4.7 Article

Microplastics in mussels sampled from coastal waters and supermarkets in the United Kingdom

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 241, 期 -, 页码 35-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.038

关键词

Mytilus; Microplastics; Shellfish; Human consumption

资金

  1. Experimental Techniques Centre, Brunel University London
  2. China Scholarship Council grant [201606140125]
  3. East China Normal University Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Cultivation Plan of Action grant [YB2016035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global contamination of the marine environment by plastic has led to the discovery of microplastics in a range of marine species, including those for human consumption. In this study, the presence of micro plastics and other anthropogenic debris in seawater and mussels (Mytilus edulis) from coastal waters of the U.K., as well as supermarket sources, was investigated. These were detected in all samples from all sites with spatial differences observed. Seawater samples taken from 6 locations (in triplicates) displayed 3.5 +/- 2.0 debris items/L on average (range: 1.5-6.7 items/L). In wild mussels sampled from 8 locations around the U.K. coastal environment, the number of total debris items varied from 0.7 to 2.9 itemsig of tissue and from 1.1 to 6.4 items/individual. For the supermarket bought mussels, the abundance of microplastics was significantly higher in pre-cooked mussels (1.4 items/g) compared with mussels supplied live (0.9 items/g). Micro-FT-IR spectroscopy was conducted on 136 randomly selected samples, with 94 items characterized. The spectra found that 50% of these debris items characterized were microplastic, with an additional 37% made up of rayon and cotton fibers. The microplastic levels detected in the supermarket bought mussels present a route for human exposure and suggests that their quantification be included as food safety management measures as well as for environmental monitoring health measures. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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