Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types

Witte, Bruno De; Devriese, Lisa; Bekaert, Karen; Hoffman, S.; Vandermeersch, Griet; Cooreman, Kris; Robbens, Johan

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.006

Cited by 587 publications

(244 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The gut depuration step that was performed by Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen (2014), but which is not mentioned in the work of Mathalon and Hill (2014), could lead to differing results, since a decrease of up to 33% in the quantity of MPs in mussels appeared after 3 days of gut depuration (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). Comparison between commercial and wild types of mussels (M. edulis, Mytilus galloprovincialis) showed that the total number of MPs was not significantly different between the commercial mussels and wild specimens, with values varying from 2.6 to 5.1 fibers (0.2e1.5 mm in length) per 10 g of mussel tissues (De Witte et al, 2014). Regarding another bivalve, 0.47 ± 0.16 particles/g were found in the soft tissue (wet weight) of oysters (Crassostrea gigas) (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014) with a decrease of approximately 25% after 3 days of depuration in clean seawater.…”

Section: Mps In Marine Organismsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?

Phuong

Zalouk-Vergnoux

Poirier

et al. 2016

Environmental Pollution

398

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Mps In Marine Organismsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?

Phuong

Zalouk-Vergnoux

Poirier

et al. 2016

Environmental Pollution

398

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The identification of microplastics in organisms that are caught for commercial purposes and subsequently consumed whole (including guts) highlights the potential human health implications. For example, field-caught brown shrimps (Crangon crangon) (Pott 2014) and farmed and store-brought bivalves (De Witte et al 2014;Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen 2014) had microplastics in their digestive system.…”

Section: Benthic Invertebratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and Effects

Lusher

2015

Marine Anthropogenic Litter

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microplastics are an emerging marine pollutant. It is important to understand their distribution in the marine environment and their implications on marine habitats and marine biota. Microplastics have been found in almost every marine habitat around the world, with plastic composition and environmental conditions significantly affecting their distribution. Marine biota interact with microplastics including birds, fish, turtles, mammals and invertebrates. The biological repercussions depend on to the size of microplastics encountered, with smaller sizes having greater effects on organisms at the cellular level. In the micrometre range plastics are readily ingested and egested, whereas nanometre-sized plastics can pass through cell membranes. Despite concerns raised by ingestion, the effects of microplastic ingestion in natural populations and the implications for food webs are not understood. Without knowledge of retention and egestion rates of field populations, it is difficult to deduce ecological consequences. There is evidence to suggest that microplastics enter food chains and there is trophic transfer between predators and prey. What is clear is that further research on a variety of marine organisms is required to understand the environmental implications of microplastics in more detail and to establish effects in natural populations.

show abstract

“…Ingestion of microplastics has been shown in laboratory and field studies for numerous marine organisms including zooplankton, worms, bivalves, crustaceans, demersal and pelagic fish, seabirds, reptiles and mammals (Codina-García et al, 2013;Cole et al, 2013Cole et al, , 2014De Witte et al, 2014;Lusher, 2015;Lusher et al, 2013Lusher et al, , 2015Moore et al, 2001;Sussarellu et al, 2016;Tourinho et al, 2010;Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014;Van Cauwenberghe et al, 2015;Watts et al, 2014). Studies of fish have found between 2% and 40% of individuals to be contaminated, with a mean number of particles from 1 to 7.2 per individual (Boerger et al, 2010;Foekema et al, 2013;Lusher et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microplastics in seafood: Benchmark protocol for their extraction and characterization

Dehaut

Cassone

Frère

et al. 2016

Environmental Pollution

659

335

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollution of the oceans by microplastics (<5 mm) represents a major environmental problem. To date, a limited number of studies have investigated the level of contamination of marine organisms collected in situ. For extraction and characterization of microplastics in biological samples, the crucial step is the identification of solvent(s) or chemical(s) that efficiently dissolve organic matter without degrading plastic polymers for their identification in a time and cost effective way. Most published papers, as well as OSPAR recommendations for the development of a common monitoring protocol for plastic particles in fish and shellfish at the European level, use protocols containing nitric acid to digest the biological tissues, despite reports of polyamide degradation with this chemical. In the present study, six existing approaches were tested and their effects were compared on up to 15 different plastic polymers, as well as their efficiency in digesting biological matrices. Plastic integrity was evaluated through microscopic inspection, weighing, pyrolysis coupled with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, and Raman spectrometry before and after digestion. Tissues from mussels, crabs and fish were digested before being filtered on glass fibre filters. Digestion efficiency was evaluated through microscopical inspection of the filters and determination of the relative removal of organic matter content after digestion. Five out of the six tested protocols led to significant degradation of plastic particles and/or insufficient tissue digestion. The protocol using a KOH 10% solution and incubation at 60 °C during a 24 h period led to an efficient digestion of biological tissues with no significant degradation on all tested polymers, except for cellulose acetate. This protocol appeared to be the best compromise for extraction and later identification of microplastics in biological samples and should be implemented in further monitoring studies to ensure relevance and comparison of environmental and seafood product quality studies.

show abstract

Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types

Cited by 587 publications

References 48 publications

Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?

Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?

Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and Effects

Microplastics in seafood: Benchmark protocol for their extraction and characterization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About