Environmental health risk analysis of microplastics due to consumption of squid and mussels at coastal area

Article information

Environ Anal Health Toxicol. 2025;40.e2025009

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 March 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5620/eaht.2025009

Muhammad Addin Rizaldi ¹^,

, R Azizah ²

, Lilis Sulistyorini ²

, Khaidar Ali ¹^,³

¹Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Science, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia

²Department of Environmental Health, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia

³Center of Sustainable Development Goals, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia

^*Correspondence: muhammad.rizaldi@unsoed.ac.id

Received 2024 December 31; Accepted 2025 March 3.

Abstract

Microplastic in marine environment represent a global issue, originating from both land-based and ocean-based activities. The microplastic contamination in marine biota can lead to the ingestion of microplastics by human through the consumption. This study aims to investigates the abundance of microplastic in marine biota and to assess human health risk among community in coastal area of Muncar District – Banyuwangi Regency. This study was conducted in the coastal area of Muncar district in 2023. The sample of mussels and squid was collected 100 gr, respectively, used to measure the abundance of microplastics. Additionally, 130 respondents were recruited to assess the health risk among community. Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with was used to examine the influence of microplastic concentration, the intake rate, and human health risk with Smart PLS 3. The total abundance of microplastic in mussels and squid was found 23 particles or 0.23 particle per gram. The microplastics identified were primarily fiber, with colors including transparent, purple, red and black. The microplastics consisted of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyester terephthalic acid and Polyvinyl acetate ethylene. The indirect effect between microplastics concentration, intake rate and hazard quotient are significant (p-value < 0.05). Therefore, microplastic concentrations in marine biota can influence carcinogenic intake, which in turn becomes an indirect factor affecting hazard quotient associated with microplastic consumption. Prolonged or excessive consumption of marine biota with high levels of microplastics can lead to increased carcinogenic intake, thereby elevating the potential health risks to humans.

Keywords: Microplastic; Health Risk; Intake. Mussels; Squid

Introduction

The United Nations Environment Program reports that approximately 400 million tons of plastic waste are produced annually. Since the 1970s, the rate of plastic production has grown rapidly, based on the historical growth trends, global production of primary plastic is projected to reach 1100 million tons by 2050 [1, 2]. Every year, 8 to 10 million tons of plastics, including both of macro and microplastic leak into ocean and account for 80% of all marine pollution [3]. Indonesia is one of the largest source of plastic waste in the world. According to Thushari, Indonesia ranks among the top five countries contributing to global plastic waste production [4]. Most of the plastic waste in Indonesia ends up in the oceans, in which a significant portion of this plastic originates from land and is transported into the ocean by rivers [5. Due to physical, chemical, and biological processes in the environment, plastic waste can degrade into smaller fragments or fibers, commonly known as microplastics [6]. Microplastics are derived from the breakdown of larger plastic waste into particles smaller than 5 mm, including sizes down to the micrometer scale.

Microplastics are a global issue, as they contaminate various aspects of daily life, such as salt, mineral water, cosmetics, seafood, and more. A study conducted in East Java Province, Indonesia investigated microplastics in coastal areas, particularly in mangrove ecosystems. This study identified various shapes of microplastics, including fibers, foams, fragments, pellets, films, and microbeads, which were detected in both sediment and surface water [7]. The findings revealed that smaller microplastics predominantly occurred in seawater, while sediments contained diverse shapes of polymer microplastics. These results highlight the widespread presence and varying characteristics of microplastics in East Java’s coastal ecosystem [8].

Microplastics in the marine environment are a global issue, originating from both land-based and ocean-based activities [9]. Microplastics can contaminated seafood as plastic waste pollutes marine ecosystems. These microplastics enter the marine food chain through tropic transfer, adversely affecting marine life and potentially impacting human health [9]. Studies indicate that plastic waste kills more than 100000 marine species annually, impacting ecosystems from the coastline to the deep ocean [10,11]. One review of 132 articles found that 63% of studies analyze the complete gastrointestinal system of marine species, and 88% of the turtles evaluated were contaminated with microplastics, averaging 121 microplastic items per individual. The study identified fibers as the most common shape (63.7%), polyethylene as the dominant polymer (27.3%), and blue as the most frequent color (32.9%) [12]. Another study detected microplastics in all marine fish species sampled, primarily in their gastrointestinal tracts. However, microplastics were also found in the edible tissues (meat) of fresh fish in some studies [13,14].

The contamination of microplastics in marine biota can lead to microplastics entering the human body through ingestion. Retail mussels have been found to contain an average of 2.41 to 2.84 particles per gram, with the majority of microplastics detected being fibers smaller than 1 mm [15]. Mussels and Squid are considered potential carriers of microplastics to human, as these organism are consume in their entirety. Research has shown that microplastics in mussels appear in various shapes, with an average abundance ranging from 1.2-6 items/particle or 0.8-4.4 items/gram, posing potential health risks to humans upon consumption [15,16]. Study by Wang et al investigated microplastics in the stomachs of jumbo squid and found contamination in 50% of specimens, with an abundance of 0.88-1.12 items per individual. The microplastic particles ranged in size from 58.42-2994.85 μm [17]. Barboza et al [18] noted that microplastics intake through the consumption of mussels has been estimated to range from 458 particles per year in children to 2342 particles per year in adult, based on moderate contamination levels. Ferreira et al [19] estimated that human intake of microplastics through mussels ranges between 2438 and 2650 particles per year.

Figure 1.

Contamination pathway of microplastics to human through seafood consumption

Daud et al reported that the average frequency of microplastics exposure for individuals consuming mussels was 93 days per year, with a maximum frequency of 96 days per year. The study also estimated the intake rate of microplastic consumption, finding that the average daily non-carcinogenic intake was 0.005 mg/kg/days [20]. Human exposure to microplastics primarily occurs through seafood consumption, particularly from species consumed whole, such as mussels, oysters, shrimp, crabs and small fish [21].

Muncar district is located in Banyuwangi Regency, Indonesia. According to Environmental Office of Banyuwangi, Muncar district has the highest potential waste generation inn the regency. Plastic waste ranks as the second-largest component of total waste generated in the area. Observation conducted by researcher in Muncar district reveal that waste from coastal areas is often discarded into marine environments, contributing to plastic contamination in the local marine ecosystem.

Residents in the coastal areas of Muncar consume marine biota purchased from Muncar fish auction site. Previous study conducted by Sulistyorini et al indicates that marine biota samples from this auction site are contaminated with microplastics. Of 89 fresh marine biota samples analyzed, 94% were found to contain microplastic [14]. The residents frequently consume mussels and squid. Mussels have the ability to efficiently filter large volume of water, and while they can eliminate larger microplastics, smaller microplastics and nanoplastics tend to remain longer in their bodies [20–23]. This indicates that smaller plastic particles, including microplastics and nanoplastics, are not effectively filtered out and may accumulate, posing a potential contamination risk to humans through mussel consumption. Squid, on the other hand, are consumed in their entirety, increasing the likelihood of microplastic ingestion when contaminated squid are eaten. Therefore, it is essential to conduct an analysis of microplastic exposure through the consumption of marine biota in the coastal areas of Muncar district to assess potential risks to human health.

The objective of this study is to assess of hazard quotient associated with microplastics exposure through seafood consumption, namely mussels and squid, in coastal area of Muncar district, Banyuwangi. the study also analyze the effect of marine biota consumption on microplastic intake and its potential impact on human health. This study provides new insights, including: (a) the abundance, color, and shape of polymer microplastics in marine biota, (b) the intake rate of microplastics by marine organisms, and (c) the prediction of the risk quotient (RQ) or hazard quotient associated with the consumption of microplastics. Furthermore, the Muncar district was selected due to its status as the largest fish auction site in Banyuwangi. Many fishermen bring their catch to the fish auction in Muncar, making it a central location for marine biota trade. The local market attracts many buyers seeking fresh marine biota that has just arrived from the ocean. Seafood is a potential source of microplastic contamination to humans through ingestion.

Materials and Methods

Sample Collection

The research was conducted in the coastal area of Muncar district, Banyuwangi regency, Indonesia, in 2023. The study site was a residential area near the fish auction, which allow for the representation of individual consuming mussels and squid from the auction. The target population consisted of people living in the coastal area of Muncar district. A sample of 130 individuals who consumed mussels and squid was selected, expected to represent the broader population of Muncar’s coastal residents. Sample of marine biota were collected form the fish auction sites in Muncar district, consist of 100 g mussels and 100 g squid. Before analyzing, the sample of biota has been cooked first to assumed the human consumption by boiling the sample. Biota samples (squid and mussels) are divided into two, namely samples that are given treatment by boiling and samples that are not given treatment. The sample has been boiled with a simple boiling because many people in this location of research consumed the biota mainly squid and mussels by boiling. Sample is already cooked by boiled the sample, placed into a glass jar to avoid microplastic contamination and then the samples are sent to the laboratory to checked for abundance, shape and color of microplastic.

Microplastic analysis

The technical analysis of microplastics in seafood consumed by the community, modified by Ecoton Laboratory from National Department of Research and innovation, involves several stages as follows: Sampling was carried out of all parts of the biota that are often consumed, namely mussels and squid in glass jars that have been given a sample code (label). Then give a solution of 30% H₂O₂ and 30% H₂SO₄ by 2x the weight of the sample then cover it with aluminum foil. Let the mixture of Squid and Mussels samples sit with the solution for 24 hours at room temperature, then heat the sample with a water heater at 40-60°C for 2 hours. Then screening is carried out on the samples that have been destroyed. Next, the Whatman paper is rinsed with aquades and accommodated in a petri dish. Next, centrifuge using Whatman paper, then observe the filter paper with a trinocular Digital ways brand nay microscope with a magnification of 40x.

FTIR analysis

In this study, detecting the content of microplastic polymers was carried out using FTIR analysis, the step of FTIR analysis are: Prepare FTIR Spectrophotometry (must have been connected to OMNIC software). Place the tested sample on the plate holder available at FTIR. Use analysis at a frequency of 4000-500 cm-1 for data acquisition. Clean the plate holder after completion so that there is no sample left, this is so that in the next test the remaining sample does not affect the results. Save the data on the Personal Computer (The outgoing data will be in the form of waves that have a certain peak with wave numbers as the X axis, transmittance as the Y axis and including the results of the compounds contained in the sample). The FTIR analyze conducted by division of material characterization, materials engineering and metallurgy, faculty of industrial technology and systems engineering Sepuluh November Technology Institute .

Human Health Risk Analysis

Our research used a quantitative method with an observational approach with Cross-sectional study. Interviews were conducted using a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to assess the microplastic intake among the population through the consumption of mussels and squid. microplastic concentrations used to predict microplastic intake into the human body using biota samples that have been treated by boiling to represent people's daily habits in consuming squid and mussels. The collected data were then analyzed using exposure assessment calculations to determine the intake rate. To estimate the potential risk, the hazard quotient (HQ) formula was applied. To assess the intake of consumption, we used the following formula:

(1) I=C×CR×EFDBW×1×CFAT

Description:

I = intake of chemical (usually expressed as mg/kg bw/day)

C = average chemical concentration in media over the exposure period (mg/L, mg/kg or mg/m³)

CR = contact rate the amount of contaminated media contacted per unit time or event (L/day)

EFD = exposure frequency and duration(how long and how often exposure occurs) EFD may be based on the product of two parameters

EF exposure frequency (e.g. days/year) and ED exposure duration(years)

BW = body weight, usually averaged over the exposure period (kg)

AT = averaging time period over which the exposure is averaged (hours, days, months, years) for the study using a 30 years to predicted a non-carcinogenic exposure and 70 years to predicted a carcinogenic exposure

CF = conversion factor, if units in above parameters don’t match

To predict the Risk Quotient (RQ) or Hazard Quotient (HQ) in our study, the following formula was used:

(2) HQ= Intake Treshold (TRV)

The HQ/RQs for all exposure pathways of each contaminant should be summed to produce a total Hazard Index or Risk Index, unless there is evidence indicating that such an aggregation is not appropriate for the specific contaminants or exposure pathways in question.

Data analyze

The data obtained from the calculation results will be analyzed using Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with significance level <0.05 to examine the influence of microplastic concentration in seafood consumption, the intake rate, and Hazard Quotient. Subsequently, the microplastic concentration and intake rate will be analyzed for their specific indirect effect on Hazard Quotient. The PLS-SEM analysis will be conducted using a Smart PLS 3 Software.

Ethical clearance

This study has been approved by The Health Research Ethics Committee – The Faculty of Public Health Universitas Airlangga (Ref. No. 02/EA/KEPK/2023)

Results

Abundance, Shape and Color of Microplastics in marine biota

The result of microplastics sample abundance and polymer can see on Table 1. The abundance of microplastics detected in mussels and squid has different abundance results. Samples with boiling treatment had higher abundance compared to untreated samples. The abundance microplastics detected in sample with treated is 19 particle or 0.19 particle/g and the abundance of microplastic detected in sample before treated with 4 particle or 0.04 particle/g. The total abundance of microplastics in pre-treatment and treatment sample is 23 particle or 0.23 particle/g.

Table 1.

The abundance and Shape of microplastic on squid and mussels sample

Table 1. noted there is an increase in the abundance of microplastics in samples given the treatment with boiling, meaning that boiled samples are likely to be contaminated with microplastics from the water used for boiling and treatment with boiling does not reduce the abundance of microplastics in biota samples.

The results of identifying the type of microplastics have been matched when identifying the type of polymer detected by FTIR. Table 2. Shows the results of polymer microplastics, polymer microplastics identification using FTIR method revealed the presence of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyester terephthalic acid and Polyvinyl acetate ethylene. The shape and color of microplastics found in the marine biota samples are shown in Figure 2. The microplastics were identified as fiber, with colors including transparent, purple, red and black.

Table 2.

The polymer of microplastics and FTIR spectrum on squid and mussels sample.

Figure 2.

Shape and color of microplastic from marine biota (Mussels and Squid).

Intake of Microplastics

The intake rate of microplastics is presented in Table 3. Based on the Table 3. The average intake rate of microplastics due to consumption of marine biota (Mussels and Squid) is 174.32 kg/days and 37.08 kg/days, respectively.

Table 2.

Intake of microplastic (kg/days)

The minimum intake rate of microplastics from mussels is 0.00 kg/day, while the maximal intake rate from mussels is 0.2650 kg/days. For squid consumption, the minimum intake rate of microplastic is 0.00 kg/day, and the maximum intake is 0.276 kg/days.

The hazard quotient (HQ) exposure of microplastics was presented by Table 4. Based on Table 4, the maximum result of HQ from mussels and squids consumptions are 35.370 and 3.370, respectively. The HQ score can be interpreted to have a risk if the HQ score > 1, otherwise is no risk. This study found that the HQ score is more than 1, in which it indicates that there are several respondents who have a high risk of being exposed to microplastics.

Table 4.

Hazard Quotient (HQ) exposure of microplastic due to mussels and squid consumption

The detail of validity and reliability of model can be seen in Table 5. According to Table 5, all the results for composite reliability models are greater than 0.5, indicating that the construct meet the required standards, and the models are valid and reliable for use. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) score are all greater than 0.7, confirming that the construct meet the required criteria and the model are valid and reliable for further analysis. Therefore, the analysis can continue.

Table 5.

Construct Reliability and Validity Model

Table 6 shows that indirect effect of microplastics concentration, intake and Hazard Quotient is significant. As seen in Table 6, the p-value of the analysis is 0.00, which is < 0.05, indicating that microplastics concentration can influence carcinogenic intake. Furthermore, carcinogenic intake acts as an indirect factor influencing Hazard Quotient from microplastics consumption. Therefore, it can be concluded that microplastic consumption can lead to and influence carcinogenic intake, and if individuals consume marine biota to the maximum carcinogenic intake level, it can result in and influence Hazard Quotient.

Table 6.

This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.

Discussion

Microplastic contamination has been detected in marine biota, such as mussels and squid, primarily due to plastic pollution in coastal areas and oceans. This issue is also evident along the coast of Muncar district, Banyuwangi. Based on survey results from research conducted at the site, coastal communities in the area often dispose of their waste directly into the ocean, specifically into the Bali Strait. Key sources of pollution include waste generated from fish auction activities and fishing operation in Muncar district, which sometimes involve plastic waste being discarded into the sea. Plastic waste in marine environments can degrade into microplastics through exposure to sunlight, wave action, and other physical or chemical process that break larger plastic items into smaller fragments. These tiny plastic particles, termed microplastics or nanoplastics, are readily consumed by marine biota. The smaller the size of the plastic particles, the greater the probability of their bioavailability to marine organism, increasing the risk of ingestion and accumulation within the food web [22].

This study found that the total abundance of microplastics in marine biota mussels and squid is 0.23 particles per gram, in which the abundance of microplastics in cooked squid and mussels is 0.04 particles per gram and 0.15 particle per gram, and the abundance of microplastics in fresh squid and mussels is 0.02 particle per gram respectively. A study conducted in the Mediterranean reported that microplastic contamination in mussels, with an average of 0.58 microplastic particles per individual. Among these, polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics constituted 62% of the ingested particles [23,24]. Research conducted in Bandon Bay noted that the highest abundance of microplastics was 1.42 particles per gram during the dry season [25]. Imidayanti et al examined the microplastics abundance of green mussels tissue in Jakarta Bay found 48.5 particles per gram [26]. Based on the study result, it is also evident that microplastic was identified in squid sample. Sambolino et al and Gong et al reported that the highest concentrations of microplastics in squid are found in the gills and stomach. Furthermore, microplastics were identified in the stomach tissue of squid, with abundances ranging from 0 to 3 particles per individual and an average abundance of 0.6 particles per individual [27].

Squid and mussels that are processed by boiling contain more microplastic abundance compared to those that are not processed. The increase in microplastic levels can be caused by the water used for boiling is groundwater which may be contaminated by microplastics. Research that has been conducted in identifying microplastic contamination in surface water and groundwater shows the results that surface water and groundwater contain microplastic particles, with a considerable abundance of groundwater, namely 247-1708 and surface water around 133-5467 particles/m³ [28–30], if groundwater and surface water that has been contaminated with microplastics is used by the community for daily activities such as cooking water, cooking fish and others, it has the potential to bring microplastics into the body. Boiling water also does not necessarily remove the microplastics contained in the water. As research that has been done shows that microplastics are still present in the water used to boil pindang fish with an abundance of 0.10 microplastic particles / mL, lower water content can also be an important factor contributing to higher MP abundance in dried products compared to raw products [31,32], so in processing fish by boiling it is necessary to choose water that has minimal microplastic pollution such as water that has been sterilized and is suitable for consumption.

Microplastics can be categorized by shape, including fragments, fibers, filaments, spheres, films, and pellets. Identifying the shape of microplastics provides insight into their sources [21]. In this study, the microplastics found in mussels and squid were primarily fibers, with colors observed being transparent and red. While fibers and fragments are generally the most common shapes of microplastics found in the environment [22], this study detected only fibers in the sampled marine biota. Many studies have reported that microplastic shapes in marine water include fragments, fibers, films, granules, pellets, and foams [33]. This suggests that the shape of microplastics in marine biota reflects the types of pollutants present in the environment. Previous studies indicate that microfibers are the predominant shape of microplastics found in marine biota samples [34]. Fiber-shaped microplastics are a significant source of pollution, primarily originating from textile products [35]. The major contributors to fiber microplastic pollution in the environment are household activities and domestic industries, particularly from laundry. Research has shown that domestic laundry significantly increases fiber microplastic pollution in water environments, as wastewater from laundry is often discharged into aquatic systems. This waste can eventually be transported into marine environments via polluted rivers [36]. In Muncar District, observations revealed that waste is frequently disposed of directly into the sea. Additionally, many small-scale industries in the area produce canned food, with their production waste often discharged into the marine environment. This practice potentially contributes to microplastic contamination. Once in the ocean, these microplastics can be consumed by marine biota, leading to contamination of the food chain.

The results of the study showed that from microplastics that were subjected to further tests using FTIR, several types of polymers were detected, namely polyvinyl acetate ethylene (PVac), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyester terephthalic acid. Polyethylene and polypropylene are the dominant polymers in coastal and surface waters [21]. The composition of microplastic polymers is more diverse in near-coastal waters, particularly those close to sources of pollution such as urban areas, compared to deeper oceanic waters [21,37]. Each polymer type exhibits distinct environmental behaviors, influenced by factors such as physicochemical characteristics, the degree of weathering, the presence of additional chemicals, and interactions with marine biota [21]. Research on bivalves has shown that the most common microplastic polymers detected are polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, and polyethylene [38–41]. Similarly, a study on Loligo squid identified polypropylene as the dominant polymer, comprising 94.3% of all polypropylene fragments found [42]. The type of microplastic particles affects their toxicity e.g. polyvinyl chloride is a monomer that has been identified as the most carcinogenic substance in plastics. Additives used during the production of synthetic plastics have harmful effects on human health. For example, bisphenol A, phthalates, styrene, vinyl chloride, etc. have been shown to have harmful effects such as allergy, carcinogenicity, and toxicity [43]. Most polymers detected in this study were of the polyethylene type. Polyethylene (PE) is the most commonly found and used plastic, the quality of PE is very comfortable which has the ability to be easily converted during processing to a variety of different forms based on the length of the polymer chain, in society it is usually shaped like plastic groceries, plastic wrap, drain pipes, and garbage cans [44,45].

Microplastics can enter the human body through the consumption of marine biota. The average estimated intake of microplastics due to the consumption of mussels and squid is 174.32 kg/day and 37.08 kg/day, respectively. As visualized by Table 3, this study also found that the HQ score is more than 1, in which it indicates that there are several respondents who have a high risk of being exposed to microplastics. A study reported that consumers can be exposed to between 133.11 and 844.86 microplastic particles when consuming 100 g of mussels [46]. Further studies on human risk from microplastic intake due to mussel consumption estimate that the Human Risk Index (HRI) for microplastics varies with consumption levels. In children, moderate mussel consumption could result in an HRI ranging from 458 to 1576 microplastic particles per year. For adolescents, the range is 170 to 585 MP/year, for adults it is 680 to 2342 MP/year, and for the elderly, it is 596 to 2052 MP/year. An individual adult could be exposed to as much as 85,659 microplastic particles per year from consuming mussels [18]. These estimates are based on the consumption of wild mussels, not farmed mussels, and align with studies estimating exposure from mussels purchased at fish auctions in Muncar District. Other studies have highlighted that farming methods can lead to varying degrees of microplastic contamination in marine species, including farmed mussels and other marine biota [47–49]. Regarding squid, one study estimated that consumers might ingest between 7.7 and 20 microplastic particles annually through squid consumption, with an average intake ranging from 13 to 58 microplastic particles per year from shellfish consumption, including species like crabs, shrimp, and squid [50]. Further estimations for microplastic intake from other seafood types range from 0.04 to 5.1 microplastic particles per day, or 13 to 1862 microplastic particles per year. These estimates include a variety of seafood, mainly squid, crabs, sea cucumbers, seaweed, and prawns [51].

This research predicted a Hazard Quotient (HQ) from microplastic exposure due to mussels and squid consumption. In this study, the TRV of microplastics is not yet available on the US EPA website, so it needs to be calculated using the TRV formula. The NOAEL (No-Observed-Adverse- Effect-Level) value of microplastics is obtained from the results of research that has been conducted, which is 2 mg [52], furthermore the Threshold (TRV) calculating using the formula below :

(3) TRV= NOAEL or LOAEL (UF1×UF2×UF3×UF4×MF)

(4) TRV= NOAEL ( ADuf × AKuf ×HDuf×HKuf)

From the calculating carried out that the TRV value is 0.019, furthermore the TRV value used to calculating a HQ value. The result of HQ value due to mussels and squid consumption can influence by microplastic concentration and human consumption frequency, so that if the concentration of microplastics and human consumption frequency are high, it can be influencing the HQ value to be higher or unsafe. From the study can concluded that HQ from microplastic exposure any several respondent have a value more than 1 or HQ > 1, so that mean the respondent have a high risk caused a microplastic exposure through squid and mussels consumption. The exposure of microplastic can influencing a human health when continuously consumed by human. Microplastic concentration, intake rate, exposure frequency and duration of exposure have a significant relationship with Hazard Quotient (HQ) [20,53]. This is in line with other studies that have been conducted that the toxicity effect of microplastics depends on the amount of microplastic concentration that enters the body and the duration of exposure [54]. Recommendations from EFSA (The European Food Safety Authority) consume fish contaminated with microplastics for adults or the general population can consume 112-842 microplastic particles/year while recommendations from EUMOFA (European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products) and NOAA are 518-3078 particles/year [55]. The estimate varies in each region depending on the frequency of fish consumption in that area [56].

The research utilized pathway analysis to investigate the relationship between microplastic concentrations, intake rates, and their influence on Hazard Quotient. The findings demonstrate that the indirect effects of microplastic concentration on Hazard Quotient, mediated through carcinogenic intake, are statistically significant. The study revealed that microplastic concentrations can influence carcinogenic intake. This occurs when the consumption of marine biota with high microplastic concentrations poses potential health risk to humans. The findings highlight that carcinogenic intake significantly contributes to Hazard Quotient associated with microplastic exposure. Furthermore, most studies confirm that nano- and microplastics can induce apoptosis, thus exhibit genotoxic and cytotoxic effects. These effects are influenced by the characteristics of the particles, such as type, size, and charge, leading to cellular damage [57]. Microplastics entering the human body have been linked to reproductive system problems. Studies have shown that ingested nanoplastics can be detected in gonadal tissues, indicating their ability to pass through the gonadal blood barrier [58–61]. Accumulation of microplastics in the testes has been associated with potential impacts on reproductive fitness [61]. Microplastics pose a potential health risk when ingested in significant quantities. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the toxicity of microplastics can contribute to various human health risk, including reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and cytotoxicity [62]. However, the majority of these studies have been conducted on animal models, such as mice, and their direct implications for human health remain uncertain. Further research is needed to explore the toxic effects of microplastics on the human body, focusing on their health impacts and the mechanisms through which exposure to microplastics may affect human health.

Limitation

This study is limited to estimating the intake of microplastics in human through the consumption of marine biota, specifically mussels and squid. It does not provide conclusions regarding the toxicity of microplastics in humans. Therefore, future research should focus on detailed investigations into the toxicity of microplastics in humans. This includes collecting human blood specimens and analyzing physiological and biochemical reactions to predict the potential health impacts of microplastic exposure. Such studies would provide critical insights into the risk associated with microplastic contamination and contribute to a better understanding of their effects on human health. Furthermore, the limitation on this study the water used to boiled the biota samples using water from a different location from the research site, so for future research it is necessary to used water in the same location as the research site so that it can representation the conditions at the research site.

Conclusions

Microplastics have been detected as contaminants in marine biota, particularly squid and mussels. The contamination arises from plastic pollution in the marine environment, often stemming from improperly disposed waste. In this study, the total abundance of microplastics in these marine biotas was found to be 0.23 particles per gram. The abundance microplastic detected in mussels and squid sample after given treated with 19 particle or 0.19 particle/g and the abundance of microplastic detected before treated with 4 particle or 0,04 particle/g. The polymer microplastics identification using FTIR method revealed the presence of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyester terephthalic acid and Polyvinyl acetate ethylene.

The average intake rate of microplastics due to the consumption of marine biota (mussels and squid) is estimated at 174.32 kg/day for mussels and 37.08 kg/day for squid. The maximum intake rate of microplastics from mussels and squid is 0.2650 kg/day and 0.276 kg/day, respectively, while the minimum intake rate of microplastics from mussels and squid is 0.00 kg/day, respectively. This study indicates that microplastic concentrations in marine biota can influence carcinogenic intake, which in turn becomes an indirect factor affecting hazard quotient associated with microplastic consumption. Prolonged or excessive consumption of marine biota with high levels of microplastics can lead to increased carcinogenic intake, thereby elevating the potential health risks to humans.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research is supported and granted by Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.

Conflict of interest

The author declare there is no conflict of interest in this study. The author declares that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

CRediT author statement

MAR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software; BB: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. RAz: Supervision, Writing- Reviewing; LS: Supervision and Writing- Reviewing; KA: Supervision and Writing-Reviewing.

References

1. Silva DM, Almeida CMR, Guardiola FA, Pereira R, Rodrigues SM, Ramos S. Uncovering microplastics contamination in canned seafood. Food Chem 2024;448:139049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.139049.

2. UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Our planet is choking on plastic. [cited 2024 Dec 31]. Available from: https://www.unep.org/interactives/beat-plastic-pollution/.

3. Pilapitiya PGCNT, Ratnayake AS. The world of plastic waste: A review. Cleaner Materials 2024;11:100220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220.

4. Thushari GGN, Senevirathna JDM. Plastic pollution in the marine environment. Heliyon 2020;6(8)e04709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04709.

5. Zhang K, Hamidian AH, Tubić A, Zhang Y, Fang JKH, Wu C, et al. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: A review. Environ Pollut 2021;274:116554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116554.

6. Tirkey A, Upadhyay LSB. Microplastics: An overview on separation, identification and characterization of microplastics. Mar Pollut Bull 2021;170:112604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112604.

7. Vidayanti V, Retnaningdyah C. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters, sediments, and wild crabs of mangrove ecosystems of East Java, Indonesia. Emerging Contaminants 2024;10(4):100343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2024.100343.

8. Marchellina A, Soegianto A, Irawan B, Indriyasari KN, Rahmatin NM, Mukholladun W, et al. The presence and physico-chemical properties of microplastics in seawater, sediment, and several organs of the spotted scat fish (Scatophagus argus, Linnaeus, 1766) collected from different locations along the East Java coast in Indonesia. Chemosphere 2024;358:142214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142214.

9. Kushwaha M, Shankar S, Goel D, Singh S, Rahul J, Rachna K, et al. Microplastics pollution in the marine environment: A review of sources, impacts and mitigation. Mar Pollut Bull 2024;209(Pt A):117109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117109.

10. Cózar A, Echevarría F, González-Gordillo JI, Irigoien X, Ubeda B, Hernández-León S, et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;111(28):10239–10244. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314705111.

11. van Sebille E, Wilcox C, Lebreton L, Maximenko N, Hardesty BD, van Franeker JA, et al. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environmental Research Letters 2015;10(12):124006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124006.

12. Ugwu K, Herrera A, Gómez M. Microplastics in marine biota: A review. Mar Pollut Bull 2021;169:112540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112540.

13. Yu X, Gutang Q, Wang Y, Wang S, Li Y, Li Y, et al. Microplastic and associated emerging contaminants in marine fish from the South China Sea: Exposure and human risks. J Hazard Mater 2024;480:136200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136200.

14. Sulistyorini L, Arfiani ND, Rizaldi MA, Lutpiatina L, Samad NIA. Assessment of microplastic pollution in fresh fish and pindang fish and its potential health hazards in coastal communities of Banyuwangi Regency, Indonesia. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology 2024;23(3):1671–1676. https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2024.v23i03.038.

15. Hongsawat P, Thinjong W, Chouychai B, Punyapalakul P, Prarat P. Microplastics in retail shellfish from a seafood market in eastern Thailand: Occurrence and risks to human food safety. Mar Pollut Bull 2024;201:116228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116228.

16. Ding J, Li J, Sun C, Jiang F, He C, Zhang M, et al. An examination of the occurrence and potential risks of microplastics across various shellfish. Sci Total Environ 2020;739:139887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139887.

17. Wang Y, Chen X. Microplastics in a pelagic squid (Dosidicus gigas) from the Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean: Characteristics, spatial variation, and preliminary risk assessment. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2023;11:1069124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1069124.

18. Barboza LGA, Otero XL, Guilhermino L. Microplastic contamination in marine mussels from the Atlantic coast of North Portugal and human risk of microplastic intake through mussel consumption. Environ Pollut 2024;352:124133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124133.

19. Ferreira O, Barboza LGA, Rudnitskaya A, Moreirinha C, Vieira LR, Botelho MJ, et al. Microplastics in marine mussels, biological effects and human risk of intake: A case study in a multi-stressor environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2023;197:115704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115704.

20. Daud A, Ishak H, Ibrahim E, Basir B, Birawida AB, Syam RC, et al. Environmental health risk of microplastics due to consumption of fish and shellfish in the coastal area. Iran J Public Health 2024;53(7):1549–1559. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v53i7.16049.

21. Daud A. Dampak lingkungan dan kesehatan mikroplastik dan nanoplastik 1st edth ed. Gosyen Publishing; 2020. [Indonesian].

22. Aulia A, Azizah R, Sulistyorini L, Rizaldi MA. Literature review: Dampak mikroplastik terhadap lingkungan pesisir, biota laut dan potensi risiko kesehatan. Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan Indonesia 2023;22(3):328–341. https://doi.org/10.14710/jkli.22.3.328-341 [Indonesian].

23. Kor K, Jannat B, Ershadifar H, Ghazilou A. Microplastic occurrence in finfish and shellfish from the mangroves of the northern Gulf of Oman. Mar Pollut Bull 2023;189:114788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114788.

24. Kolenc Ž, Viršek MK, Klančnik A, Janecko N. Microbial communities on microplastics from seawater and mussels: Insights from the northern Adriatic Sea. Sci Total Environ 2024;949:175130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175130.

25. Ruangpanupan N, Ussawarujikulchai A, Prapagdee B, Chavanich S. Seasonal variation in the abundance of microplastics in three commercial bivalves from Bandon Bay, Gulf of Thailand. Mar Pollut Bull 2023;197:115600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115600.

26. Irnidayanti Y, Soegianto A, Brabo AH, Abdilla FM, Indriyasari KN, Rahmatin NM, et al. Microplastics in green mussels (Perna viridis) from Jakarta Bay, Indonesia, and the associated hazards to human health posed by their consumption. Environ Monit Assess 2023;195(7):884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11535-9.

27. Lu H, Sun T, Liu K, Ou Y, Zhao M. Accumulation of microplastics in stomach tissues of Japanese common squid (Todarodes pacificus). Journal of Fisheries of China 2023;47(7):079116. https://doi.org/10.11964/jfc.20230213898 [Chinese].

28. Buwono NR, Risjani Y, Soegianto A. Distribution of microplastic in relation to water quality parameters in the Brantas River, East Java, Indonesia. Environmental Technology and Innovation 2021;24:101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101915.

29. Shu X, Xu L, Yang M, Qin Z, Zhang Q, Zhang L. Spatial distribution characteristics and migration of microplastics in surface water, groundwater and sediment in karst areas: The case of Yulong River in Guilin, Southwest China. Sci Total Environ 2023;868:161578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161578.

30. Yang G, Zhang Q, Zhao Z, Zhou C. How does the "Zero-waste City" strategy contribute to carbon footprint reduction in China? Waste Manag 2023;156:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.11.032.

31. Gunawan G, Effendi H, Warsiki E. Cemaran mikroplastik pada Ikan pindang dan potensi bahayanya terhadap kesehatan manusia, studi kasus di bogor. J Pascapanen dan Bioteknol Kelautan dan Perikanan 2021;16(2):105–119. http://doi.org/10.15578/jpbkp.v16i2.772 [Indonesian].

32. Pham DT, Kim J, Lee SH, Kim J, Kim D, Hong S, et al. Analysis of microplastics in various foods and assessment of aggregate human exposure via food consumption in Korea. Environ Pollut 2023;322:121153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121153.

33. Arat SA. An overview of microplastic in marine waters: Sources, abundance, characteristics and negative effects on various marine organisms. Desalination and Water Treatment 2024;317:100138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100138.

34. Boateng CM, Addo S, Duodu CP, Danso-Abbeam H, Agyeman PC, Anyan KF, et al. Microplastics in the Volta Lake: Occurrence, distribution, and human health implications. Heliyon 2024;10(7)e29041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29041.

35. Maja V, Sanja V, Tajana S, Branko K, Jelena MJ, Jasmina A, et al. Assessing the interaction between 4-methylbenzylidene camphor and microplastic fibers in aquatic environments: Adsorption kinetics and mechanisms. Sci Total Environ 2024;956:177383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177383.

36. Wang C, Song J, Nunes LM, Zhao H, Wang P, Liang Z, et al. Global microplastic fiber pollution from domestic laundry. J Hazard Mater 2024;477:135290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135290.

37. Song YK, Hong SK, Jang M, Han GM, Jung SE, Shim WJ. Combined effects of UV exposure duration and mechanical abrasion on microplastic fragmentation by polymer type. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51(8):4368–4376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06155.

38. Le XTT, Trinh VM, Nguyen DT, Do MV. Overall evaluation of microplastic exposure in oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in coastal areas of Viet Nam. Regional Studies in Marine Science 2024;79:103840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103840.

39. Le TXT, Duong MT, Huynh LD, Pham HT, Pham TV, Do MV. Risk assessments of microplastic exposure in bivalves living in the coral reefs of Vietnam. Mar Pollut Bull 2024;209(Pt A):117111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117111.

40. Chinfak N, Charoenpong C, Sampanporn A, Wongpa C, Sompongchaiyakul P. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from coastal areas of Thailand and health risk associated with microplastics in ingested bivalves. Mar Pollut Bull 2024;208:116937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116937.

41. Magesh NS, Ajith KV. Microplastics contamination and risk assessment in bivalves of economic importance from Beypore estuary, Southern India. Environ Res 2024;261:119711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.119711.

42. Chen JYS, Lee YC, Walther BA. Microplastic contamination of three commonly consumed seafood species from Taiwan: A pilot study. Sustainability 2020;12(22):9543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229543.

43. Patil PB, Maity S, Sarkar A. Potential human health risk assessment of microplastic exposure: current scenario and future perspectives. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2022;194:898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10539-1.

44. Dhakal HN, Ismail SO. Introduction to composite materials In: Dhakal HN, Ismail SO, editors. Sustainable Composites for Lightweight Applications. Woodhead Publishing; 2020. 1–16.

45. Gudipaneni RK, Alsolami MM, Karobari MI, Rudravaram VRK. Socio-behavioral risk indicators linked to untreated early childhood caries and its clinical consequences in preschool children: A cross-sectional study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;46(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4625-46.1.7.

46. Tunçelli IC, Erkan N. Microplastic pollution in wild and aquacultured Mediterranean mussels from the Sea of Marmara: Abundance, characteristics, and health risk estimations. Environ Res 2024;242:117787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117787.

47. Aiguo Z, Di S, Chong W, Yuliang C, Shaolin X, Peiqin L, et al. Characteristics and differences of microplastics ingestion for farmed fish with different water depths, feeding habits and diets. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2022;10(2):107189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107189.

48. Matias RS, Gomes S, Barboza LGA, Salazar-Gutierrez D, Guilhermino L, Valente LMP. Microplastics in water, feed and tissues of European seabass reared in a recirculation aquaculture system (RAS). Chemosphere 2023;335:139055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139055.

49. Fraissinet S, De Benedetto GE, Malitesta C, Holzinger R, Materić D. Microplastics and nanoplastics size distribution in farmed mussel tissues. Communications Earth & Environment 2024;5:128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01300-2.

50. Daniel DB, Ashraf PM, Thomas SN, Thomson KT. Microplastics in the edible tissues of shellfishes sold for human consumption. Chemosphere 2021;264(Pt 2):128554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128554.

51. Heo SJ, Moon N, Kim JH. A systematic review and quality assessment of estimated daily intake of microplastics through food Rev Environ Health; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0111.

52. Park EJ, Han JS, Park EJ, Seong E, Lee GH, Kim DW, et al. Repeated-oral dose toxicity of polyethylene microplastics and the possible implications on reproduction and development of the next generation. Toxicol Lett 2020;324:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.008.

53. Daud A, Birawida AB, Amqam H, Tahir A, El NH, Nurtang L. Risk analysis of microplastic in fish (Nemiptus Japonicas & Rastrelliger Sp.) in communities in the coast area of Tamasaju, Galesong Takalar. Medico-Legal Update 2021;21(2):196–203. https://doi.org/10.37506/mlu.v21i2.2673.

54. Farag AA, Youssef HS, Sliem RE, Gazzar WBE, Nabil N, Mokhtar MM, et al. Hematological consequences of polyethylene microplastics toxicity in male rats: Oxidative stress, genetic, and epigenetic links. Toxicology 2023;492:153545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2023.153545.

55. Alberghini L, Truant A, Santonicola S, Colavita G, Giaccone V. Microplastics in fish and fishery products and risks for human health: A review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;20(1):789. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010789.

56. Barboza LGA, Vethaak AD, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull 2018;133:336–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.047.

57. Winiarska E, Jutel M, Zemelka-Wiacek M. The potential impact of nano- and microplastics on human health: Understanding human health risks. Environ Res 2024;251(Pt 2):118535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118535.

58. Sarasamma S, Audira G, Siregar P, Malhotra N, Lai YH, Liang ST, et al. Nanoplastics cause neurobehavioral impairments, reproductive and oxidative damages, and biomarker responses in zebrafish: Throwing up alarms of wide spread health risk of exposure. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21(4):1410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21041410.

59. Liu Z, Zhuan Q, Zhang L, Meng L, Fu X, Hou Y. Polystyrene microplastics induced female reproductive toxicity in mice. J Hazard Mater 2022;424(Pt C):127629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127629.

60. Zhao Q, Zhu L, Weng J, Jin Z, Cao Y, Jiang H, et al. Detection and characterization of microplastics in the human testis and semen. Sci Total Environ 2023;877:162713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162713.

61. Zhao B, Rehati P, Yang Z, Cai Z, Guo C, Li Y. The potential toxicity of microplastics on human health. Sci Total Environ 2024;912:168946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168946.

62. Sun A, Wang WX. Human exposure to microplastics and its associated health risks. Environ Health (Wash) 2023;1(3):139–149. https://doi.org/10.1021/envhealth.3c00053.

Article information Continued

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

	Cronbach's Alpha	rho_A	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Intake carcinogenic	0.77	0.77	0.90	0.81
Intake non carcinogenic	0.77	0.77	0.89	0.81
MPs Concentration	0.62	0.63	0.84	0.73
Hazard quotient	0.77	0.77	0.90	0.81

	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	p Values
MPs Concentration -> Intake carcinogenic -> Hazard Quotient	0.37	0.38	0.07	0.00
MPs Concentration -> Intake non carcinogenic -> Hazard Quotient	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.66

Shape of Biota	Intake (kg/days)
Shape of Biota	Min	Max	Average
Mussels	0.00	0.2650	174.32
Squid	0.00	0.276	37.08