4.7 Article

An examination of the occurrence and potential risks of microplastics across various shellfish

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 739, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139887

关键词

Microplastics; Digestive system; Shellfish; Biometric parameters; Risk assessment

资金

  1. Basic Scientific Fund for National Public Research Institutes of China [2020Q10, 2019Y03]
  2. International Marine Debris & Microplastic Cooperation [QY0920009]
  3. Construction and Operation of Test and Technical Support System for Natural Resources Investigation and Evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ingestion of microplastics by shellfish pose a potential health risk for human via seafood consumption. This study investigated and compared the contamination levels and potential human health risks of microplastics in the digestive system of commercial shellfish from North (Qingdao) and South (Xiamen) China. Microplastics were detected in 70%-100% of shellfish samples from Qingdao and 70%-90% of shellfish samples from Xiamen, with abundances ranging from 12 to 4.1 items/individual (or 0.8-4.4 items/g, wet weight of digestive system) in shellfish from Qingdao and 1.3-6.0 items/individual (or 2.1-4.0 items/g) in shellfish from Xiamen. The microplastic composition was dominated by rayon and tended to be fibrous in shape, and white, black, and transparent in color. Microplastics <500 mu m were the dominant size range, in which the size range of 100-200 mu m was the most abundant size. Features of microplastics in the water-dwelling shellfish were different from those of the sediment-dwelling shellfish, and the microplastic features in the shellfish correlated with the sampling region, shellfish length, total wet body weight, and wet weight of the digestive system. Risk assessment results revealed that the potential human health risk posed by microplastics from the digestive system of commercial shellfish was higher in Qingdao than Xiamen. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据