Next Article in Journal
Sustainability in Project Management and Project Success with Virtual Teams: A Quantitative Analysis Considering Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Management
Previous Article in Journal
Construction of the Pilot Free Trade Zone and Chinese Green Total Factor Energy Efficiency
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/su15129836
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microplastic Contamination in Different Marine Species of Bintaro Fish Market, Indonesia

by
Sri Widyastuti
1,
Angga Susmana Abidin
2,
Hikmaturrohmi Hikmaturrohmi
2,3,
Bq Tri Khairina Ilhami
2,
Nanda Sofian Hadi Kurniawan
2,
Ahmad Jupri
4,
Dining Aidil Candri
3,
Andri Frediansyah
5 and
Eka Sunarwidhi Prasedya
2,3,*
1
Faculty of Food Technology and Agroindustry, University of Mataram, Mataram 83126, Indonesia
2
Bioscience and Biotechnology Research Centre, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Mataram, Mataram 83126, Indonesia
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Mataram, Mataram 83126, Indonesia
4
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Mataram, Mataram 83126, Indonesia
5
Research Center for Food Technology and Processing (PRTPP), National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Wonosari 55861, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9836; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129836
Submission received: 19 January 2023 / Revised: 8 April 2023 / Accepted: 12 April 2023 / Published: 20 June 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Indonesia is among the largest fish-producing countries. The West Nusa Tenggara (WNT) region is one of the highest producers of fish in Indonesia. Hence, the levels of MP contamination in commercial fish should be assessed to ensure food safety, food security, and socio-economic sustainability. This study investigates MP contamination in commercial fish in one of the largest fish markets in the WNT region, the Bintaro fish market. Three commercial fish species were evaluated for MP contamination in this study, Nasso thynnoides, Auxis rochei, and Caesio teres. The highest number of MPs was detected in A. rochei (21.60 ± 8.70 MPs/100 g). The other pelagic fish species, N. thynnoides, also shown considerably high MP contamination (18.17 ± 7.93 MPs/100 g). On the other hand, the midwater fish Caesio teres showed the least MP contamination (7.07 MPs/100 g). In addition, most of the MPs detected in all three fish species were fiber MPs of small sizes (100–500 µm). Based on FTIR analyses, the MP samples from all three fish species mainly consisted of polyamide (PA), which is the polymer used to form fiber for textiles. These results potentially reveal the degree of microplastic pollution in not only coastal areas of WNT, but also Sulawesi and also East Nusa Tenggara (ENT) since the fish distributed at the Bintaro fish market came from these regions. Better solid waste management in Indonesia is needed to reduce plastic waste management, particularly household waste, which is the potential major source of fiber MPs.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The amount of global plastic waste generated in 2019 was twice that in 2000, totaling 353 million tons. Indonesia is among the top five countries that produce the most plastic waste [1]. In addition, most of the plastic waste ends up in our oceans. A large portion of plastic pollution in the ocean also originates from land-derived plastic waste that is transported into the ocean by rivers [2]. Due to the physical, chemical, and biological processes of the environment, plastics can be degraded into smaller fragments known as microplastics [3]. Microplastics (MPs) have a particle size smaller than 5 mm. This causes MPs to have a larger impact on the marine environment [4]. The small size of MPs could increase the possibility of their consumption by marine organisms such as fish [5,6,7]. The digestive system of marine organisms is not capable of breaking down the synthetic polymers that comprise the backbone of MPs such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyurethane (PU), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyamide (PA) [8]. This means that MPs could be retained in marine organisms because it cannot be digested [9]. Furthermore, microplastics (MPs) have been suggested to have a role in the occurrence of various diseases in the nervous system, digestive system, and also the respiratory system [10]. MP exposure has been shown to cause cell death, inflammation, and metabolic disorders in laboratory animals [11,12]. In addition, an accumulation of MPs in humans may contribute to the development of other diseases. There is a significant correlation between urine BPA levels and both cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes [13]. Bisphenol A is a synthetic phenol used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics.
Indonesia is one of the largest producers of fish in the world [14]. In 2020, the West Nusa Tenggara (WNT) region was the second largest fish producer after South Sulawesi [15]. Hence, an evaluation of microplastic contamination in commercial fish from this area is important to ensure food security, food safety, and the sustainable growth of socio-economic sectors. Previous studies have reported MP contamination in Indonesia. A study by Ni’am et al. revealed microplastic pollution in the sediments of east Surabaya, which is one of the biggest cities in Indonesia [16]. Another study related to Surabaya also reported microplastic contamination in the river and coastal area [17,18]. Microplastic contamination was also reported in dug wells in another big city, Makassar, which is located in South Sulawesi [19]. These two cities are frequently overpopulated and surrounded by industrial facilities, such as the industrial area of Maros in Makassar [20,21].
However, there are fewer reports on microplastic contamination in rural areas of Indonesia, such as in the West Nusa Tenggara (WNT) region. The WNT region is more widely known as a tourism area, especially Lombok island, where the Bintaro fish market is located. This market is unique and serves as one of the biggest fish markets in the region; not only does it provide fish from the waters of WNT, but also from other regions such as Sulawesi, East Nusa Tenggara (ENT) and East Java. In addition, this market also accommodates buyers from outside the region. However, most importantly, this market also provides fresh fish for local hotels and resorts. Hence, this information would be important for future strategies for the sustainable development of the tourism sector in the region. In this study, we evaluated microplastic contamination in the top three most popular commercial fish species (Naso thymnoides, Auxis rochei, and Caesio teres) in the Bintaro fish market.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Total MPs Detected in Edible Tissue of Fish Species

The highest number of microplastic particles (MPs) was found in A. rochei (21.60 ± 8.70 MPs/100 g), followed by N. thynnoides (18.17 ± 7.93 MPs/100 g) and C. teres (7.07 MPs/100 g) (Figure 1). This is possibly because A. rochei feeds on a broader variety of marine species compared to the other two species. In addition to zooplanktons, the mackerel tuna A. rochei feeds on small fish, fish larvae, crustaceans, and also shrimp [22]. MP contamination has also been highly detected in fish larvae, with 66% being mostly fibers [23]. Previous reports have shown that lower trophic species show a higher risk of MP contamination [24]. This is due to the feeding strategies of lower trophic organisms [24]. Hence, higher-level organisms presumably suffer from the accumulative negative effects of MP contamination from lower food chain level organisms [25].
Notably, the pelagic fish N. thynnoides and A. rochei both showed significantly higher microplastic numbers compared to C. teres. A previous report by Pan et al. (2021) also showed that pelagic fish had more microplastic contamination compared to midwater fish [26]. There are less MPs in the midwater area, which mostly suspends to the surface, compared to the pelagic area, where MPs settle to the bottom of the ocean and attach to reefs.
The bullet tuna A. rochei has been reported in other studies to show MP contamination [27,28]. In Indonesia, this is also a popular fish for household consumption due to its affordable price. Hence, the possible human health effects related to the high MP contamination detected in this fish species is concerning. This tuna species tends to feed on almost any resource available, which also suggests that it could be utilized as a bioindicator to gain information on certain environmental pollution statuses. A previous study also demonstrated that this bullet tuna could be used to determine the mercury contamination status in the western Mediterranean Sea [29].
However, until now, the evidence related to the hazardous health effects of MP contamination in humans is still very limited [30]. An interesting study on the uptake of ingested polystyrene microplastic particles showed no acute health risks in in vitro macrophage models and in vivo trials in mice [31]. Another study suggested that MP ingestion caused mitochondrial dysfunction, ER stress, inflammation, and autophagy in the kidney of mice [32]. Further investigations are needed to conclude the effect of MP contamination in higher-level organisms, especially given that most experiments were conducted using pure plastic polymers. These contaminants are much more diluted and are found in lower concentrations when consumed from animal tissue.

2.2. Characterization of MPs

Particles of five different morphotypes were found in the edible skin and muscle tissues of the three evaluated fish species (Figure 2A). Fibers were the most common type of MP found, followed by films and fragments. The two least common types of MP found in all three species were foam and pellet. Consistently with previous studies reporting MP occurrence in fish, the MP type mainly detected was mostly fiber [33,34]. Fiber MPs are largely released into the environment from the washing of textiles. These can reach aquatic ecosystems from either sewers or river streams [35,36]. Fiber MPs are reported as the most dominant MP type ingested by marine organisms, and ingestion of these MPs has mostly been documented in pelagic organisms [37,38].
Another large source of fibers that are from textile materials can be derived from domestic washing products such as machine filters and wastewater treatment plants [39]. Indonesia is an archipelagic nation and has about 150 million people living in coastal areas. In addition, most of them live in poverty. Hence, there is poor household waste management in these areas, which potentially contributes a large portion to fiber MP contamination [40]. Due to the high rate of plastic pollution, several studies have ranked Indonesia as the second-largest plastic contributor in the world [17]. In addition, several studies have suggested that Indonesia is among the top countries that contribute to global plastic pollution [41]. However, Indonesia is still striving to construct a solid national strategy to significantly reduce plastic debris.
Other sources of fiber MPs are fishing nets made of nylon or PE [42]. Indonesia has a very long coastline, which is longer than that of most countries. This has resulted in the presence of large coastal communities in some regions of Indonesia, such as in the WNT and ENT regions. In addition, most of the population in these areas work as fishermen, fish farmers, or seaweed farmers. These activities all require nets or ropes made of nylon and PE, which possibly explains the large portion of fiber contamination. Up until now, the most commonly used material to manufacture fishing nets has been nylon, which is a polyamide (PA) [43]. Hence, there is a growing amount of research on developing the manufacture of fishing gear from biodegradable materials [44]. Recently, linen fishing nets were developed, which could be a valid alternative for a more sustainable option [45]. Linen is a natural fiber which can be subjected to degradation. Currently, linen is also developed into fabric material, as fabric wastes contribute to more than 10% of the total waste generated in the world in the form of fiber MPs [46].
The MP types fragment and film were also abundant in all three fish species. MP fragments are a result of the degradation of large, hard, and sturdy plastics [47]. One of the major sources of these MP fragments is electronic wastes (e-waste) such as electronic cables and devices [48]. Currently the average growth rate of e-waste in Indonesia is around 14%. In addition to Indonesia, other southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand are also heavily contributing to e-waste due to the current economic growth [36].
MPs are formed by the degradation of plastic bags and wrappers [49]. Currently, there is no strict policy on limiting plastic bag production and use, such as policies on single-use plastic or re-using plastics [50]. Several human activities in Indonesia are large contributors to plastic waste. Not only does the waste from domestic households or local shops contribute to medical waste, but the healthcare system also contributes a large portion of it. In fact, medical waste was a major environmental problem in Indonesia even before the COVID-19 pandemic [51]. The MP types that appear in fewer amounts such as foams come from Styrofoam and cushioning, whereas pellet MPs are formed from cosmetics and facial cleansers [52,53]. In Indonesia, Styrofoam is commonly used for plates and food packaging. In some areas, Styrofoam appears in the largest percentage among other MP contaminants [54].
Based on MP size, the smaller MPs were more abundant compared to the larger MPs. This same trend was observed in all three fish species evaluated (Figure 2B). Previous reports have suggested that smaller MPs (100–500 µm) were more common compared to larger MPs (>500 µm) [55,56]. In addition, identifying very small MPs (<100 µm) by visual observation is less reliable. Hence, a cut off for MPs smaller than 100 µm was suggested in the European Commission (2013) [57]. In a related study, large plastic debris was found to undergo mechanical and chemical degradation into smaller particles. Hence, the number of smaller particles could increase exponentially in the environment. Another study also indicated the decrease in microplastic abundance due to the increased particle size [52].
However, the potential hazardous effects of MPs on humans remain a topic of debate. Although larger plastics are susceptible to degradation by photo-oxidative, thermal, chemical, and mechanical forces, the actual process is very slow. This potentially implies the durability of plastic material [58,59]. Hence, when ingested, it could potentially cause some harmful effects on the organism’s health. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated the increase in metabolism, neurotoxicity and cancer disease risk in humans [60]. MPs were also reported to induce negative effects on the human gut and respiratory tract, and the reproductive systems of animals [61,62].

2.3. Chemical Determination of MPs with FTIR

The presence of plastic polymers in the samples was confirmed by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) analyses (Figure 3). FTIR spectroscopy is possibly the most efficient and effective method to determine microplastic contamination by the identification of the polymer composition in samples [63]. Another common method for the determination of MP contaminants is Raman microspectroscopy, which is capable of detecting particles of smaller sizes [64]. Within the FTIR spectrum of MP samples, not every region provides relevant information. Based on previous studies, the FTIR spectra of MPs can be divided into three regions, which are 4000–2750, 2750–1850, and 1850–700 cm−1. Notably, the fingerprint region, 1850–700, is suggested to be suitable for the identification of MPs due to its high specificity [65].
The materials that are identified as polymers that are commonly used to produce plastic products are polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), and polyamide (PA) [66]. A previous study identified polyethylene as the most abundant polymer found in Western Lake Superior [67]. Another study found that the polyamide (PA) polymer was the most abundant in MP samples collected from the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China [68]. This shows that the polymers found in samples depends on the geographical location where the samples are collected. However, the current study could not provide information regarding the point source of contamination of the fish samples.
In the case of Indonesian waters, the polymers PP and PE are the most common and abundant polymers found [69]. In Surabaya, the polymers PP and PE were also found to be abundant not only in the marine and coastal areas but also in river bodies [70]. PE is one of the most important synthetic fibers, along with polyamide (PA), accounting for about 60% of the world’s fiber production [71]. The synthetic fiber PA is commonly known as nylon, which is also widely applied in fishing nets and ropes [72]. The toxic effects and mechanisms of PA have been well reported, and induce oxidative stress and also changes at the genomic level [73]. However, a robust dose–response model is needed to ensure the potential toxicological effects at human levels [74]. Table 1 shows our results based on the FTIR spectra of the samples which show similar vibrations to polyamide and polyester [75,76]. This possibly originates from the poor management of clothing waste and also nylon ropes used in the fishing industries.
Indonesia is among the top 10 textile-producing countries in the world. In 2020, Indonesia exported 57.2 million USD of polyamide fabric [78,79]. However, the country should take preventive measures regarding the potential microplastic contamination that is caused by this rapidly growing industry. In addition, the fashion industry in Indonesia is also growing rapidly. Hence, there is a need to develop recycling strategies to manage the large amount of waste produced by this industry [80].
Our study shows that polyamide is the largest polymer found in the edible tissues of fish with microplastic contamination. Previous studies have shown that most microplastic contamination is detected in inedible tissues of fish, such as gut organs [6,81]. However, currently, there are some other studies also showing that microplastic contamination is detected in the edible tissues of fish, including skin and muscle tissue [82,83]. However, the mechanism by which microplastics remain in fish muscles remains unclear.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Fish Collection

Fish were collected from Bintaro market, one of the major fish markets in the West Nusa Tenggara (WNT) province (8°33′30.4″ S 116°04′33.0″ E) from July to August 2022 (Figure 4). This market is located in the urban area of the city, which is also near agricultural activity and fishing sites. Fish species were selected based on local information regarding their consumption rates. The three most popular marine fish consumed from the market were used in this study: Naso thynnoides, Auxis rochei, and Caesio teres (Figure 5). The references used for the identification of the fish species in this study referred to the books of White et al. (2013) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 1997) [84,85]. All fish samples were transported in ice boxes and stored in the freezer at −20 °C prior to analysis for the identification of microplastics.
Among these fish species, the bullet tuna A. rochei is the most commonly studied [86,87]. This species is widely distributed in temperate and also tropical waters [88]. Due to its high mobility, this species could provide information on the level of contamination in a broader area.
All the fish species were of variable lengths and weights (Table 2). The fish A. rochei was the smallest at a total length of 23.33 ± 0.76 cm, followed by N. thynnoides and C. teres which were of similar lengths, 27.43 ± 0.60 cm and 28.33 ± 2.31 cm, respectively. Similarly, the fish A. rochet was of the lowest weight (149.53 ± 10.76 g). However, the fish C. teres (342.53 ± 5.47) was significantly heavier compared to N. thynnoides (274.70 ± 6.74 g). The fish A. rochei and N. thynnoides are both semi-pelagic and appear in large schools [89,90]. Only the yellowback fusilier C. teres lives in large midwater groups [91]. All three fish species usually feed on zooplanktons. However, A. rochei fish also feed on smaller fish, particularly anchovies and also crustaceans [92].

3.2. Isolation of MPs

The isolation of MPs from edible tissues, which consist of skin and muscle tissue, were processed based on methods by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 2015) and Daniel et al. (2021) with minor modifications [82,94]. Before the isolation of MPs, the fish were cleansed with distilled water to remove unwanted debris such as sand which could interfere in further downstream analyses. This study focused on the edible part of the fish. Hence, the inedible parts such as gills and viscera were removed with a stainless steel dissection kit. The edible muscle tissue was cleansed and scrapped from the scales and placed on a metal tray. This cleansed edible part was then prepared in fillets and placed on a metal tray for further analyses.
A total of 60 fish were used in this study, and for each species, 20 individuals were randomly collected for the evaluation of microplastic contamination in this study. Currently, potassium hydroxide (KOH) digestion protocols are the most commonly applied method used to separate microplastics from biological samples. Treatment with KOH allows efficient degradation with the minor degradation of polymers occurring in a time- and cost-effective way [95]. Approximately 100 g of filleted fish tissue was soaked in a 10% KOH solution for 24 h of incubation. The concentration of KOH of 10% is a suitable digestion technique for the isolation of microplastics from biological tissues, even when the target particles are below a very small size [5]. This study chose the method of KOH digestion over that of wet peroxide oxidation (WPO) which involves 30 mL of 0.05 M Fe (II) oxide with 30 mL of 20% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The reason for the method chosen is that WPO is a more effective digestion method for environmental matrices but not for biological tissues. Morphological changes in polymers were observed in WPO treatments. This reaction is carried out by heating a sample on a hotplate at 70 °C; however, heating at 75 °C was reported to induce damage in the MPs isolated [96]. The digestion mixture was further cooled and filtered by a two-stage process to prevent the clogging of the filter cloth. First, it was filtered through a 12 mesh wire filter cloth, and the retentate was further filtered with a 1 mm stainless steel sieve. The obtained microplastics were collected in a 60 mm Petri dish for observation.

3.3. Microplastic Characterization

The filtered microplastic samples were observed under a brightfield microscope (Nikon Ti2 Eclipse, Melville, NY, USA). The microplastics were counted and measured with the ImageJ software 1.52v [97]. A classification of the microplastics was conducted based on their morphotypes and size. The microplastics appeared in various colors: black, yellow, red, blue, green, and white. The morphotypes of the microplastics were divided into fiber-type, film-type, fragment-type, foam-type, and pellet-type [98]. Fiber microplastics were classified based on the criterion of appearing in a film-type microplastics consisted of thin sheets, foam microplastics were sponge-like structured shapes, the fragment microplastic type was of a hard angular shape, and the pellet microplastic type was smooth and spherical (Figure 6) [99]. The microplastics were also classified into three different size groups: 100–500 µm, 500–1000 µm, and <1000 µm with a stainless steel sieve [99]. The MP samples collected from the fish species were subjected to Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The MP samples were analyzed by a FTIR machine (Bruker Tensor II, Ettlingen, Germany) of a size of 500–4000 cm−1. A plastic material with a particle size lower than 1 µm is currently categorized as a nanoplastic [100]. Compared to microplastics, nanoplastics are reported to be more abundant and harmful; however, the mechanism and processes are still less understood [101].

3.4. Quality Assurance and Control

In order to reduce possible plastic contamination during the processing of the samples, no plastic tools were used during the whole experiment. In addition, to prevent cross contamination between the samples, all experimental tools were rinsed with distilled water and sterilized before use. One blank sample was prepared for each fish species (a total of three blank samples).

3.5. Statistical Analyses

Map images were generated with ArcGIS Pro. Microplastic images were analyzed with the ImageJ software. All results were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s multiple comparisons post-test. All experimental data provided are a result of mean ± SEM.

4. Conclusions

The levels of microplastic (MP) contamination were analyzed in the edible skin and muscle tissues of commercial marine fish from the Bintaro fish market in Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Three highly consumed commercial marine fish species were evaluated in this study, Nasso thynnoides, Auxis rochei, and Caesio teres. The abundance of MPs was found to be highest in A. rochei, followed by N. thynnoides and C. teres. Among the five MP morphotypes (fiber, fragment, film, pellet, and foam), fiber MP was the most abundant in all three fish species. In addition, smaller-sized MPs (100–500 µm) were more common compared to larger-sized MPs. The edible fish skin and muscle tissues evaluated in this study mostly represented polyamide (PA), which is also used to form fibers. As the fish in Bintaro market are also distributed from other regions in East Nusa Tenggara (ENT) and Sulawesi, it could also be suggested that the pollution in those areas should be addressed with preventive measures. However, further studies and investigations of samples directly from those areas are needed to confirm this. Nevertheless, the data in this study can provide a reference for the study of microplastic pollution in the WNT region, and can also provide data for governmental agencies to formulate microplastic pollution control policies in Indonesia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.P. and S.W.; methodology, E.S.P. and A.S.A.; software, E.S.P. and A.S.A.; validation, E.S.P. and S.W.; investigation, H.H., B.T.K.I. and N.S.H.K.; resources, A.J.; data curation, A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S.P.; writing—review and editing, S.W. and D.A.C.; visualization, A.S.A. and A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Thushari, G.G.N.; Senevirathna, J.D.M. Plastic Pollution in the Marine Environment. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhang, K.; Hamidian, A.H.; Tubić, A.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, J.K.H.; Wu, C.; Lam, P.K.S. Understanding Plastic Degradation and Microplastic Formation in the Environment: A Review. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 274, 116554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tirkey, A.; Upadhyay, L.S.B. Microplastics: An Overview on Separation, Identification and Characterization of Microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 170, 112604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Thiele, C.J.; Hudson, M.D.; Russell, A.E.; Saluveer, M.; Sidaoui-Haddad, G. Microplastics in Fish and Fishmeal: An Emerging Environmental Challenge? Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Alberghini, L.; Truant, A.; Santonicola, S.; Colavita, G.; Giaccone, V. Microplastics in Fish and Fishery Products and Risks for Human Health: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 20, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hossain, M.S.; Sobhan, F.; Uddin, M.N.; Sharifuzzaman, S.M.; Chowdhury, S.R.; Sarker, S.; Chowdhury, M.S.N. Microplastics in Fishes from the Northern Bay of Bengal. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 821–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yuan, Z.; Nag, R.; Cummins, E. Ranking of Potential Hazards from Microplastics Polymers in the Marine Environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 429, 128399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cverenkárová, K.; Valachovičová, M.; Mackuľak, T.; Žemlička, L.; Bírošová, L. Microplastics in the Food Chain. Life 2021, 11, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V.F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Yang, H.; Chen, G.; Wang, J. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Sources, Fates, Impacts and Microbial Degradation. Toxics 2021, 9, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yee, M.S.-L.; Hii, L.-W.; Looi, C.K.; Lim, W.-M.; Wong, S.-F.; Kok, Y.-Y.; Tan, B.-K.; Wong, C.-Y.; Leong, C.-O. Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Human Health. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Smith, M.; Love, D.C.; Rochman, C.M.; Neff, R.A. Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018, 5, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Manzoor, M.F.; Tariq, T.; Fatima, B.; Sahar, A.; Tariq, F.; Munir, S.; Khan, S.; Nawaz Ranjha, M.M.A.; Sameen, A.; Zeng, X.-A.; et al. An Insight into Bisphenol A, Food Exposure and Its Adverse Effects on Health: A Review. Front Nutr 2022, 9, 1047827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Total Produksi. Available online: https://statistik.kkp.go.id/home.php?m=total&i=2 (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  15. Fisheries Country Profile: Indonesia. SEAFDEC. Available online: http://www.seafdec.org (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  16. Ni’am, A.C.; Hassan, F.; Shiu, R.-F.; Jiang, J.-J. Microplastics in Sediments of East Surabaya, Indonesia: Regional Characteristics and Potential Risks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lestari, P.; Trihadiningrum, Y.; Wijaya, B.A.; Yunus, K.A.; Firdaus, M. Distribution of Microplastics in Surabaya River, Indonesia. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cordova, M.R.; Purwiyanto, A.I.S.; Suteja, Y. Abundance and Characteristics of Microplastics in the Northern Coastal Waters of Surabaya, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fajaruddin Natsir, M.; Selomo, M.; Ibrahim, E.; Arsin, A.A.; Alni, N.C. Analysis on Microplastics in Dug Wells around Tamangapa Landfills, Makassar City, Indonesia. Gac. Sanit. 2021, 35 (Suppl. S1), S87–S89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rauf, A.U.; Mallongi, A.; Lee, K.; Daud, A.; Hatta, M.; Al Madhoun, W.; Astuti, R.D.P. Potentially Toxic Element Levels in Atmospheric Particulates and Health Risk Estimation around Industrial Areas of Maros, Indonesia. Toxics 2021, 9, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Widya, L.K.; Hsu, C.-Y.; Lee, H.-Y.; Jaelani, L.M.; Lung, S.-C.C.; Su, H.-J.; Wu, C.-D. Comparison of Spatial Modelling Approaches on PM10 and NO2 Concentration Variations: A Case Study in Surabaya City, Indonesia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mostarda, E.; Campo, D.; Castriota, L.; Esposito, V.; Scarabello, M.P.; Andaloro, F. Feeding Habits of the Bullet Tuna Auxis Rochei in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2007, 87, 1007–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Steer, M.; Cole, M.; Thompson, R.C.; Lindeque, P.K. Microplastic Ingestion in Fish Larvae in the Western English Channel. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 226, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Walkinshaw, C.; Lindeque, P.K.; Thompson, R.; Tolhurst, T.; Cole, M. Microplastics and Seafood: Lower Trophic Organisms at Highest Risk of Contamination. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 190, 110066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rebelein, A.; Int-Veen, I.; Kammann, U.; Scharsack, J.P. Microplastic Fibers—Underestimated Threat to Aquatic Organisms? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pan, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, S.; Sun, D.; Zhou, A.; Xie, S.; Xu, G.; Zou, J. Occurrence of Microplastics in the Gastrointestinal Tract and Gills of Fish from Guangdong, South China. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karbalaei, S.; Golieskardi, A.; Hamzah, H.B.; Abdulwahid, S.; Hanachi, P.; Walker, T.; Karami, A. Abundance and Characteristics of Microplastics in Commercially Sold Fishes from Cebu Island, Philippines. Int. J. Aquat. Biol. 2021, 8, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, J.-C.; Fang, C.; Zheng, R.-H.; Hong, F.-K.; Jiang, Y.-L.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Hamid, F.S.; Bo, J.; Lin, L.-S. Microplastic Pollution in Wild Commercial Nekton from the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, and Its Implication to Human Health. Mar. Environ. Res. 2021, 167, 105295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sánchez-Muros, M.J.; Morote, E.; Gil, C.; Ramos-Miras, J.J.; Torrijos, M.; Rodríguez Martin, J.A. Mercury Contents in Relation to Biometrics and Proximal Composition and Nutritional Levels of Fish Eaten from the Western Mediterranean Sea (Almería Bay). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 783–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Blackburn, K.; Green, D. The Potential Effects of Microplastics on Human Health: What Is Known and What Is Unknown. Ambio 2022, 51, 518–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stock, V.; Böhmert, L.; Lisicki, E.; Block, R.; Cara-Carmona, J.; Pack, L.K.; Selb, R.; Lichtenstein, D.; Voss, L.; Henderson, C.J.; et al. Uptake and Effects of Orally Ingested Polystyrene Microplastic Particles in Vitro and in Vivo. Arch. Toxicol. 2019, 93, 1817–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Y.-L.; Lee, Y.-H.; Hsu, Y.-H.; Chiu, I.-J.; Huang, C.C.-Y.; Huang, C.-C.; Chia, Z.-C.; Lee, C.-P.; Lin, Y.-F.; Chiu, H.-W. The Kidney-Related Effects of Polystyrene Microplastics on Human Kidney Proximal Tubular Epithelial Cells HK-2 and Male C57BL/6 Mice. Environ. Health Perspect. 2021, 129, 057003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arias, A.H.; Ronda, A.C.; Oliva, A.L.; Marcovecchio, J.E. Evidence of Microplastic Ingestion by Fish from the Bahía Blanca Estuary in Argentina, South America. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 102, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zou, Y.; Ye, C.; Pan, Y. Abundance and Characteristics of Microplastics in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 11572–11585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Galvão, A.; Aleixo, M.; De Pablo, H.; Lopes, C.; Raimundo, J. Microplastics in Wastewater: Microfiber Emissions from Common Household Laundry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 26643–26649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Choi, S.; Kim, J.; Kwon, M. The Effect of the Physical and Chemical Properties of Synthetic Fabrics on the Release of Microplastics during Washing and Drying. Polymers 2022, 14, 3384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Su, L.; Sharp, S.M.; Pettigrove, V.J.; Craig, N.J.; Nan, B.; Du, F.; Shi, H. Superimposed Microplastic Pollution in a Coastal Metropolis. Water Res. 2020, 168, 115140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Herzke, D.; Ghaffari, P.; Sundet, J.H.; Tranang, C.A.; Halsband, C. Microplastic Fiber Emissions from Wastewater Effluents: Abundance, Transport Behavior and Exposure Risk for Biota in an Arctic Fjord. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 662168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salvador Cesa, F.; Turra, A.; Baruque-Ramos, J. Synthetic Fibers as Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review from Textile Perspective with a Focus on Domestic Washings. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 1116–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rudiarto, I.; Handayani, W.; Sih Setyono, J. A Regional Perspective on Urbanization and Climate-Related Disasters in the Northern Coastal Region of Central Java, Indonesia. Land 2018, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Vriend, P.; Hidayat, H.; van Leeuwen, J.; Cordova, M.R.; Purba, N.P.; Löhr, A.J.; Faizal, I.; Ningsih, N.S.; Agustina, K.; Husrin, S.; et al. Plastic Pollution Research in Indonesia: State of Science and Future Research Directions to Reduce Impacts. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Free, C.M.; Jensen, O.P.; Mason, S.A.; Eriksen, M.; Williamson, N.J.; Boldgiv, B. High-Levels of Microplastic Pollution in a Large, Remote, Mountain Lake. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 85, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kozioł, A.; Paso, K.G.; Kuciel, S. Properties and Recyclability of Abandoned Fishing Net-Based Plastic Debris. Catalysts 2022, 12, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gilman, E.; Musyl, M.; Suuronen, P.; Chaloupka, M.; Gorgin, S.; Wilson, J.; Kuczenski, B. Highest Risk Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 7195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Patti, A.; Cicala, G.; Acierno, D. Eco-Sustainability of the Textile Production: Waste Recovery and Current Recycling in the Composites World. Polymers 2020, 13, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Esmaeilzadeh, M.-J.; Rashidi, A. Evaluation of the Disintegration of Linen Fabric under Composting Conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 29070–29077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tanaka, K.; Takada, H. Microplastic Fragments and Microbeads in Digestive Tracts of Planktivorous Fish from Urban Coastal Waters. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kurniawan, K.; Soefihara, M.D.A.; Nababan, D.C.; Kim, S. Current Status of the Recycling of E-Waste in Indonesia. Geosystem Eng. 2022, 25, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kalogerakis, N.; Karkanorachaki, K.; Kalogerakis, G.C.; Triantafyllidi, E.I.; Gotsis, A.D.; Partsinevelos, P.; Fava, F. Microplastics Generation: Onset of Fragmentation of Polyethylene Films in Marine Environment Mesocosms. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Damar, A.; Hariyadi, S. Roles and Interrelation between Variables: A Study Case of Plastic Waste Management in Jakarta Bay. J. Coast. Conserv. 2022, 26, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mahendradhata, Y.; Andayani, N.L.P.E.; Hasri, E.T.; Arifi, M.D.; Siahaan, R.G.M.; Solikha, D.A.; Ali, P.B. The Capacity of the Indonesian Healthcare System to Respond to COVID-19. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 649819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Veerasingam, S.; Saha, M.; Suneel, V.; Vethamony, P.; Rodrigues, A.C.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Naik, B.G. Characteristics, Seasonal Distribution and Surface Degradation Features of Microplastic Pellets along the Goa Coast, India. Chemosphere 2016, 159, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, K.; Yang, R.; Li, R.; Li, Y. Characterization, Source, and Retention of Microplastic in Sandy Beaches and Mangrove Wetlands of the Qinzhou Bay, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 136, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cordova, M.R.; Nurhati, I.S. Major Sources and Monthly Variations in the Release of Land-Derived Marine Debris from the Greater Jakarta Area, Indonesia. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Balestra, V.; Bellopede, R. Microplastic Pollution in Show Cave Sediments: First Evidence and Detection Technique. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 292, 118261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Salazar-Pérez, C.; Amezcua, F.; Rosales-Valencia, A.; Green, L.; Pollorena-Melendrez, J.E.; Sarmiento-Martínez, M.A.; Tomita Ramírez, I.; Gil-Manrique, B.D.; Hernandez-Lozano, M.Y.; Muro-Torres, V.M.; et al. First Insight into Plastics Ingestion by Fish in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 171, 112705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. JRC Publications Repository—Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC83985 (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  58. Isobe, A.; Uchida, K.; Tokai, T.; Iwasaki, S. East Asian Seas: A Hot Spot of Pelagic Microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 618–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Egessa, R.; Nankabirwa, A.; Ocaya, H.; Pabire, W.G. Microplastic Pollution in Surface Water of Lake Victoria. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rahman, A.; Sarkar, A.; Yadav, O.P.; Achari, G.; Slobodnik, J. Potential Human Health Risks Due to Environmental Exposure to Nano- and Microplastics and Knowledge Gaps: A Scoping Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 757, 143872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fournier, S.B.; D’Errico, J.N.; Adler, D.S.; Kollontzi, S.; Goedken, M.J.; Fabris, L.; Yurkow, E.J.; Stapleton, P.A. Nanopolystyrene Translocation and Fetal Deposition after Acute Lung Exposure during Late-Stage Pregnancy. Part. Fibre. Toxicol. 2020, 17, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hesler, M.; Aengenheister, L.; Ellinger, B.; Drexel, R.; Straskraba, S.; Jost, C.; Wagner, S.; Meier, F.; von Briesen, H.; Büchel, C.; et al. Multi-Endpoint Toxicological Assessment of Polystyrene Nano- and Microparticles in Different Biological Models in Vitro. Toxicol. Vitr. 2019, 61, 104610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cunsolo, S.; Williams, J.; Hale, M.; Read, D.S.; Couceiro, F. Optimising Sample Preparation for FTIR-Based Microplastic Analysis in Wastewater and Sludge Samples: Multiple Digestions. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2021, 413, 3789–3799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. De Frond, H.; Cowger, W.; Renick, V.; Brander, S.; Primpke, S.; Sukumaran, S.; Elkhatib, D.; Barnett, S.; Navas-Moreno, M.; Rickabaugh, K.; et al. What Determines Accuracy of Chemical Identification When Using Microspectroscopy for the Analysis of Microplastics? Chemosphere 2023, 313, 137300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zaki, M.R.M.; Ying, P.X.; Zainuddin, A.H.; Razak, M.R.; Aris, A.Z. Occurrence, Abundance, and Distribution of Microplastics Pollution: An Evidence in Surface Tropical Water of Klang River Estuary, Malaysia. Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 3733–3748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Uurasjärvi, E.; Hartikainen, S.; Setälä, O.; Lehtiniemi, M.; Koistinen, A. Microplastic Concentrations, Size Distribution, and Polymer Types in the Surface Waters of a Northern European Lake. Water Environ. Res. 2020, 92, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Hendrickson, E.; Minor, E.C.; Schreiner, K. Microplastic Abundance and Composition in Western Lake Superior As Determined via Microscopy, Pyr-GC/MS, and FTIR. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1787–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yan, M.; Nie, H.; Xu, K.; He, Y.; Hu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wang, J. Microplastic Abundance, Distribution and Composition in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City and Pearl River Estuary, China. Chemosphere 2019, 217, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Argeswara, J.; Hendrawan, I.G.; Dharma, I.G.B.S.; Germanov, E. What’s in the Soup? Visual Characterization and Polymer Analysis of Microplastics from an Indonesian Manta Ray Feeding Ground. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 168, 112427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sulistyowati, L.; Nurhasanah; Riani, E.; Cordova, M.R. The Occurrence and Abundance of Microplastics in Surface Water of the Midstream and Downstream of the Cisadane River, Indonesia. Chemosphere 2022, 291, 133071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Šaravanja, A.; Pušić, T.; Dekanić, T. Microplastics in Wastewater by Washing Polyester Fabrics. Materials 2022, 15, 2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Carney Almroth, B.M.; Åström, L.; Roslund, S.; Petersson, H.; Johansson, M.; Persson, N.-K. Quantifying Shedding of Synthetic Fibers from Textiles; a Source of Microplastics Released into the Environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 1191–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Khosrovyan, A.; Doria, H.B.; Kahru, A.; Pfenninger, M. Polyamide Microplastic Exposure Elicits Rapid, Strong and Genome-Wide Evolutionary Response in the Freshwater Non-Biting Midge Chironomus Riparius. Chemosphere 2022, 299, 134452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yuan, Z.; Nag, R.; Cummins, E. Human Health Concerns Regarding Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment—From Marine to Food Systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Selvam, S.; Manisha, A.; Roy, P.D.; Venkatramanan, S.; Chung, S.Y.; Muthukumar, P.; Jesuraja, K.; Elgorban, A.M.; Ahmed, B.; Elzain, H.E. Microplastics and Trace Metals in Fish Species of the Gulf of Mannar (Indian Ocean) and Evaluation of Human Health. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 291, 118089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Silva, A.B.; Bastos, A.S.; Justino, C.I.L.; da Costa, J.P.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T.A.P. Microplastics in the Environment: Challenges in Analytical Chemistry—A Review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2018, 1017, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Weimer, R. Comparison of Nylon, Polyester, and Olefin Fibers Using FTIR and Melting. JASTEE 2015, 6, 1. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wahyuni, S.; Safira, A.; Pramesti, M. Investigating the Impact of Growth Mindset on Empowerment, Life Satisfaction and Turn over Intention: Comparison between Indonesia and Vietnam. Heliyon 2023, 9, e12741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Polyamide Fabric in Indonesia|OEC. Available online: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/polyamide-fabric/reporter/idn (accessed on 18 March 2023).
  80. Damayanti, D.; Wulandari, L.A.; Bagaskoro, A.; Rianjanu, A.; Wu, H.-S. Possibility Routes for Textile Recycling Technology. Polymers 2021, 13, 3834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Yin, X.; Wu, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Xie, C.; Liang, Y.; Li, J.; Jiang, Z. Accumulation of Microplastics in Fish Guts and Gills from a Large Natural Lake: Selective or Non-Selective? Environ. Pollut. 2022, 309, 119785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Daniel, D.B.; Ashraf, P.M.; Thomas, S.N.; Thomson, K.T. Microplastics in the Edible Tissues of Shellfishes Sold for Human Consumption. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Makhdoumi, P.; Hossini, H.; Nazmara, Z.; Mansouri, K.; Pirsaheb, M. Occurrence and Exposure Analysis of Microplastic in the Gut and Muscle Tissue of Riverine Fish in Kermanshah Province of Iran. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 112915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. ACIAR Market Fishes of Indonesia/Jenis-Jenis Ikan Di Indonesia [Bilingual Publication: English/Indonesian]. Available online: https://www.aciar.gov.au/publication/books-and-manuals/market-fishes-indonesia-jenis-jenis-ikan-di-indonesia-bilingual-publication-english (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  85. Carpenter, K.E.; Krupp, F.; Jones, D.A.; Zajonz, U. The Living Marine Resources of Kuwait, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. In FAO Species Identification Field Guide for Fishery Purposes; FAO: Hot Springs, VA, USA, 1997; ISSN 1020-4547. [Google Scholar]
  86. Mele, S.; Saber, S.; Gómez-Vives, M.J.; Garippa, G.; Alemany, F.; Macías, D.; Merella, P. Metazoan Parasites in the Head Region of the Bullet Tuna Auxis Rochei (Osteichthyes: Scombridae) from the Western Mediterranean Sea. J. Helminthol. 2015, 89, 734–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Xu, L.; Wang, X.; Du, F. The Complete Mitochondrial Genome of Bullet Tuna (Auxis Rochei) from South China Sea. Mitochondrial. DNA Part B 2019, 4, 1526–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Baeck, G.W.; Quinitio, G.F.; Vergara, C.J.; Kim, H.J.; Jeong, J.M. English Diet Composition of Bullet Mackerel, Auxis rochei (Risso, 1810) in the Coastal Waters of Iloilo, Philippines. Korean J. Ichthyol. 2014, 26, 349–354. [Google Scholar]
  89. The Living Marine Resources of Somalia. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/v8730e/v8730e00.htm (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  90. Cardona, L.; Álvarez de Quevedo, I.; Borrell, A.; Aguilar, A. Massive Consumption of Gelatinous Plankton by Mediterranean Apex Predators. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Rummer, J.L.; Binning, S.A.; Roche, D.G.; Johansen, J.L. Methods Matter: Considering Locomotory Mode and Respirometry Technique When Estimating Metabolic Rates of Fishes. Conserv. Physiol. 2016, 4, cow008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Ollé-Vilanova, J.; Pérez-Bielsa, N.; Araguas, R.M.; Sanz, N.; Saber, S.; Macías, D.; Viñas, J. Larval Retention and Homing Behaviour Shape the Genetic Structure of the Bullet Tuna (Auxis Rochei) in the Mediterranean Sea. Fishes 2022, 7, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Froese, R.; Pauly, D. (Eds.) FishBase; World Wide Web Electronic Publication. 2023. Available online: www.fishbase.org (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  94. Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Synthetic Particles in Waters and Sediments. Available online: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/10296 (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  95. Lopes, C.; Fernández-González, V.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; Caetano, M.; Raimundo, J. Improved Methodology for Microplastic Extraction from Gastrointestinal Tracts of Fat Fish Species. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 181, 113911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Savino, I.; Campanale, C.; Trotti, P.; Massarelli, C.; Corriero, G.; Uricchio, V.F. Effects and Impacts of Different Oxidative Digestion Treatments on Virgin and Aged Microplastic Particles. Polymers 2022, 14, 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Valente, T.; Ventura, D.; Matiddi, M.; Sbrana, A.; Silvestri, C.; Piermarini, R.; Jacomini, C.; Costantini, M.L. Image Processing Tools in the Study of Environmental Contamination by Microplastics: Reliability and Perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hebner, T.S.; Maurer-Jones, M.A. Characterizing Microplastic Size and Morphology of Photodegraded Polymers Placed in Simulated Moving Water Conditions. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2020, 22, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lozano, Y.M.; Lehnert, T.; Linck, L.T.; Lehmann, A.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastic Shape, Polymer Type, and Concentration Affect Soil Properties and Plant Biomass. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 616645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gigault, J.; Halle, A.T.; Baudrimont, M.; Pascal, P.-Y.; Gauffre, F.; Phi, T.-L.; El Hadri, H.; Grassl, B.; Reynaud, S. Current Opinion: What Is a Nanoplastic? Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Lee, C.-H.; Fang, J.K.-H. Effects of Temperature and Particle Concentration on Aggregation of Nanoplastics in Freshwater and Seawater. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 817, 152562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 15 09836 g001 550
Figure 1. Microplastic (MP) abundance in different commercial fish species collected in Bintaro fish market. Values are represented as mean ± SEM from 20 fish specimens per species. <0.001 indicates highly significant difference.
Figure 1. Microplastic (MP) abundance in different commercial fish species collected in Bintaro fish market. Values are represented as mean ± SEM from 20 fish specimens per species. <0.001 indicates highly significant difference.
Sustainability 15 09836 g001
Sustainability 15 09836 g002 550
Figure 2. Proportions of shape (A) and size (B) of microplastics in different fish species collected from Bintaro fish market.
Figure 2. Proportions of shape (A) and size (B) of microplastics in different fish species collected from Bintaro fish market.
Sustainability 15 09836 g002
Sustainability 15 09836 g003 550
Figure 3. FTIR spectra of representative MPs isolated from different commercial fish species, (A) N. thynnoides, (B) A. rochei, and (C) C. teres.
Figure 3. FTIR spectra of representative MPs isolated from different commercial fish species, (A) N. thynnoides, (B) A. rochei, and (C) C. teres.
Sustainability 15 09836 g003
Sustainability 15 09836 g004 550
Figure 4. The location of fish collection site; Bintaro fish market (red circle).
Figure 4. The location of fish collection site; Bintaro fish market (red circle).
Sustainability 15 09836 g004
Sustainability 15 09836 g005 550
Figure 5. Morphological features of the commercial fish species used in this study.
Figure 5. Morphological features of the commercial fish species used in this study.
Sustainability 15 09836 g005
Sustainability 15 09836 g006 550
Figure 6. Examples of microplastic shapes collected from different commercial fish species from Bintaro fish market. (A) fiber; (B) fragment; (C) film; (D) pellet; (E) foam.
Figure 6. Examples of microplastic shapes collected from different commercial fish species from Bintaro fish market. (A) fiber; (B) fragment; (C) film; (D) pellet; (E) foam.
Sustainability 15 09836 g006
Table
Table 1. FTIR spectra band assignment for MP samples from different fish species [65,77].
Table 1. FTIR spectra band assignment for MP samples from different fish species [65,77].
AssignmentWavenumbers/cm−1
N. thynnoidesA. rocheiC. teres
N-H stretching344734343422
CH2 stretching (asymmetric)292629662976
CH2 stretching (symmetric)28562925-
Amide I stretching 164516411644
Amide II stretching158515811580
N-H deformation and CH2 wagging1470 and 14191464 and 14091451 and 1409
C-C stretching 105210341036
aromatic rings874872 and 775874 and 780
CC bending and deformation604 and 567603 and 566577
Table
Table 2. Commercial fish species used in the present study and their morphometrics, marine and feeding habitats [93]. A total of 60 individual fish were used in this study, and each fish species group contained 20 individual fish.
Table 2. Commercial fish species used in the present study and their morphometrics, marine and feeding habitats [93]. A total of 60 individual fish were used in this study, and each fish species group contained 20 individual fish.
SpeciesMarine HabitatsFeeding HabitatsBody Length
(cm)		Wet Weight
(g)
Naso thynnoidesPelagicZooplanktons,
algae		27.43 ± 0.60274.70 ± 6.74
Auxis rocheiPelagicZooplanktons, small fish,
crustaceans		23.33 ± 0.76149.53 ± 10.76
Caesio teresMidwaterZooplanktons28.33 ± 2.31342.53 ± 5.47
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Widyastuti, S.; Abidin, A.S.; Hikmaturrohmi, H.; Ilhami, B.T.K.; Kurniawan, N.S.H.; Jupri, A.; Candri, D.A.; Frediansyah, A.; Prasedya, E.S. Microplastic Contamination in Different Marine Species of Bintaro Fish Market, Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129836

AMA Style

Widyastuti S, Abidin AS, Hikmaturrohmi H, Ilhami BTK, Kurniawan NSH, Jupri A, Candri DA, Frediansyah A, Prasedya ES. Microplastic Contamination in Different Marine Species of Bintaro Fish Market, Indonesia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129836

Chicago/Turabian Style

Widyastuti, Sri, Angga Susmana Abidin, Hikmaturrohmi Hikmaturrohmi, Bq Tri Khairina Ilhami, Nanda Sofian Hadi Kurniawan, Ahmad Jupri, Dining Aidil Candri, Andri Frediansyah, and Eka Sunarwidhi Prasedya. 2023. "Microplastic Contamination in Different Marine Species of Bintaro Fish Market, Indonesia" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129836

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop