrene microplastics/kg resulted in oxidative stress and histological damage [34]. Moreover, ingesting polyethylene microplastics has sublethal consequences on the growth and development of frogs [35]. However, these microplastic effects need further illustrations regarding microplastic shape and concentrations to be compatible with microplastic characteristics in the environmental samples.

When reporting the effects of microplastics, it is crucial to use environmentally relevant concentrations and characteristics of microplastics in laboratory studies to report their effects on aquaculture species accurately. It has been reported that most of the early experimental research on the effect of microplastics on organisms, which stated a severe environmental risk, used very high microplastic concentrations not relevant to most/all environments [36]. Only 17 % of 89 experimental studies on microplastic effects used natural concentrations, while 80 % used a lower microplastic size than most environmental samples [36]. Furthermore, different microplastic characteristics might lead to different toxicity and physiological responses. For instance, fibers may cause more damage than other shapes [37]. However, laboratory studies often use microbeads/fragments, which complicates the interpretation of laboratory findings in a real-world context [38]. Thus, there is a need for more environmentally realistic studies concerning microfiber concentrations reported from the field, as well as their associated pollutants, to understand their risk on farmed animals. Also, the color of microplastics can affect their visibility to aquatic organisms [39]⁠ and, thus, influence ingestion rates and subsequent biological effects. Additionally, given the small size of the detected microplastics, there is a potential for these particles to translocate into animal tissues and transfer through the food chain [40,41]. This bioaccumulation and potential biomagnification pose serious health risks, as microplastics can carry persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and other toxic substances [42].

Thus, the current report provides essential knowledge for determining the effects of microplastics on five important aquaculture species. Microplastic characteristics reported herein, including concentrations, shapes, and sizes, should be tested in laboratory studies.

4 Conclusion

The current study investigates microplastics within aquafeed across five significant aquaculture species in China. This research lays a foundational step towards understanding and addressing microplastic pollution in aquaculture, advocating for sustainable practices that ensure the health of aquatic ecosystems and the safety of our food supply. The results indicated that the feed size is another factor contributing to the amount of microplastics in aquafeed. The microplastic amount was highest in frog feed, followed by spotted seabass, Tilapia, grass carp, and shrimp. Furthermore, microplastic fiber was dominant across the recorded microplastic shapes, and polypropylene was the major polymer type. The knowledge reported herein is important for determining the potential effects of microplastics on the tested species. Calculating the potential ingestion risk, the highest microplastic ingestion was recorded for spotted sea bass, followed by grass carp, frogs, Tilapia, and shrimp. Further studies should use the information reported herein in laboratory studies to examine the effects of microplastics.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Mohamed Mohsen: Writing – original draft, Data curation, Conceptualization. Jibin Lin: Investigation. Kangle Lu: Writing – review & editing. Ling Wang: Writing – review & editing. Chunxiao Zhang: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

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.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is/are the supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the China Agriculture Research System of 10.13039/501100005045 MOF and 10.13039/501100017667 MARA (grant number: CARS-47 ).

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37370.
==== Refs
References

1 Thompson R.C. Swan S.H. Moore C.J. vom Saal F.S. Our plastic age Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364 1526 Jul. 2009 1973 1976 10.1098/rstb.2009.0054
2 Geyer R. Jambeck J.R. Law K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made Sci. Adv. 3 7 Jul. 2017 e1700782 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
3 An L. Liu Q. Deng Y. Wu W. Gao Y. Ling W. “Sources of microplastic in the environment,” in microplastics in terrestrial environments: emerging contaminants and major challenges He D. Luo Y. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 2020 Springer International Publishing Cham 143 159 10.1007/698_2020_449
4 Osman A.I. Microplastic sources, formation, toxicity and remediation: a review Environ. Chem. Lett. 21 4 Aug. 2023 2129 2169 10.1007/s10311-023-01593-3
5 Shahul Hamid F. Bhatti M.S. Anuar N. Anuar N. Mohan P. Periathamby A. Worldwide distribution and abundance of microplastic: how dire is the situation? Waste Manag. Res. 36 10 2018 873 897 30103651
6 Alfonso M.B. Arias A.H. Ronda A.C. Piccolo M.C. Continental microplastics: presence, features, and environmental transport pathways Sci. Total Environ. 799 Dec. 2021 149447 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149447
7 Ivleva N.P. Wiesheu A.C. Niessner R. Microplastic in aquatic ecosystems Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56 7 2017 1720 1739 10.1002/anie.201606957
8 Goyal T. Singh S. Das Gupta G. Verma S.K. Microplastics in environment: a comprehension on sources, analytical detection, health concerns, and remediation Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30 54 Nov. 2023 114707 114721 10.1007/s11356-023-30526-4
9 Haque F. Fan C. Fate of microplastics under the influence of climate change iScience 26 9 Sep. 2023 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107649
10 Mamun A.A. Prasetya T.A.E. Dewi I.R. Ahmad M. Microplastics in human food chains: food becoming a threat to health safety Sci. Total Environ. 858 Feb. 2023 159834 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159834
11 Mahamud A.G.M.S.U. Microplastics in fishmeal: a threatening issue for sustainable aquaculture and human health Aquac. Rep. 25 Aug. 2022 101205 10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101205
12 Mohsen M. Lin C. Abdalla M. Liu S. Yang H. Microplastics in canned, salt-dried, and instant sea cucumbers sold for human consumption Mar. Pollut. Bull. 192 2023 115040
13 Wu H. Hou J. Wang X. A review of microplastic pollution in aquaculture: sources, effects, removal strategies and prospects Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 252 Mar. 2023 114567 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114567
14 Gündoğdu S. Eroldoğan O.T. Evliyaoğlu E. Turchini G.M. Wu X.G. Fish out, plastic in: global pattern of plastics in commercial fishmeal Aquaculture 534 Mar. 2021 736316 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736316
15 Naylor R.L. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture Nature 591 7851 Mar. 2021 10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6 Art. no. 7851
16 Tacon A.G.J. Metian M. Feed matters: satisfying the feed demand of aquaculture Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 23 1 Jan. 2015 1 10 10.1080/23308249.2014.987209
17 Matias R.S. Gomes S. Barboza L.G.A. Salazar-Gutierrez D. Guilhermino L. Valente L.M. Microplastics in water, feed and tissues of European seabass reared in a recirculation aquaculture system (RAS) Chemosphere 335 2023 139055 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352301322X
18 Siddique M.A.M. Tahsin T. Hossain I. Hossain M.S. Shazada N.E. Microplastic contamination in commercial fish feeds: a major concern for sustainable aquaculture from a developing country Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 267 2023 115659 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651323011636
19 Muhib M.I. Rahman M.M. Microplastics contamination in fish feeds: characterization and potential exposure risk assessment for cultivated fish of Bangladesh Heliyon 9 9 2023 e19789 [Online]. Available: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)06997-9.pdf
20 Jeyasanta I. Sathish M.N. Patterson J. Esmeralda V.G. R L. Microplastics contamination in commercial fish meal and feed: a major concern in the cultured organisms Chemosphere 363 Sep. 2024 142832 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142832
21 Munno K. Helm P.A. Jackson D.A. Rochman C. Sims A. Impacts of temperature and selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic particles Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37 1 2018 91 98 10.1002/etc.3935 28782833
22 Wang Q. Microplastics in fish meals: an exposure route for aquaculture animals Sci. Total Environ. 807 2022 151049
23 Hidalgo-Ruz V. Gutow L. Thompson R.C. Thiel M. Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 6 Mar. 2012 3060 3075 10.1021/es2031505 22321064
24 Moreira C.R. Henriques M.B. Ferreira C.M. Frog farms as proposed in agribusiness aquaculture: economic viability based in feed conversion Bol. Inst. Pesca 39 4 2013 390 399 [Online]. Available: ftp://ftp.sp.gov.br/ftppesca/39_4_389-399.pdf
25 Tacon A.G.J. Metian M. Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects Aquaculture 285 1 Dec. 2008 146 158 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015
26 Athey S.N. Erdle L.M. Are we underestimating anthropogenic microfiber pollution? A critical review of occurrence, methods, and reporting Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 41 4 2022 822 837 10.1002/etc.5173 34289522
27 Mohsen M. Sun L. Lin C. Huo D. Yang H. Mechanism underlying the toxicity of the microplastic fibre transfer in the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus J. Hazard Mater. 416 Aug. 2021 125858 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125858
28 Mohsen M. Wang Q. Zhang L. Sun L. Lin C. Yang H. Heavy metals in sediment, microplastic and sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus from farms in China Mar. Pollut. Bull. 143 Jun. 2019 42 49 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.025 31789164
29 Gündoğdu S. Eroldoğan O.T. Evliyaoğlu E. Turchini G.M. Wu X.G. Fish out, plastic in: global pattern of plastics in commercial fishmeal Aquaculture 534 2021 736316
30 Li D. Microplastic release from the degradation of polypropylene feeding bottles during infant formula preparation Nat. Food 1 11 Nov. 2020 11 10.1038/s43016-020-00171-y
31 Yan L. Yao X. Wang P. Zhao C. Zhang B. Qiu L. Effect of polypropylene microplastics on virus resistance in spotted sea bass (Lateolabrax maculatus) Environ. Pollut. 342 Feb. 2024 123054 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.123054
32 do Nascimento L.S. Deleterious effects of polypropylene microplastic ingestion in nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 111 1 Jul. 2023 13 10.1007/s00128-023-03772-y 37439925
33 Hao Y. Adverse effects of polystyrene microplastics in the freshwater commercial fish, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella): emphasis on physiological response and intestinal microbiome Sci. Total Environ. 856 Jan. 2023 159270 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159270
34 Seta A.S. Oxidative effects of consuming microplastics in different tissues of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei Mar. Pollut. Bull. 193 2023 115137 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X23005696
35 Ruthsatz K. Life in plastic, it's not fantastic: sublethal effects of polyethylene microplastics ingestion throughout amphibian metamorphosis Sci. Total Environ. 885 2023 163779 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723024002
36 Bucci K. Tulio M. Rochman C.M. What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: a meta-analysis and systematic review Ecol. Appl. 30 2 2020 e02044 10.1002/eap.2044
37 Jabeen K. Effects of virgin microplastics on goldfish (Carassius auratus) Chemosphere 213 Dec. 2018 323 332 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.031 30237044
38 Weis J.S. Palmquist K.H. Reality check: experimental studies on microplastics lack realism Appl. Sci. 11 18 Jan. 2021 18 10.3390/app11188529
39 Ory N.C. Gallardo C. Lenz M. Thiel M. Capture, swallowing, and egestion of microplastics by a planktivorous juvenile fish Environ. Pollut. 240 Sep. 2018 566 573 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.093 29758531
40 McIlwraith H.K. Kim J. Helm P. Bhavsar S.P. Metzger J.S. Rochman C.M. Evidence of microplastic translocation in wild-caught fish and implications for microplastic accumulation dynamics in food webs Environ. Sci. Technol. 55 18 Sep. 2021 12372 12382 10.1021/acs.est.1c02922 34499472
41 Miller M.E. Hamann M. Kroon F.J. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in marine organisms: a review and meta-analysis of current data PLoS One 15 10 Oct. 2020 e0240792 10.1371/journal.pone.0240792
42 Martinho S.D. Fernandes V.C. Figueiredo S.A. Delerue-Matos C. Microplastic pollution focused on sources, distribution, contaminant interactions, analytical methods, and wastewater removal strategies: a review Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 19 9 Jan. 2022 9 10.3390/ijerph19095610
