Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia

Abstract

Compared to marine microplastics research, few studies have bio-monitored microplastics in inland waters. It is also important to understand the microplastics' uptake and their potential risks to freshwater species. The Australian glass shrimp Paratya australiensis (Family: Atyidae) is commonly found in fresh waterbodies in eastern Australia, and are sensitive to anthropogenic stressors but have a wide tolerance range to the natural environmental conditions. This study aimed to understand the microplastics' occurrence and types in water samples and the shrimp P. australiensis, and identify if the shrimp could be a suitable bioindicator for microplastic pollution. Surface water and P. australiensis across ten urban and rural freshwater sites in Victoria were sampled. In total, 30 water samples and 100 shrimp were analysed for microplastic content, and shrimp body weights and sizes were also recorded. Microplastics were picked, photographed and identified using FT-IR microscopy: in water samples, 57.9% of items including suspect items were selected to identify; all microplastics found in shrimp samples were identified. Microplastics were present in the surface waters of all sites, with an average abundance of 0.40 ± 0.27 items/L. A total of 36% of shrimp contained microplastics with an average of 0.52 ± 0.55 items/ind (24 ± 31 items/g). Fibre was the most common shape, and blue was the most frequent colour in both water and shrimp samples. The dominant plastic types were polyester in water samples, and rayon in shrimp samples. Even though results from this study show a relatively low concentration of microplastics in water samples in comparison with global studies, it is worth noticing that microplastics were regularly detected in fresh waterbodies in Victoria, Australia. Compared with water samples, shrimp contained a wider variety of plastic types, suggesting they may potentially behave as passive samplers of microplastics pollution in freshwater environments.

Microplastics in Food: A Review on Analytical Methods and Challenges

“…Microplastics were also extensively monitored in shellfish, such as blue mussels, shrimps, and clams [ 11 , 20 , 40 , 45 , 52 , 59 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ] ( Table 3 ). Unlike fish, soft tissues were dissected and digested to separate microplastics in mussels, clams, and oysters.…”

“… Fractions of plastic materials identified in seafood and salt. Data from References [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 21 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 62 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 86 , 90 , 91 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 99 ]. (PE: polyethylene, PP: polypropylene, PS: polystyrene, PET: polyethylene terephthalate, PA: polyacrylate).…”

“…Filled circles indicate outliers. Data from References [ 14 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 62 , 68 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ].…”

Microplastics in Freshwater: What Is the News from the World?

“…The lack of environmental protection measures may explain why rural areas were more polluted than urban areas in Lake Dongting (China) [59]. Similarly, microplastic pollution in Australia is widespread in rural and urban areas, with no differences in concentrations between samples from different sites [60]. Therefore, the absence of effective measures to prevent entry of fMPs into freshwater systems is a relevant factor to be considered when modelling plastic inputs.…”

Stormwater Detention Reservoirs: An Opportunity for Monitoring and a Potential Site to Prevent the Spread of Urban Microplastics

“…Pellets were not characterised in this study. Previous research has found that they were polyethylene (PE) microbeads used in personal care products, cleaning compounds and industrial sandblasting [17,40].…”