Investigating microplastics and potentially toxic elements contamination in canned Tuna, Salmon, and Sardine fishes from Taif markets, KSA

Nahed Ahmed Hussien; Amaal Mohammadein; Ehab M. Tantawy; Yassir Khattab; Jamila S. Al Malki

doi:10.1515/biol-2021-0086

Article Open Access

Investigating microplastics and potentially toxic elements contamination in canned Tuna, Salmon, and Sardine fishes from Taif markets, KSA

Nahed Ahmed Hussien , Amaal Mohammadein , Ehab M. Tantawy , Yassir Khattab and Jamila S. Al Malki

Published/Copyright: August 23, 2021

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Life Sciences Volume 16 Issue 1

Abstract

Microplastics (MPs) have been documented in different foodstuffs and beverages, that could affect human health due to their ingestion. Furthermore, seafood contamination with MPs puts pillars of food availability and utilization at risk. The present study investigates MPs and toxic elements pollution in commercially canned fishes from Taif governorate markets. Seven different canned fishes’ brands were used in the present study from different manufacturer countries and purchased from Taif markets. Tissue samples were digested by 10% of KOH; then, dry filters were analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy to detect MPs. Filtrates were used to detect any potentially toxic elements by inductively coupled plasma. Different MPs were detected in edible tissue, such as canned Tuna contaminated with nylon, 1,2-polybutadiene, and ethylene vinyl alcohol. Sardines contain ethylene vinyl alcohol and poly(vinyl stearate), but Salmon does not have any MPs. Different elements were present in the selected samples in the decreasing order of Al > Se > Zn and traces of As and Sb. Canned fishes were contaminated with MPs and potentially toxic elements. This contamination could be a warning of the potential health risks with the long-term exposure. Therefore, it is recommended to include micro-, meso-, and even nanoplastics in the guidelines of testing food safety management systems.

Keywords: microplastics; toxic elements; canned fish; Tuna; Salmon; Sardine; Taif; KSA

1 Introduction

Fish represent a good source of unsaturated fatty acids (including Omega-3), fat-soluble vitamins, proteins (including essential amino acids), and different elements (calcium, fluorine, iodine, and phosphorus) [1]. Therefore, fish and other seafood are considered as healthy and balanced meals for humans [2]. Canned fish is widely consumed in various countries of different continents, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Libya, Turkey, Iran, USA, and Portugal [3]. It was reported that Tuna, Salmon, and Sardine are the most consumed canned fishes in KSA [4].

Fishes are constantly exposed to different pollutants in contaminated waters. However, fish represents the final link in the aquatic food chain; therefore, detecting any contaminant in fish tissue must be related to marine environmental pollution [5].

Plastics have been found everywhere in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, that has increased rapidly worldwide. It was assessed that about 4.8–12.7 million metric tons of plastics entered the oceans by 2010 [6]. Large disposable plastics in the aquatic ecosystem were subjected to continuous degradation (mechanical, chemical, and photolytic), leading to smaller particles such as mesoplastics, microplastics (MPs), and nanoplastics [7,8,9,10].

Recently, different studies have reported the presence of micro- (0.001–1 mm) and mesoplastics (1–10 mm) in the alimentary canal of a few fish species [11,12,13]. Ingested micro/mesoplastics could be mistaken for food or could be found in other pelagic and benthic marine biotas as a meal for other fishes [14]. However, few studies report MPs’ ability to translocate from the digestive canal to other organs [15], leading to fish toxicity [8,16,17]. In our peer knowledge, rare research studies are focused on micro/mesoplastic estimation in edible fish tissues [18]. Their potential risks on biotic fauna or humans have not been well studied until now. However, MPs accumulation in aquatic biota, especially edible tissues, may put the health of seafood consumers at risk due to hazardous compounds [9,19]. During the last two decades, MPs have been considered an ecotoxicological risk due to their physical damage, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, growth inhibition, metabolism disorders, and liver metastasis [20,21,22,23].

Canned fish as a processed seafood product is directly consumed without any further cleaning process, and there is no information on micro/mesoplastic loads found in this product. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the presence of MPs in those products from a human health perspective. However, investigating plastic particulates in foodstuffs is not included in any end product’s quality and safety assessment as per the International Standardization Organization rules (ISO) [24].

MPs can be chemically inert, small-sized, and with large surface areas facilitating the adsorption of toxic materials [25,26], although they could enhance the bioaccumulation of other pollutants present in water, including organic [27] and inorganic (potentially toxic elements) pollutants [28,29,30].

The present study aims to estimate MPs and element contamination in commercially canned fishes (Tuna, Salmon, and Sardine), frequently consumed in KSA. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) were used to detect MPs and metallic elements contamination, respectively.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Sample collection

Seven different canned brands (triplicates) were used in this study: Canned Tuna, Salmon, and Sardine fishes were purchased from Taif governorate, KSA markets. They were manufactured in different countries: Tuna from Indonesia, Italy, and Thailand; Salmon from Indonesia and Thailand; Sardine from Indonesia and Morocco. Figure 1 shows the collected canned fish and Figure 2 refers to the countries of their manufacturer (map according to google map 2020). All data on the cans were recorded to know all the constituents found in them other than fish tissue (Table 1). It shows different concentrations of protein (g), total, saturated, and trans fats (g), sodium (mg), total carbohydrates (g), total sugar (g), cholesterol (mg), dietary fibers (g), and any other constituents (Nutrition facts/100 g) present in the cans. In addition, it refers to total weight (g), fish species, and manufacturer country.

Figure 1

Different canned fishes that were used in the present study.

Figure 2

Map refers to the countries of selected canned fishes (Red arrows), according to google map 2020.

Table 1

Data recorded on the collected cans used in the present study

N.o.	Fish	Country	Total weight (g)	Protein (g)	Total fat (g)	Saturated fat (g)	Trans fat (g)	Sodium (mg)	Total carbohydrate (g)	Total sugar (g)	Cholesterol (mg)	Dietary fiber (g)	Other constituents
1	Tuna	Indonesia	80–180	10–26.5	1.2–12.3	0.2–1.9	0–0.1	218–390	0	0	47–57	0	Water/vegetable oil, salt solution
2	Tuna	Italy	80	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	Olive oil, salt
3	Tuna	Thailand	90–100	17–26	0–18	0–6	0	156–360	0	0	46–50	0	Vegetable oil, salt solution
4	Salmon	Indonesia	94	14.5	1.3	0.4	0.1	315	0.5	0.5	42	0	Omega 3 (g) = 1.1
5	Salmon	Thailand	94	13.9	5.5	1.1	<0.1	448	2.2	1.6	—	—	Vegetable oil, chili, salt, sugar, natural colors
6	Sardine	Indonesia	250	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	Vegetable oil, chili, salt
7	Sardine	Morocco	250	22.3	14.5	2.8	5.5	240	0	0	0.035	0	Soya oil, salt, omega 3 (g) = 1.1

Dashes (—) refer to non-availability of data on the can. Nutrition facts/100 g.

2.2 Minimization of contamination with MPs

The working area was cleaned with ethanol before starting any treatment. Any plastic tools were prohibited from being used in this work. All glass tools were washed with autoclaved deionized water and then with ethanol before their use in this experiment. Any prepared solutions and incubated samples were kept in glasses and capped with aluminum foil to prevent plastic contamination. Gloves and cotton lab coats were worn during the experiment.

2.3 Sample preparation and MPs extraction

Figure 3 shows treatment steps for MPs’ extraction in brief. About 40 g of canned fish (a separate can per brand) was used in treatment according to Rochman et al. [31] method with few modifications. Salt solution or oil found in the can with fish tissues were not discarded, and all were weighed and used together in evaluation. Samples were incubated in 10% of KOH (volume 3 times/weight) at 40°C for 72 h until complete tissue digestion. After complete digestion, NaI (4.4 M) was added to aid in MPs’ floating for its filtration. At the end of incubation time, the color of KOH turned from colorless to transparent red in all the samples except Sardine samples which appeared light brown in color, with successful digestion of the whole sample with no organic residues. Each sample was filtered separately through 8 μm cellulose filters (Whatman^® Grade 2). Then, filters were rinsed with autoclaved ultrapure water in Petri dishes, dried overnight at 60°C, and finally re-weighed to record MPs recovery weight per sample. Samples of the same brand were pooled and collected for further evaluation.

Figure 3

Steps of treatment: (a) treatment of fishes’ tissues with 10% of KOH and incubation for 72 h at 40°C, (b) the color of KOH becomes clear indicating complete digestion, and (c) filtration of the digested samples and filter papers soaked in Petri dishes.

2.4 Microplastic visual identification

Collected dried filters of each sample were examined under a dissected microscope to help visualize MPs for further analysis by FTIR.

2.5 FTIR polymer identification

FTIR was used to characterize the collected particles. FTIR was extensively used for different particle identification, although it represents a fingerprinting technique. Organic and inorganic particles could be easily differentiated by yielding a unique spectrum by FTIR [32]. The FTIR spectra of samples were determined by an Agilent FTIR spectrometer at wavelength range 4,000–450 cm⁻¹. OriginLab 2021 software was used to plot FTIR (absorbance to wavelength, cm⁻¹). The spectra were aligned with the help of siMPle 2020 software (systematic identification of MPs in the environment, https://simple-plastics.eu/) against the reference spectra in its database to detect the type of particle.

2.6 Potentially toxic elements determination

Filtrates of all samples were used to detect different elements that could be accompanied by MPs contamination. Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) was used for quantitative analysis of 20 different elements (Silver (Ag), Aluminum (Al), Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Manganese (Mn), Molybdenum (Mo), Nickel (Ni), Antimony (Sb), Selenium (Se), Strontium (Sr), Titanium (Ti), Vanadium (V), and Zinc (Zn)) present in the samples.

2.7 Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as the mean value ± standard deviation (M ± SD). Statistical analysis was conducted to differentiate between all the groups and between the same canned fishes from different manufacturer countries using One-way ANOVA using GraphPad software (GraphPad, 2017)^®. In which, *** indicates P ≤ 0.001, ** indicates P ≤ 0.01, * indicates P ≤ 0.05 and ns (non-significant) means P > 0.05.

3 Results and discussion

Different brands of canned fish from different manufacturer countries were used to determine any MPs and adsorbed elements pollution. Canned Tuna, Salmon, and Sardine are the most consumed seafood products found in KSA markets. All samples were digested entirely in 10% of KOH at the end of the treatment time and gave clear color, except for sardine samples because most of the fish body, including bones and skin, were found inside the can. It was reported that 10% of KOH is the most efficient, high-performing, low-cost digestion solution used in MPs extraction. The whole organic tissue was fully digested at 40°C in 48–72 h without negatively affecting the integrity of the plastic polymers. In addition, any other fragments present were successfully separated with the help of NaI to isolate MPs [8].

Dried filtered particles were examined under an inverted microscope (10×) for further examination. First, light colored particles and fibers with the same thickness were selected for FTIR examination to determine their type (data not shown). Then, FTIR was used to detect the chemical composition of the selected particles. The present work does not focus on MPs quantification but evaluates its presence and any accompanying pollutant. However, visual sorting is highly time-consuming, with a high error rate from 20% [33] to 70% [34] that increases with the decrease in the particle size.

Furthermore, it is hard even for an experienced person to distinguish between MP particles from chitin fragments, sand grains, diatom frustule fragments, or other non-polymers. NaI was used for MPs floatation, but non-polymer micro-debris could also float, leading to confusion and over-estimation. Randomly, ten different particles were selected from the filter of each brand sample, and their chemical composition was identified using FTIR.

FTIR analyses of all selected particles were aligned by reference spectra in the database of siMPle 2020 software to report their type. Based on the report, most of the particles chosen from Tuna tissues from different manufacturer countries appeared to be synthetic polymers such as nylon, 1,2-polybutadiene (PBT), ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH, thermoplastics), and other natural polymers such as wool (Figure 4). All the selected particles from sardine filters are EVOH and poly(vinyl stearate) (Figure 5). However, none of the particles chosen from Salmon canned tissues from different manufacturer countries are MPs. As the spectra have shown, particles extracted from Salmon tissues consisted of chitin, as referred to in Figure 5. Few studies were found that reported MP particles in edible tissues of canned fishes. Canned Tuna and sardine tissues have MPs of different types, but Salmon tissue does not have any. The present result was consistent with Akhbarizadeh et al. [35]. They have recorded MP particles and fibers in canned tuna and mackerel fishes using light, fluorescence, micro-Raman microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy coupled with a dispersive energy X-ray. This could be due to different feeding habitats and the distribution of different species. It was reported that Tuna is a migratory fish and could concentrate large amounts of various pollutants [36], including MPs and heavy metals. In addition, Sardine fishes live in coastal waters [37] where different plastic particles (micro-, meso-, and macroplastics) are commonly dumped and can accumulate in their tissue [38,39]. In addition, Karami et al. [24] reported MPs, especially PP and PET, isolated from the canned Sardines and Sprats. They concluded that this contamination could be due to translocation of MPs into the edible tissues, improper gutting, or contamination from the canneries. In addition, contact materials during the cleaning and canning process and food additives could be possible sources of MPs contamination [35].

Figure 4

FTIR spectra of Nylon (a), 1,2-polybutadiene (PBT) (b), ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) (c), and wool (d) that are present in samples.

Figure 5

FTIR spectra of chitin protein (a and b), ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) (c), and poly(vinyl stearate) (d) that are present in samples.

The present results were in agreement with Akhbarizadeh et al. [18], in which they reported the MPs bioaccumulation in gills and edible tissues of five different marine species: prawns (Penaeus semisulcatus), crabs (Portunus armatus), and fishes (Epinephelus coioides, Platycephalus indicus, and Liza klunzingeri). They have recorded different MP concentrations within different species, and it is found highly concentrated in gills more than the edible muscles. They concluded that motile, benthic, and deposit feeder species are more susceptible to deposited plastic particles on seabed sediments [40,41]. In addition, the MPs ingestion rate by aquatic biota depends on the MPs’ size, color, and organism’s size, vertical distribution, and feeding behavior [12,42,43,44,45]. Therefore, different hypotheses were expected regarding the passage of MPs to edible muscles that could transfer through the skin, gill, eye, blood circulation, and gut epithelium [9,21,47]. In addition, Collard et al. [46] suggested the passage of agglomerated MPs through microfold cells of the intestinal barrier and larger particles (110 μm) pass between cells in a paracellular manner [48].

Due to MPs’ small size and large surface area, different chemical pollutants in trace concentrations are easily adsorbed on their surfaces, including heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and pharmaceuticals [30,49,50,51]. The filtrate was used to detect any trace toxic elements found in the canned fishes accompanied by MPs contamination. There are about fourteen different elements that are absent in the present study: Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Ag, Sr, Ti, and V. The highest Al concentration is significantly present in the Sardine Morocco (18.5701 ± 0.05) sample in comparison to other samples. Within the same fish species, Tuna Indonesia (5.0092 ± 0.001) significantly represents the highest Al concentration than other Tuna samples (other manufacturer countries). There is a non-significant difference between Salmon Indonesia and Thailand of Al concentration. However, Salmon Thailand significantly shows the highest Se concentration (3.1736 ± 0.004) in comparison to other groups’ samples. Within the same fish species, Tuna Indonesia (1.6269 ± 0.002) significantly represents the highest Se concentration than other Tuna groups. There is a non-significant difference between Se concentration for Sardine samples from Indonesia (1.8025 ± 0.001) and Morocco (2.6943 ± 0.002) (Table 2, Figure 6a and b).

Table 2

Concentration of different elements present in filtrate of different canned fishes in ppm

Element (ppm)	Tuna Indonesia	Tuna Italy	Tuna Thailand	Salmon Indonesia	Salmon Thailand	Sardine Indonesia	Sardine Morocco
Al	5.0092 ± 0.001	4.0514 ± 0.001	2.9435 ± 0.00	2.8861 ± 0.00	2.7924 ± 0.001	0.8268 ± 0.00	18.5701 ± 0.05
Sb	0.00	1.8476 ± 0.001	0.00	0.00	1.7192 ± 0.001	0.00	0.1277 ± 0.00
As	0.00	0.4087 ± 0.001	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Se	1.6269 ± 0.002	0.4118 ± 0.001	0.00	0.8572 ± 0.002	3.1736 ± 0.004	1.8025 ± 0.001	2.6943 ± 0.002
Zn	0.7155 ± 0.001	1.0733 ± 0.003	0.2768 ± 0.001	0.00	0.00	0.4511 ± 0.001	0.00
Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Ag, Sr, Ti, V	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

Figure 6

Assessment of different elements aluminum (a), selenium (b), and zinc (c) present in the filtrate of different canned fishes in ppm. In which, *** indicates P ≤ 0.001, ** indicates P ≤ 0.01, ns (non-significant) means P > 0.05 comparing related samples with each other.

The Tuna Italy group shows the highest significant concentration of Zn (1.0733 ± 0.003) in comparison to the other groups. Sardines from Indonesia show a low concentration of Zn (0.4511 ± 0.001), but the rest of the groups do not contain Zn (Table 2, Figure 6c). Tuna Italy is the only group that has a low concentration of As (0.4087 ± 0.001). In addition, Sb was found in three groups only: Tuna Italy (1.8476 ± 0.001), Salmon Thailand (1.7192 ± 0.001), and Sardine Morocco (0.1277 ± 0.00) (Table 2). It was known that metals are classified as essential (Cu, Zn, and Se), probably essential (Ni, V, and Co), and toxic (Al, As, Cd, Pd, and Hg) [52]. Although low concentrations of those elements are essential in seafood, high concentrations could be toxic [53,54]. It was reported that the metal concentrations in canned fish tissues were in the decreasing order of Al > Se > Zn, and only traces of As and Sb were detected in the selected sample groups from the Taif governorate market.

Different studies reported the presence of heavy metals in canned fishes, such as Hg, Zn, Cd, and others that could be within or out of the guidelines of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO). Ashraf et al. [4] reported different heavy metals in canned Salmon, Sardine, and Tuna fish muscles purchased in KSA (Zn = 3.80–23.9046 ppm, Pb = 0.03–1.97 ppm, and Cd = 0.01–0.69 ppm). According to the FAO, the present results estimate Zn concentration lower than the maximum permitted level of Zn in fish, which is 40–50 μg/g [55]. In agreement with the present results, Al Ghoul et al. [56] detected Zn, Al, and Sn in canned tuna fish commercialized in Lebanon within a limited range. In the present study, Al concentration in all the samples from different manufacturer countries (ranges from 0.8268 ± 0.00 to 5.0092 ± 0.001 ppm), except Sardine Morocco, are within the permissible limits for Al set by FAO/WHO as 60 mg/day. In agreement with previous studies, they record Al in canned tuna samples from Lebanon (Al = 4.756 μg/g), Indian (Al = 3.161 μg/g), and Canadian (1.806 μg/g) markets [5,56]. An increase in Al concentration in Sardine Morocco might be due to marine source Al contamination, leaching Al from the metal can, or from can coating liquid containing Al-based additives [57]. Salmon tissue has the highest essential Se element, low concentration of Al, a trace of Sb, the absence of other elements, and the lack of MPs contamination.

Generally, canned Salmon appears to be the safest processed seafood due to the absence of MPs contamination, toxic elements, and is rich in essential Se elements and Omega 3. However, microplastics were reported in canned Tuna, sardine and also as noted before in other foodstuffs, including canned Sprats, salt, and honey [9,24,58]. The long-term exposure to MPs could be a warning of the potential health risks. Annually, there is an increase in the plastic debris entering marine environments and constantly accumulates in the aquatic biota and seafood products. The accumulation of plastic particles was accompanied by other potentially toxic elements such as Al or others. Although, concerning the current load of MPs in canned Tuna and Sardines that might increase later, it is recommended to include micro-, meso-, and even nanoplastics in guidelines of testing food safety management systems.

4 Conclusion

In our peer knowledge, it is the first time to report MPs contamination in canned Tuna and Sardines from different manufacturers in KSA markets. MPs reported are nylon, PBT, EVOH, and poly(vinyl stearate). In addition, different elements were present in the selected samples in the decreasing order of Al > Se > Zn and only traces of As and Sb. However, Salmon tissue does not have any MPs and contains a low concentration of potentially toxic elements with higher concentration of essential Se. Therefore, microplastic pollution in processed seafood products that humans consume could be a potential risk to human health. According to the present results, we suggest the investigation and quantification of MPs to be included as one of the components of food safety management systems.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/299), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.
Author contributions: All the authors participated in the study design, practical work, writing manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Ismail HM. The role of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiac protection: an overview. Front Biosci. 2005;10:1079–88.10.2741/1601Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Sirot V, Dumas C, Leblanc JC, Margaritis I. Food and nutrient intakes of French frequent seafood consumers with regard to fish consumption recommendations: results from the CALIPSO study. Br J Nutr. 2011;105(9):1369–80.10.1017/S0007114510005027Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Hosseini SV, Aflaki F, Sobhanardakani S, Tayebi L, Babakhani Lashkan A, Regenstein JM. Analysis of mercury, selenium and tin concentrations in canned fish marketed in Iran. Environ Monit Assess. 2013;185(8):6407–12.10.1007/s10661-012-3033-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Ashraf W, Seddigi Z, Abulkibash A, Khalid M. Levels of selected metals in canned fish consumed in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Environ Monit Assess. 2006;117:271–9.10.1007/s10661-006-0989-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Mahalakshmi M, Balakrishnan S, Kalyanasundram I, Muthukumarasamy S. Characteristic levels of heavy metals in canned tuna fish. J Toxic Environ Health Sci. 2012;4:43–5.10.5897/JTEHS11.079Search in Google Scholar

[6] Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, et al. Marine pollution. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347(6223):768–71.10.1126/science.1260352Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Cole M, Galloway TS. Ingestion of nanoplastics and microplastics by Pacific oyster larvae. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:14625–32.10.1021/acs.est.5b04099Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Karami A, Romano N, Galloway T, Hamzah H. Virgin microplastics cause toxicity and modulate the impacts of phenanthrene on biomarker responses in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Environ Res. 2016;151:58–70.10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Karami A, Golieskardi A, Ho YB, Larat V, Salamatinia B. Microplastics in eviscerated flesh and excised organs of dried fish. Sci Rep. 2017;7:5473.10.1038/s41598-017-05828-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Imhof HK, Sigl R, Brauer E, Feyl S, Giesemann P, Klink S, et al. Spatial and temporal variation of macro-, meso- and microplastic abundance on a remote coral island of the Maldives, Indian Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;116:340–7.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Tanaka K, Takada H. Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34351.10.1038/srep34351Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Jabeen K, Su L, Li J, Yang D, Tong C, Mu J, et al. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ Pollut. 2017;221:141–9.10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.055Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Nunes LS, Silva AG, Espínola LA, Blettler MCM, Simões NR. Intake of microplastics by commercial fish: a Bayesian approach. Environ Monit Assess. 2021;193:402.10.1007/s10661-021-09156-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Lusher AL, Hernandez-Milian G, Berrow S, Rogan E, O’Connor I. Incidence of marine debris in cetaceans stranded and bycaught in Ireland: recent findings and a review of historical knowledge. Environ Pollut. 2017;232:467–76.10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.070Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Lu YF, Zhang Y, Deng YF, Jiang W, Zhao YP, Geng JJ, et al. Uptake and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and toxic effects in liver. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:4054–60.10.1021/acs.est.6b00183Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Rochman CM, Hoh E, Kurobe T, Teh SJ. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep. 2013;3:3263.10.1038/srep03263Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[17] Watts AJ, Urbina MA, Corr S, Lewis C, Galloway TS. Ingestion of plastic microfibers by the crab Carcinus maenas and its effect on food consumption and energy balance. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:14597–604.10.1021/acs.est.5b04026Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Akhbarizadeh R, Moore F, Keshavarzi B. Investigating microplastics bioaccumulation and biomagnification in seafood from the Persian Gulf: a threat to human health? Food Addit Contam. 2019;36(11):1696–708.10.1080/19440049.2019.1649473Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Toussaint B, Raffael B, Angers-Loustau A, Gilliland D, Kestens V, Petrillo M, et al. Review of micro- and nanoplastic contamination in the food chain. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2019;36:639–73.10.1080/19440049.2019.1583381Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Vendel AL, Bessa F, Alves VE, Amorim AL, Patricio J, Palma AR. Widespread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;117:448–55.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.081Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Choi JS, Jung YJ, Hong NH, Hong SH, Park JW. Toxicological effects of irregularly shaped and spherical microplastics in a marine teleost, the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;129:231–40.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.039Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Granby K, Rainieri S, Rasmussen RR, Kotterman MJJ, Sloth JJ, Cederberg TL, et al. The influence of microplastics and halogenated contaminants in feed on toxicokinetics and gene expression in European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Environ Res. 2018;164:430–43.10.1016/j.envres.2018.02.035Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Smith LE. Plastic ingestion by Scyliorhinus canicular trawl captured in the North Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;130:6–7.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo CK, Larat V, Karbalaei S, Salamatinia B. Microplastic and mesoplastic contamination in canned sardines and sprats. Sci Total Environ. 2018;612:1380–6.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DRU, Barlaz MA, Jonsson S, Björn A, et al. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009;364:2027–45.10.1098/rstb.2008.0284Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] Lithner D, Larsson A, Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409:3309–24.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.038Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Zhang S, Ding J, Razanajatovo RM, Jiang H, Zou H, Zhu W. Interactive effects of polystyrene microplastics and roxithromycin on bioaccumulation and biochemical status in the freshwater fish red tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Sci Total Environ. 2019;648:1431–9.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.266Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] Holmes LA, Turner A, Thompson RC. Adsorption of trace metals to plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environ Pollut. 2012;160:42–8.10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.052Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Holmes LA, Turner A, Thompson RC. Interactions between trace metals and plastic production pellets under estuarine conditions. Mar Chem. 2014;167:25–32.10.1016/j.marchem.2014.06.001Search in Google Scholar

[30] Rochman CM, Hentschel BT, Teh SJ. Long-term sorption of metals is similar among plastic types: implications for plastic debris in aquatic environments. PLoS One. 2014;9:e85433.10.1371/journal.pone.0085433Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[31] Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, Miller JT, et al. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci Rep. 2015;5:14340.10.1038/srep14340Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[32] Löder MGJ, Kuczera M, Mintenig S, Lorenz C, Gerdts G. Focal plane array detector-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging for the analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Environ Chem. 2015;12:563–81.10.1071/EN14205Search in Google Scholar

[33] Eriksen M, Mason S, Wilson S, Box C, Zellers A, Edwards W, et al. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull. 2013;77(1–2):177–82.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[34] Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M. Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(6):3060–75.10.1021/es2031505Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[35] Akhbarizadeh R, Dobaradaran S, Nabipour I, Tajbakhsh S, Darabi AH, Spitz J. Abundance, composition, and potential intake of microplastics in canned fish. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020;160:111633.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111633Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] EU. Commission Regulation as regards heavy metals. Amending Regulation 466/2001. No: 78/2005; 2005.Search in Google Scholar

[37] Whitehead PJ. FAO species catalogue. Clupeoid fishes of the World (suborder Clupeoidei). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the herrings, sardines, pilchards, sprats, shads, anchovies and wolf-herrings. Part 1. Chirocentridae, Clupeidae and Pristigasteridae; 1985. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, no. 125, vol. 7, pt. 1, p. 303.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Moore CJ, Lattin GL, Zellers AF. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. J Integr Coast Zone Manag. 2011;11:65–73.10.5894/rgci194Search in Google Scholar

[39] Chae D-H, Kim I-S, Kim S-K, Song YK, Shim WJ. Abundance and distribution characteristics of microplastics in surface seawaters of the Incheon/Kyeonggi coastal region. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015;69:269–78.10.1007/s00244-015-0173-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Graham ER, Thompson JT. Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2009;368:22–9.10.1016/j.jembe.2008.09.007Search in Google Scholar

[41] Van Cauwenberghe L, Devriese L, Galgani F, Robbens J, Janssen CR. Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Mar Environ Res. 2015;111:5–17.10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut. 2013;178:483–92.10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] Rocha-Santos T, Duarte AC. A critical overview of the analytical approaches to the occurrence, the fate and the behavior of microplastics in the environment. TrAC Trends Anal Chem. 2015;65:47–53.10.1016/j.trac.2014.10.011Search in Google Scholar

[44] Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH. Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ Int. 2017;102:165–76.10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[45] Bessa F, Barria P, Neto JM, Frias J, Otero V, Sobral P, et al. Occurrence of microplastics in commercial fish from a natural estuarine environment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;128:575–84.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.044Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[46] Collard F, Gilbert B, Compere P, Eppe G, Das K, Jauniaux T, et al. Microplastics in livers of European anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus, L.). Environ Pollut. 2017;229:1000–5.10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.089Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[47] Ding J, Zhang S, Razanajatovo RM, Zou H, Zhu W. Accumulation, tissue distribution, and biochemical effects of polystyrene microplastics in the freshwater fish red tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Environ Pollut. 2018;238:1–9.10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[48] Volkheimer G. Hematogenous dissemination of ingested polyvinyl chloride particles. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1975;246:164–71.10.1111/j.1749-6632.1975.tb51092.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Cacador I, Canning-Clode J. Microplastics as vectors for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2016;178:189–95.10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.003Search in Google Scholar

[50] Li J, Zhang K, Zhang H. Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:460–7.10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.050Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[51] Camacho M, Herrera A, Go’mez M, Acosta-Dacal A, Martínez I, Henrı'quez-Herna’ndez L, et al. Organic pollutants in marine plastic debris from Canary Islands beaches. Sci Total Environ. 2019;662:22–31.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.422Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[52] Munoz-Olivas R, Camara C. Speciation related to human health. In: Ebdon L, Pitts L, Cornelis R, Crews H, Donard OFX, Quevauviller P, editors. Trace element speciation for environment, food and health; 2001. 331–5310.1039/9781847552204-00331Search in Google Scholar

[53] Ray S. Kiceniuk JW, Ray S, editors. Analysis of contaminants in edible aquatic resources. New York: VCH Publishers, Inc; 1994. p. 91–113.Search in Google Scholar

[54] Oehlenschlager J. Identifying heavy metals in fish. In: Bremmer HA, editor. Safety and quality issues in fish processing. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC; 2002. p. 95–113.10.1201/9781439823170.ch7Search in Google Scholar

[55] Hosseini SV, Sobhanardakani S, Miandare HK, Harsij M, Regenstein JM. Determination of toxic (Pb, Cd) and essential (Zn, Mn) metals in canned tuna fish produced in Iran. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2015;13:59.10.1186/s40201-015-0215-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[56] Al Ghoul L, Abiad MG, Jammoul A, Matta J, El Darra N. Zinc, aluminium, tin and Bis-phenol a in canned tuna fish commercialized in Lebanon and its human health risk assessment. Heliyon. 2020;6(9):e04995.10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04995Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[57] Kontominas MG, Prodromidis MI, Paleologos EK, Badeka AV, Georgantelis D. Investigation of fish product–metal container interaction using scanning electron microscopy–X-ray microanalysis. Food Chem. 2006;98(2):225–30.10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.06.004Search in Google Scholar

[58] Liebezeit G, Liebezeit E. Non-pollen particulates in honey and sugar. Food Addit Contam Part A. 2013;30:2136–40.10.1080/19440049.2013.843025Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2021-04-17

Revised: 2021-08-04

Accepted: 2021-08-05

Published Online: 2021-08-23

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/biol-2021-0086

Keywords for this article

microplastics; toxic elements; canned fish; Tuna; Salmon; Sardine; Taif; KSA

Creative Commons

BY 4.0