Next Article in Journal
How Does Extreme Drought Affect Phytoplankton Community Assembly in Aquatic Reserves? A Study from the Confluence of Poyang Lake and Yangtze River, China
Previous Article in Journal
Microbial Carbonates of Upper Triassic Doi Long Formation, Lampang Group: A Study of New Outcrop Localities in Northern Lampang, Central North Thailand
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biodiversity and Seasonal Succession of Macrobenthos in Saltmarsh Habitat Adjacent to a Ship-Breaking Area
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/d17040300
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Differential Accumulation of Particulate Pollutants in Gills and Gastrointestinal Tracts in Sphoeroides Fish from Tropical and Subtropical Estuaries in Brazil

by
Sérgio Murilo de Souza Filho
1,2,
Marco Tadeu Grassi
3,4,
Mayara Padovan dos Santos
3,4,
Juliano Morimoto
2,5,
Marcelo Soeth
6,7 and
Luís Fernando Fávaro
1,2,*
1
Laboratory of Reproduction and Fish Community, Federal University of Paraná, P.O. Box 19031, Curitiba 81531-980, PR, Brazil
2
Postgraduate Program in Ecology and Conservation, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba 82590-300, PR, Brazil
3
Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Paraná, P.O. Box 19032, Curitiba 81531-980, PR, Brazil
4
Postgraduate Program in Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Paraná, P.O. Box 19032, Curitiba 81531-980, PR, Brazil
5
Institute of Mathematics, University of Aberdeen, King’s College, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
6
Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government, Bypass Road, Stanley FIQQ 1ZZ, Falkland Islands
7
Postgraduate Program in Coastal and Oceanic Systems, Federal University of Paraná, P.O. Box 61, Pontal do Paraná 83255-976, PR, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(4), 300; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040300
Submission received: 14 February 2025 / Revised: 18 April 2025 / Accepted: 19 April 2025 / Published: 21 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Socioecology and Biodiversity Conservation—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The widespread use of recyclable materials in contemporary society has led to the accumulation of pollutants in estuaries and marine ecosystems, with potential impacts on biodiversity. This study assessed the abundance and types of particulate pollutants in Sphoeroides fish across two Brazilian estuaries (tropical and subtropical). Our findings showed that 70 biological samples from fish (92.11%) contained debris, with the tropical estuary exhibiting the highest abundance (n = 499 particles—67% of the total), dominated by laminar (film) particulate pollutants (76.75%). In this estuary, the gill exhibited the highest contamination index, with most particulate pollutants (<1 mm and 1–3 mm) found in 63.6% and 54.5% of samples, respectively. In the subtropical estuary, 246 debris particles (33% of the total) were detected in the biological samples, with 58.5% of particles being of the film type. The gastrointestinal tract had the highest contamination index in this region, with 70.6% of particles in the 1–3 mm size range. These results highlight the pervasive presence of particulate pollutants in estuarine ecosystems and the organ-specific contamination patterns in tropical and subtropical regions, underscoring the ecological risks posed by plastic waste to estuarine biodiversity in hotspot regions.

1. Introduction

Estuarine environments are highly productive and provide essential ecosystem services, supporting feeding, reproduction, and nursery functions for diverse animal groups, including both vertebrates and invertebrates [1,2,3,4]. However, human activities in these regions, such as urban expansion and industrial development, have led to significant ecological degradation [5,6]. These activities introduce various contaminants, including metals, organic pollutants, pesticides, plastics, and particulate pollutants, into estuarine ecosystems [7,8,9,10], which is the topic of investigation in this study.
Particulate pollutants are small matter particles suspended in a fluid medium, such as air or water. In aquatic environments, these particles can have negative effects on species health and the entire ecosystem (see review by [11]). Particulate pollutants have been detected in aquatic environments across the globe, with reports from all continents [12,13,14]. Among particulate waste, plastics deserve special attention. Approximately 12% of global waste consists of plastics [15]. In total, around 9 billion tons of plastic have been produced, with annual production increasing from 0.5 million tons in the 1950s to 413.8 million tons in 2023 [16]. This situation has quickly become one of the most pressing environmental issues [15]. These small plastic particles are easily integrated into the food chain, contaminating various animals—from lower trophic levels, such as zooplankton, copepods, crustaceans, and echinoderms, to vertebrates, such as fish, birds, and mammals [17]. They have been detected in aquatic environments worldwide, with reports from all continents [12,13,14]. Several studies have investigated particulate pollutants related to plastic, such as microplastic, in Brazilian estuaries [18,19,20,21,22,23,24], as well as in other countries, such as Canada [25,26], Mexico [27], Portugal [28], China [13,29] and India [30,31], and regions, such as the North Sea [32], Mediterranean Sea [33] and Yellow Sea [34]. The ecological impacts of plastic waste in estuaries have been well documented, demonstrating harm to aquatic organisms and ecosystems [7,9,10]. For instance, in Malaysia, an average of ~2.5 particles of microplastic per liter of water was found in the Klang River estuary, originating from fishing gear and synthetic clothes [35,36]. This has implications for the biodiversity of the estuary, which also accumulate microplastics in their bodies, for example, gastropods [36]. Similar results were found in bivalves in an urbanized estuary in Brazil (Santos-Sao Vicente), for which bioavailability of microplastics were linked to industrial activities and negatively correlated with population density, bioaccumulated in decreasing concentrations from clams, mussels and oysters, respectively [37].
Particulate plastic pollutants can act as vectors, facilitating the entry of secondary pollutants into the environment [38,39]. Due to their relatively large surface area and hydrophobic characteristics, these particles can adsorb contaminants, such as heavy metals present in the environment [40] and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [41], including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [42]. Particulate pollutants can also accumulate in microorganisms [42,43,44]. The ingestion of particulate pollutants by marine organisms can impair their mobility, reproduction, and development, and they may disrupt the endocrine systems in fish and invertebrates [45]. The presence of micro- and nanoplastics in atmospheric air was analyzed by Sheraz et al. (20230) [46]. In their study, the authors reported that harmful compounds, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), can adhere to plastic particles. Additionally, these particles may act as vectors for microbial or viral diseases [47]. However, the role of acting as vectors may not be exclusive to plastic pollutants. Other particulate waste with similar physical characteristics may also behave in the same way.
This study examines particulate pollutant contamination in two distinct Brazilian estuaries—one in the tropical region (Porto Seguro) and the other in the subtropical region (Babitonga Bay). These estuaries experience different levels of anthropogenic pressure, providing an opportunity to compare particulate pollutant contamination under varying environmental conditions. According to data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [48], the largest urban centers within these estuaries—Porto Seguro (tropical) and Joinville (subtropical)—differ significantly in various aspects. Porto Seguro covers an area of 2285.74 km², with a population of 168,326 and a density of 73.64 inhabitants per km². In contrast, Joinville spans 1,127.94 km², has a population of 616,317, and a much higher density of 546.41 inhabitants per km². Socioeconomic indicators, such as formal employment salaries, education levels, and sanitation, are generally higher in Joinville, situated in Brazil’s subtropical region. Land use patterns also differ between these regions. In Porto Seguro, 44.94% of the total area faces a moderate to very high risk of environmental degradation, driven by agricultural and pasture expansion, particularly over forested areas [37]. However, tourism remains the dominant economic activity. Meanwhile, Babitonga Bay is where the largest industrial hub of Santa Catarina is concentrated, alongside agriculture and pasturelands. Urban expansion into mangrove and forest areas has also been documented in this region [49]. This study focuses on fish of the genus Sphoeroides, as these species are estuarine residents and are found in both locations. We hypothesize that, despite analyzing the same genus of fish, particulate pollutant contamination levels will differ between the estuaries due to the varying anthropogenic activities in each region.

2. Material and Methods

The study was conducted in two estuarine systems in Brazil: the Porto Seguro Estuary and the Babitonga Bay Estuary (Figure 1). The Porto Seguro Estuary (tropical) is located in the tropical region of northeastern Brazil, in the state of Bahia (16°26′44.06″ S, 39°05′5.22″ W), and is influenced by human activities, such as tourism and urban development. The surrounding area is characterized by large mangrove forests and an extensive coral reef system near the estuary’s mouth. The Babitonga Bay Estuary (subtropical) is situated in the subtropical region of southern Brazil, in the state of Santa Catarina (26°02′26.28″ S, 48°28′48.50″ W), and is the largest estuarine complex along the coast of the state. It covers an area of 130 km², and the mangrove forests in the bay account for 75% of the state’s total mangrove area [50].
This study involved fish of the genus Sphoeroides (S. testudineus and S. greeleyi), both of which are benthic, carnivorous species commonly found in tropical and subtropical estuaries [51]. S. testudineus is also commercially fished and consumed in some regions of Brazil. The fish were collected by local fishermen in both the Porto Seguro (May 2020) and Babitonga Bay (March 2020) estuaries. In total, 39 fish were sampled, with 22 specimens from Porto Seguro and 17 from Babitonga Bay. Upon collection, fish were transported to the laboratory on ice. The total length (tL, cm) and weight (tW, g) of each specimen were recorded. For particulate pollutant analysis, the gastrointestinal tracts and gills of each fish were removed after ventral sectioning.
Since microplastics are considered the most widely distributed particulate waste in the oceans [52], and given the size range of the particulate pollutants detected in this study, we chose to use the same analytical methodology applied for microplastics, with modifications to suit our data. The methodology used was based on and adapted from the protocols of Karami et al. (2017) and Pegado et al. (2018) [21,53]. Samples were first rinsed twice with distilled water, then preserved in sterile glass vials containing 10% formalin for 48 h before being transferred to 70% ethanol. For the detection of particulate pollutants, gills were analyzed whole under a stereomicroscope, while the gastrointestinal contents were rinsed in 70% ethanol and spread onto glass Petri dishes for stereomicroscopic analysis. The 10% formalin was prepared using 37% pure formaldehyde from the brand Êxodo Científica, a Brazilian manufacturer, located in Sumaré, São Paulo – Brazil, while the 70% ethanol was diluted from 95% P.A. ethyl alcohol from the brand ACS Científica, also a Brazilian manufacturer and located in Sumaré, São Paulo – Brazil. Particulate pollutants were photographed using a Zeiss Axiocam 503 color camera attached to a Zeiss Discovery.V12 stereomicroscope, the equipment was manufactured in Jena, Germany.
Particulate pollutants were classified based on their size and shape, with fragments (irregular shape and surface), fibers (thin, elongated), and films (thin, flat) as the primary categories [53]. Particulate pollutants were further categorized by size: ≤1 mm, 1.1–3 mm, and 3.1–5 mm, following Bessa et al. (2018) [28]. Plastic particles larger than 5 mm were excluded from the analysis. To minimize contamination, all procedures were carried out with strict controls, including the use of latex gloves, glassware, metal instruments, and dedicated cotton lab clothing. The total number of particulate pollutants in each sample (gastrointestinal tract and gills) was counted separately for each estuary. The mean number of particulate pollutants per sample was calculated using Formula (1):
n i n
where n i is the total number of particulate pollutants in the samples, and n is the number of samples analyzed. To account for the fish’s weight, the total particulate pollutant count was normalized by dividing the total particulate pollutant count by the log-transformed weight of each fish.
We used a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the difference in particulate pollutant content between organs (gastrointestinal tract and gills) and between estuaries, as well as the interaction between these factors. The particulate pollutant content was square-root transformed to improve model fit. The frequency of occurrence (FO%) of each particulate pollutant type (fragments, fibers, and films) and size class (≤1 mm, 1–3 mm, and 3.1–5 mm) was determined for each biological sample, following Formula (2):
F O % = N i N × 100
where N i is the number of samples containing particulate pollutants, and N is the total number of samples analyzed. These values were used to examine the relative abundance of particulate pollutants by type and size in each estuary. A two-factor Permutational Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA [54]) with 5000 randomizations was performed to assess differences in particulate pollutant abundance, as the data did not meet normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov: p < 0.05) or homoscedasticity (Levene’s test: p < 0.05) assumptions. The two factors in the model were: (1) particulate pollutant type (fixed), with two levels (biological samples and site), and (2) the interaction between particulate pollutant type, biological samples, and estuaries. Pairwise comparisons were used to identify significant differences between the means of each factor. All statistical analyses were conducted in R v.4.2.1 [55].

3. Results

We analyzed a total of 39 Sphoeroides specimens—22 from Porto Seguro Estuary and 17 from Babitonga Bay Estuary—yielding 76 biological samples (39 gastrointestinal tracts and 37 gills). A total of 757 plastic particles were detected across all samples, of which 745 were particulate pollutants (particles ≤ 5 mm in size). The remaining 12 particles, larger than 5 mm, were excluded from the analysis. Particulate pollutant contamination was observed in 92.11% of the samples, with only one specimen from Porto Seguro lacking detectable particulate pollutants. Some particulate pollutants detected under the stereomicroscope are shown in Figure 2.
The analysis of the amount of particulate material in each biological sample, for each estuary, revealed that the debris content was significantly higher in the gastrointestinal tracts of fish from Babitonga Bay compared to those from Porto Seguro, while the opposite was observed for the gills, where Porto Seguro showed a higher number of particles compared to Babitonga Bay (Table 1). This interaction was statistically significant (F1,72 = 16.510, p < 0.001). However, no significant main effects were found for estuary (F1,72 = 0.077, p = 0.782) or organ (F1,72 = 2.801, p = 0.098, Figure 3).
The analysis of particulate pollutant types revealed that fibers were the most abundant type in the gastrointestinal tracts of both estuaries, while the gills showed varying patterns between estuaries. In Porto Seguro, films were the most frequent, whereas fibers dominated in Babitonga Bay (Table 2 and Table 3). The analysis of particulate pollutant size classes revealed distinct patterns between estuaries. In the gastrointestinal tracts, fibers of all sizes were most common in both Porto Seguro and Babitonga Bay. However, for the gills, Porto Seguro showed a higher occurrence of film across all size categories, while Babitonga Bay had a higher frequency of fibers (Table 4 and Table 5).
PERMANOVA revealed significant differences for the fragment (p = 0.004) and film (p < 0.001) types across biological samples (gastrointestinal tract and gills) and between estuaries (fragment p < 0.001. film p = 0.006). No significant differences were found for fiber types across sites or sample types. Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences for fragments and films between specific sample types and estuaries. In summary, for fragments: GI (Babitonga Bay) vs. gills (Babitonga Bay) (p = 0.0088); GI (Porto Seguro) vs. GI (Babitonga Bay) (p < 0.001); gills (Porto Seguro) vs. GI (Porto Seguro) (p < 0.001). For films: gills (Porto Seguro) vs. gills (Babitonga Bay) (p < 0.001); gills (Porto Seguro) vs. GI (Babitonga Bay) (p < 0.001); GI (Porto Seguro) vs. gills (Porto Seguro) (p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

This study presents the first comparative analysis of particulate pollutant contamination in the gastrointestinal tracts and gills of Sphoeroides species from tropical and subtropical estuaries in the South Atlantic, with varying levels of anthropic influence. The findings provide new insights into particulate pollutant pollution in these regions and reveal contrasts with previous studies, contributing to our understanding of how different environmental conditions affect particulate pollutant contamination in marine life. The use of fish from the Sphoeroides genus is justified by their status as true estuarine species with a wide distribution along the Brazilian coast, occupying both tropical and subtropical estuaries. Due to the biological characteristics of this genus, S. testudineus was also used in an ecotoxicological study [56] to analyze the gastrointestinal tract. The authors justified this choice by stating that the gastrointestinal tract is the primary absorption route for many pollutants, has connections to other organs, and represents a complex interface between the organism and its environment. For this reason, we also included the gastrointestinal tract in our analyses.
Plastic waste is the most common type of debris found in the ocean. Brazil is the fourth largest producer of plastic waste in the world, generating an average of 11 million tons per year [52]. Based on this, we infer that many of the particles detected in our study are likely microplastics. However, we cannot confirm this, as no polymer detection analysis was conducted. According to Araujo et al. (2018) [57], among the various techniques used for polymer detection in plastic production, Raman spectroscopy is widely applied, although it can also have limitations and disadvantages. Despite this, our overall results challenge the conclusions of Jabeen et al. (2016) [58] who suggested that marine environments typically experience higher concentrations of particulate pollutants compared to freshwater and estuarine environments. When comparing the two estuaries in our study, the Porto Seguro Estuary (tropical region) exhibited a higher number of particulate pollutants (n = 499) and a higher percentage of contaminated fish (95.4%) compared to other tropical studies, such as those by Pegado et al. (2018) and Vendel et al. (2017) [21,24]. However, the Babitonga Bay Estuary (subtropical region) also demonstrated significant contamination, with 100% of the specimens affected and 246 particulate pollutants recorded. These results are comparable to those observed by Arias et al. (2019) [59] in Blanca Bay, Argentina, where 100% of the fish specimens examined contained particulate pollutants (n = 241). The high levels of contamination in Sphoeroides may be attributed to their benthic lifestyle and carnivorous diet [51]. Benthic species, which forage in sediment-dominated environments, are more likely to ingest particulate pollutants along with their prey [60]. Given that 99% of particulate pollutants settle in sediments, benthic organisms, like Sphoeroides, are particularly susceptible to accidental ingestion. Furthermore, this study suggests that particulate pollutants are not only confined to benthic organisms but may also be transferred up the food web, making this an important issue for non-benthic species as well.
This is a notably higher prevalence than reported in other marine studies, such as those by Rummel et al. (2016) in the Baltic Sea (5.5%) [61], Davison and Ach (2011) in the North Pacific Gyre (9.2%) [62], and Lusher et al. (2016) in the Northeast Atlantic (11%) [10]. These results are more in line with the study conducted by Tanaka and Tanaka (2016) [63] in Tokyo Bay, which found particulate pollutants in 77% of analyzed specimens. Logistical constraints prevented us to chemically characterize polymer types. As a result, plastic particle detection was conducted solely through stereomicroscope analysis. This prevents us from gaining a nuanced understanding of the origins and potential long-term consequences of these particles. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that no methodology is 100% efficient. According to Araujo et al. (2018) [57], among the various techniques used for particulate pollutant detection, Raman spectroscopy is widely applied; however, it also has limitations and disadvantages. Raman spectroscopy is prone to fluorescence interference, has an inherently low signal-to-noise ratio, and can cause sample heating due to the use of a laser as a light source, sometimes leading to background emission and subsequent polymer degradation. Consequently, some methodologies may overestimate results, while others may underestimate them. In our study, fish specimens collected from both estuaries were carefully analyzed using the same standardized approach at each location.
The predominance of fibers in marine organisms has been well documented [10,53,64], with possible sources linked to sewage sludge [65], fishing activities, port operations, and the widespread use of fibers in industrial applications [53]. Our results were consistent with these reports in the Babitonga Bay Estuary, where fibers accounted for 58.5% of particulate pollutants. However, in Porto Seguro, a predominance of film-type particulate pollutants was observed (76.8%), which diverges from the general trend. This difference can be attributed to regional variations in the sources of particulate pollutants.
The Babitonga Bay Estuary is located near a densely industrialized area, with significant activity in different sectors, such as metallurgy, textiles, and manufacturing [66]. The surrounding population exceeds one million residents. In addition to the region’s industrial activity, other anthropogenic pressures come from port operations, large-scale fishing, and urbanization [48,67]. Port and fishing activities likely contribute to the high prevalence of fibers in the estuarine system, as these areas are known to be critical points for particulate pollutant contamination. Furthermore, ships discharge ballast water, which may also contribute to the contamination of the bay with particulate waste. In contrast, Porto Seguro is a major tourist destination in Brazil, with a population of 168.326 [48], which increases 6 to 7 times annually due to tourism [68]. The increased population puts significant pressure on local waste management systems, and much of the city’s sewage is released into the estuary without treatment [67]. This inadequate sanitation infrastructure, coupled with high tourist traffic, may explain the high prevalence of film-type particulate pollutants in the Porto Seguro samples. Films are commonly found in plastic packaging materials and food wrappers, which are widely used and discarded by consumers, particularly in tourist-heavy areas.
While many studies have focused on gastrointestinal tract contamination, only a few have examined particulate pollutant accumulation in fish gills. The gills are crucial for respiration and are directly exposed to environmental pollutants. Karami et al. (2017) [53] suggested that particulate pollutants are more likely to adhere to gill filaments, especially when they are smaller in size. Our study found notable particulate pollutant contamination in the gills of Sphoeroides, particularly of the film type, and smaller to intermediate sizes (up to 3 mm) in the Porto Seguro Estuary. This is consistent with findings that suggest particulate pollutants of smaller sizes have a higher likelihood of adhering to gill structures due to their increased surface area and ability to penetrate finer gill filaments [69]. Particulate pollutants in gills may pose a direct threat to fish health, as these particles could impair respiration and possibly cause physical damage or chemical contamination. Our results emphasize the importance of considering gills as a critical organ for particulate pollutant accumulation, especially in environments where small, film-type particulate pollutants are abundant.
Our results indicate varying levels of particulate pollutant contamination within and between tropical and subtropical estuaries, which can affect how the surrounding community interacts with, contributes to, and are affected by current land use and other anthropogenic processes. Addressing how waste is disposed within local communities should be a focus of immediate action to develop tailored approaches to each community, which takes into account local sociodemographic infrastructure, culture and economic activities. Regional studies like this are crucial for initial mapping and for informing the development of localized conservation strategies. By understanding the specific sources and types of particulate pollutants in different estuarine environments, we can design targeted interventions to mitigate pollution in those regions. However, given the global nature of the particulate pollutant crisis, a more coordinated international approach is necessary. A network of researchers focused on aquatic pollution can facilitate broader collaboration, knowledge sharing, and more effective solutions.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the widespread contamination of estuarine ecosystems by particulate pollutants, with significant differences between tropical and subtropical estuaries. The high levels of contamination found in Sphoeroides species, particularly in the gastrointestinal tracts and gills, underscore the need for increased attention to particulate pollutants in estuarine environments. Further research is needed to understand the long-term ecological consequences of particulate pollutant contamination, especially in areas with high anthropic pressure. Moreover, the study draws attention to the need for improved waste management systems and more sustainable tourism practices, especially in regions with high tourist visitation, to mitigate the flow of plastic pollution into these sensitive ecosystems. Solving the particulate pollution problem requires more than just scientific research. It involves addressing the complex relationship between environmental and socioeconomic issues. To make meaningful progress, action must be taken across all sectors; researchers, local communities, industry, the third sector, and governments must collaborate. Only through joint efforts can we hope to reduce particulate pollutant contamination and safeguard aquatic ecosystems for future generations.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study. Conceptualization, S.M.d.S.F. and L.F.F.; methodology, S.M.d.S.F., L.F.F., M.T.G., M.P.d.S. and M.S.; formal analysis, S.M.d.S.F., L.F.F. and J.M.; investigation, L.F.F. and S.M.d.S.F.; resources, L.F.F. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F.F., J.M. and S.M.d.S.F.; writing—review and editing, L.F.F. and J.M.; supervision, M.T.G., M.P.d.S. and M.S.; project administration, L.F.F.; funding acquisition, L.F.F. and J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the ‘Vice-chancellor’s funds for support of research activities’ of the Federal University of Paraná (PRPPG 04/2018 e PRPPG 02/2020). SMSF were financed by and acknowledge the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) (Grant 02).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because when samples were collected, approval from an Ethics Committee for Research was not yet a requirement. Nevertheless, we conducted our work with utmost care and respect for the animals, using a minimal number of specimens and ensuring that they were sacrificed in accordance with established ethical standards and guidelines.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would also like to thank researcher Larissa Ajala Batista for her contribution to the production of the maps.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Einoder, L.D.; MacLeod, C.K.; Coughanowr, C. Metal and isotope analysis of bird feathers in a contaminated estuary reveals bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and potential toxic effects. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2018, 75, 96–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lana, P.C.; Bernardino, A.F. (Eds.) Brazilian Estuaries: A Benthic Perspective; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Paitach, P.L.; Simões-Lopes, P.C.; Cremer, M.J. Tidal and seasonal influences in dolphin habitat use in a southern Brazilian estuary. Sci. Mar. 2017, 81, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vasconcelos, R.P.; Reis-Santos, P.; Costa, M.J.; Cabral, H.N. Connectivity between estuaries and marine environment: Integrating metrics to assess estuarine nursery function. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1123–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Santos, T.A.; Bonfim, T.M.; Silva, F.S.; Silva, A.G.; Bandeira, M.L.S.F.; Jesus, R.M.; Nascimento, L.D. Determination of metals in an estuarine system: Laguncularia racemosa as a potential indicator of contamination. Braz. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 49, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Trevizani, T.H.; Domit, C.; Santos, M.C.O.; Figueira, R.C.L. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in estuaries in the southwest Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 26703–26717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Law, K.L.; Thompson, R.C. Microplastics in the seas. Science 2014, 345, 144–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lebreton, L.C.M.; van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lusher, A.L.; O’Donnell, C.; Officer, R.; O’Connor, I. Microplastic interactions with North Atlantic mesopelagic fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73, 1214–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gokul, T.; Ramesh Kumar, K.; Prema, P.; Arun, A.; Balaji, P.; Faggio, C. Particulate pollution and its toxicity to fish: An overview. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2023, 270, 109646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Haward, M. Plastic pollution of the world’s seas and oceans as a contemporary challenge in ocean governance. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, H.X.; Ma, L.S.; Lin, L.; Ni, Z.X.; Xu, X.R.; Shi, H.H.; Yan, Y.; Zheng, G.M.; Rittschof, D. Microplastics in oysters Saccostrea cucullata along the Pearl River Estuary, China. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. van Sebille, E.; Wilcox, C.; Lebreton, L.; Maximenko, N.; Hardesty, B.D.; van Franeker, J.A.; Eriksen, M.; Siegel, D.; Galgani, F.; Law, K.L. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 124006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bouças da Silva, D.L.; Gil, J.; Nascimento, E.P.; Costa, H.A.; Paixão, R. Poluição plástica no litoral brasileiro: Percepções de gestores de meios de hospedagem sobre consumo de descartáveis. Rev. Bras. Pesqui. Em Tur. 2022, 16, e2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Global Plastic Production. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/ (accessed on 31 March 2025).
  17. Hollman, P.C.H.; Bouwmeester, H.; Peters, R.J.B. Microplastics in Aquatic Food Chain: Sources, Measurement, Occurrence and Potential Health Risks; RIKILT Report; Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; 28p. [Google Scholar]
  18. Krelling, A.P.; Possatto, F.E.; Maia, G.R.A.; Araki, K.; Olivieri, G.B.R.; Nogueira, H.P. First Evidence of High Microplastic Concentrations in Estuarine Litter Windrows of a World Heritage Site: The Paranaguá Estuarine Complex, Brazil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2025, 236, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Menezes, K.M.; da Costa, M.B.; Schuab, J.M.; Dalbó, G.Z.; Alves, M.M.; Ocarisd, E.R.Y.; Rodrigues, F.L. Microplastic contamination in the mangroves of Piraquê-Açu and Piraquê-Mirim rivers, Aracruz (Brazil): An analysis in sediment, water, and biota. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2025, 214, 117696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Parra, D.F.; Gimiliani, G.T.; Dos Santos, J.L.; Wetter, N.U.; Schepis, W.R.; Bereczki, A.; Cotrim, M.E.B. Microplastics in Santos São Vicente estuarine–Hotspot in sediments caused by low energy hydrodynamic events in strongly populated areas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2025, 210, 117286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pegado, T.S.S.; Schmid, K.; Winemiller, K.O.; Chelazzi, D.; Cincinelli, A.; Dei, L.; Giarrizzo, T. First evidence of microplastic ingestion by fishes from the Amazon River estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 814–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Possatto, F.E.; Barletta, M.; Costa, M.F.; Ivar do Sul, J.A.; Dantas, D.V. Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: An unexpected fisheries impact. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1098–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ribeiro, V.V.; Casado-Coy, N.; Rangel, D.F.; Sanz-Lazaro, C.; Castro, Í.B. Microplastic in bivalves of an urbanized Brazilian estuary: Human modification, population density and vegetation influence. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 482, 136546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vendel, A.L.; Bessa, F.; Alves, V.E.N.; Amorim, A.L.A.; Patrício, J.; Palma, A.R.T. Widespread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 117, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Anderson, J.C.; Park, B.J.; Palace, V.P. Microplastics in aquatic environments: Implications for Canadian ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kabir, A.E.; Michon, E.; Mingelbier, M.; Robert, D.; Soubaneh, Y.D.; Xie, H.; Lu, Z. Microplastics in the benthic fish from the Canadian St. Lawrence River and Estuary: Occurrence, spatial distribution and ecological risk assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2025, 212, 117509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sánchez-Paz, A.; Encinas-García, T.; Ávila-Félix, L.; Mendoza-Cano, F. Microplastics in surface waters surrounding a touristic beach at the Gulf of California, Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2025, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bessa, F.; Barría, P.; Neto, J.M.; Frias, J.P.G.L.; Otero, V.; Sobral, P.; Marques, J.C. Occurrence of microplastics in commercial fish from a natural estuarine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 128, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, W.; Guo, S.; Li, B.; Xu, D.; Gao, B. Microplastics in Pearl River Estuary and Yangtze River Estuary, China: Occurrence, fragmentation and pollution risk. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2025, 17, 100529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Goswami, P.; Vinithkumar, N.V.; Dharani, G. First evidence of microplastics bioaccumulation by marine organisms in the Port Blair Bay, Andaman Islands. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 155, 111163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kalangutkar, N.; Mhapsekar, S.; Rajagopal, P. Comparative assessment of microplastic pollution in Terekhol and Sal estuaries, Goa, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 2025, 84, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Foekema, E.M.; de Gruijter, C.; Mergia, M.T.; van Franeker, J.A.; Murk, A.T.J.; Koelmans, A.A. Plastic in North Sea fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 8818–8824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Romeo, T.; Battaglia, P.; Pedá, C.; Consoli, P.; Andaloro, F.; Fossi, M.C. First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95, 358–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sun, X.; Li, Q.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, S.; Liang, J.; Liu, T.; Tian, Z. Characteristics and retention of microplastics in the digestive tracts of fish from the Yellow Sea. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 249, 878–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zaki, M.R.M.; Ying, P.X.; Zainuddin, A.H.; Razak, M.R.; Aris, A.Z. Occurrence, abundance, and distribution of microplastics pollution: An evidence in surface tropical water of Klang River estuary, Malaysia. Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 3733–3748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zaki, M.R.M.; Zaid, S.H.M.; Zainuddin, A.H.; Aris, A.Z. Microplastic pollution in tropical estuary gastropods: Abundance, distribution and potential sources of Klang River estuary, Malaysia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 162, 111866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ribeiro de Sena, S.; de Souza Veiga, R.; De Amorim Silva, V. Análise de áreas de risco à degradação ambiental no município de Porto Seguro, Bahia, Brasil. Braz. J. Phys. Geogr. 2023, 16, 3059–3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akdogan, Z.; Guven, B. Microplastics in the environment: A critical review of current understanding and identification of future research needs. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 113011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sinha, P.; Saini, V.; Varshney, N.; Pandey, R.K.; Jha, H.C. The Infiltration of Microplastics in Human Systems: Gastrointestinal Accumulation and Pathogenic Impacts. Heliyon 2025, 11, e42606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, J.; Peng, J.; Tian, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhan, Z.; Chen, Q.; Cai, L. Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River littoral zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction with heavy metals. Chemosphere 2017, 171, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, L.C.; Lin, J.C.; Dong, C.; Chen, C.; Liu, T. The sorption of persistent organic pollutants in microplastics from the coastal environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 420, 126658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cverenkárová, K.; Valachovicová, M.; Mackul’ak, T.; Žemlicka, L.; Bírošová, L. Microplastics in the food chain. Life 2021, 11, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Carpenter, E.J.; Smith, K.L., Jr. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 1972, 175, 1240–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rummel, C.D.; Jahnke, A.; Gorokhova, E.; Kühnel, D.; Schmitt-Jansen, M. Impacts of biofilm formation on the fate and potential effects of microplastic in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sheraz, M.; Kim, J.; Kim, J. Nano/microplastics in indoor air: A critical review of synthesis routes for toxicity testing and preventative measure strategies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 180, 274–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. VishnuRadhan, R.; Thresyamma, D.D.; Eldho, T.I.; Bhagat, J. Atmospheric plastics- a potential airborne fomite with an emerging climate signature. J. Clim. Change Health 2021, 3, 100037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. IBGE—Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Demographic Census 2022; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  49. Filgueras, A.S.; Silva, T.S.; Corrêa, I.C.S. Impacts of sea level rise and land use on coastal wetlands: Methodology applied to Baía da Babitonga (SC). Soc. Nat. 2023, 36, e69403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mazzer, A.M.; Gonçalves, M.L. Aspectos geomorfológicos da Baía da Babitonga, Santa Catarina, Brazil: Caracterização morfométrica. Rev. Bras. Geomorfol. 2011, 12, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Figueiredo, J.L.; Menezes, N.A. Manual de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. IV. Teleostei (5); Museu de Zoologia-USP: São Paulo, Brazil, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  52. Vargas, J.G.M.; Silva, V.B.; Oliveira, L.K.; Molina, E.F. Microplásticos: Uso na indústria cosmética e impactos no ambiente aquático. Química Nova 2022, 45, 705–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Karami, A.; Golieskardi, A.; Ho, B.Y.; Larat, V.; Salamatinia, B. Microplastics in eviscerated flesh and excised organs of dried fish. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Anderson, M.; Gorley, R.N.; Robert, K.C. Permanova+ for Primer: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods; Primer-E: Plymouth, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2025; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 31 March 2025).
  56. Marinsek, G.P.; Gusso-Choueri, P.K.; Choueri, R.B.; Abessa, D.M.S.; Gonçalves, A.R.N.; Bortolotto, L.B.; Mari, R.B. Integrated analysis of fish intestine biomarkers: Complementary tools for pollution assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 178, 113590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Araujo, C.F.; Nolasco, M.M.; Ribeiro, A.M.P.; Ribeiro-Claro, P.J.A. Identification of microplastics using Raman spectroscopy: Latest developments and future prospects. Water Res. 2018, 142, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jabeen, K.; Su, L.; Li, J.; Yang, D.; Tong, C.; Mu, J.; Shi, H. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 221, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Arias, A.H.; Ronda, A.C.; Oliva, A.L. Evidence of microplastic ingestion by fish from the Bahía Blanca Estuary in Argentina, South America. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 102, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kane, I.A.; Clare, M.A.; Miramontes, E.; Wogelius, R.; Rothwell, J.J.; Garreau, P.; Poh, F. Seafloor microplastic hotspots controlled by deep-sea circulation. Science 2020, 368, 1140–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Rummel, C.D.; Löder, M.G.J.; Fricke, N.F.; Lang, T.; Griebeler, E.M.; Janke, M.; Gerdts, G. Plastic ingestion by pelagic and demersal fish from the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Davison, P.; Asch, R.G. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2011, 432, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tanaka, K.; Takada, H. Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cozar, A.; Echevarría, F.; Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.I.; Irigoien, X.; Ubeda, B.; Hernandez-León, S.; Palma, A.T.; Navarro, S.; Garcia-de-Lomas, J.; Ruiz, A.; et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 10239–10244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Browne, M.A.; Crump, P.; Niven, S.J.; Teuten, E.L.; Tonkin, A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R.C. Accumulations of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: Sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9175–9179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. IPPUJ. Joinville—City in Data; Research and Planning Institute for the Sustainable Development of Joinville: Joinville, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  67. IBGE—Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Demographic Census 2010; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  68. Silva, A.C.R.S.; Bernardes, M.E.C.; Assireu, A.T.; Siegle, E.; Sousa, P.H.G.O.; Brown, D. Hydrodynamics of a tropical estuary: Buranhém River, Porto Seguro, Brazil. Braz. J. Water Resour. 2018, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Batel, A.; Borchert, F.; Reinwald, H.; Erdinger, L.; Braunbeck, T. Microplastic accumulation patterns and transfer of benzo[a]pyrene to adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) gills and zebrafish embryos. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 918–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00300 g001
Figure 1. Map of the study areas: (a) Porto Seguro Estuary, tropical region of northeastern Brazil; (b) Babitonga Bay Estuary, subtropical region of southern Brazil.
Figure 1. Map of the study areas: (a) Porto Seguro Estuary, tropical region of northeastern Brazil; (b) Babitonga Bay Estuary, subtropical region of southern Brazil.
Diversity 17 00300 g001
Diversity 17 00300 g002
Figure 2. Examples of particulate pollutants found adhered to the gastrointestinal tracts (top row) and gills (bottom row) of Sphoeroides from both estuaries. Red circles and arrows showing the region and the particulate pollutant, respectively.
Figure 2. Examples of particulate pollutants found adhered to the gastrointestinal tracts (top row) and gills (bottom row) of Sphoeroides from both estuaries. Red circles and arrows showing the region and the particulate pollutant, respectively.
Diversity 17 00300 g002
Diversity 17 00300 g003
Figure 3. Standardized particulate pollutant content found in each organ (GI tract and gills) between estuaries.
Figure 3. Standardized particulate pollutant content found in each organ (GI tract and gills) between estuaries.
Diversity 17 00300 g003
Table 1. Number of particulate pollutants (PP) (n) per biological sample, in each estuary analyzed. The number in parentheses represents the average number of particulate pollutants, considering the number of samples analyzed.
Table 1. Number of particulate pollutants (PP) (n) per biological sample, in each estuary analyzed. The number in parentheses represents the average number of particulate pollutants, considering the number of samples analyzed.
EstuariesPP Number
GI		PP Number
Gills		Total PP Number
Porto Seguro80 (3.6)419 (19.0)499 (11.3)
Babitonga Bay170 (10.0)76 (5.1)246 (7.3)
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence (FO%) of each particulate pollutant (PP) type (fragment, fiber, film) detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary.
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence (FO%) of each particulate pollutant (PP) type (fragment, fiber, film) detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary.
GI FO% of PP
EstuariesFragment (n)Fiber (n)Film (n)
Porto Seguro13.6%90.9%13.6%
Babitonga Bay64.7%94.1%35.3%
Gill FO% of PP
EstuariesFragment (n)Fiber (n)Film (n)
Porto Seguro4.5%63.6%72.8%
Babitonga Bay33.3%86.7%13.3%
Table 3. Number of each particulate pollutant (PP) type detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary. The number in parentheses represents the percentage of particles relative to the total detected.
Table 3. Number of each particulate pollutant (PP) type detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary. The number in parentheses represents the percentage of particles relative to the total detected.
GI—Types of PP
EstuariesFragment (n)Fiber (n)Film (n)Total (n)
Porto Seguro4 (5%)70 (87.5%)6 (7.5%)80
Babitonga Bay47 (27.7%)99 (58.2%)24 (14.1%)170
Gill—Types of PP
EstuariesFragment (n)Fiber (n)Film (n)Total
Porto Seguro1 (0.2%)41 (9.8%)377 (90%)419
Babitonga Bay10 (13.2%)45 (59.2%)21 (27.6%)76
Table 4. Frequency of occurrence (FO%) of particulate pollutants (PP) by type and size class (≤1 mm, 1.1–3 mm, 3.1–5 mm) detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary.
Table 4. Frequency of occurrence (FO%) of particulate pollutants (PP) by type and size class (≤1 mm, 1.1–3 mm, 3.1–5 mm) detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary.
GI FO% of the Sizes (mm) of PP Types
Fragment Fiber Film
Estuary≤11.1–33.1–5≤11.1–33.1–5≤11.1–33.1–5
Porto Seguro9%04.5%59.1%59.1%54.5%13.6%4.5%0
Babitonga Bay41.2%29.4%11.8%70.6%70.6%64.7%035.3%11.8%
Gill FO% of the Sizes (mm) of PP Types
Fragment Fiber Film
Estuary≤11.1–3 3.1–5 ≤11.1–33.1–5 ≤11.1–33.1–5
Porto Seguro04.5%027.3%45.5%50%63.6%54.5%40.9%
Babitonga Bay33.3%6.7%6.7%73.3%33.3%53.3%013.3%6.7%
Table 5. Number of particulate pollutants (PP) by type and size class (≤1 mm, 1.1–3 mm, 3.1–5 mm) detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary. The number in parentheses represents the percentage of each size class in relation to the total for each pollutant type.
Table 5. Number of particulate pollutants (PP) by type and size class (≤1 mm, 1.1–3 mm, 3.1–5 mm) detected in the gastrointestinal tract and gill biological samples of Sphoeroides from each estuary. The number in parentheses represents the percentage of each size class in relation to the total for each pollutant type.
GI—Sizes of the PP Types (mm)
Fragment Fiber Film
Estuary≤11–33.1–5≤11–33.1–5≤11–33.1–5
Porto Seguro3 (75%)01 (25%)29 (41.4%)25 (35.8%)16 (22.8%)5 (83.3%)1 (16.7%)0
Babitonga Bay22 (46.8%)14 (29.8%)11 (23.4%)47 (47.5%)23 (23.2%)29 (29.3%)020 (83.3%)4 (16.7%)
Gill—Sizes of the PP types (mm)
Fragment Fiber Film
Estuary≤11–3 3.1–5 ≤11–33.1–5 ≤11–3 3.1–5
Porto Seguro01 (100%)011 (26.8%)18 (43.9%)12 (29.3%)194 (51.4%)162 (43%)21 (5.6%)
Babitonga Bay6 (60%)3 (30%)1 (10%)19 (42.2%)17 (37.8%)9 (20%)015 (71.4%)6 (28.6%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Filho, S.M.d.S.; Grassi, M.T.; dos Santos, M.P.; Morimoto, J.; Soeth, M.; Fávaro, L.F. Differential Accumulation of Particulate Pollutants in Gills and Gastrointestinal Tracts in Sphoeroides Fish from Tropical and Subtropical Estuaries in Brazil. Diversity 2025, 17, 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040300

AMA Style

Filho SMdS, Grassi MT, dos Santos MP, Morimoto J, Soeth M, Fávaro LF. Differential Accumulation of Particulate Pollutants in Gills and Gastrointestinal Tracts in Sphoeroides Fish from Tropical and Subtropical Estuaries in Brazil. Diversity. 2025; 17(4):300. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040300

Chicago/Turabian Style

Filho, Sérgio Murilo de Souza, Marco Tadeu Grassi, Mayara Padovan dos Santos, Juliano Morimoto, Marcelo Soeth, and Luís Fernando Fávaro. 2025. "Differential Accumulation of Particulate Pollutants in Gills and Gastrointestinal Tracts in Sphoeroides Fish from Tropical and Subtropical Estuaries in Brazil" Diversity 17, no. 4: 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040300

APA Style

Filho, S. M. d. S., Grassi, M. T., dos Santos, M. P., Morimoto, J., Soeth, M., & Fávaro, L. F. (2025). Differential Accumulation of Particulate Pollutants in Gills and Gastrointestinal Tracts in Sphoeroides Fish from Tropical and Subtropical Estuaries in Brazil. Diversity, 17(4), 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17040300

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop