4.7 Article

Comparative microplastic load in two decapod crustaceans Palinurus elephas (Fabricius, 1787) and Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 191, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114912

Keywords

Microplastic; Lobster; Ingestion; Bioindicators; Fragmentation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares microplastic contamination in two crustaceans, the European spiny lobster and the langoustine. Samples were collected from four sites in west Sardinia, Italy. The results show that both species are 100% contaminated with microplastics, with the spiny lobster being significantly more contaminated. The scavenging-based feeding strategy of these species could explain their exposure to microplastics, which are mostly derived from single-use plastic.
The present work compares microplastics (MPs) contamination in two charismatic crustaceans: European spiny lobster Palinurus elephas and langoustine Nephrops norvegicus. Samples (P. elephas n = 14; N. norvegicus n = 15) were collected between 76 and 592 m depth, from four sites in west Sardinia, Italy. An extraction protocol was applied on stomachs and intestines, separately, and over 500 particles were further characterized through mu FT-IR. We document 100 % occurrence in specimens from both species, with P. elephas being significantly more contaminated (9.1 +/- 1.75 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.45 MPs individual(-1)), ingesting larger MPs with different polymeric composition. The scavenging-based feeding strategy of both species could explain such exposure to MPs, mostly derived by single-use plastic. The overall results highlight that both species are clearly affected by plastic pollution, being valuable bioindicators and charismatic species that could thus represent excellent flagship species for raising awareness toward the global issue of plastic in the marine environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available