Next Article in Journal
Engaging Industry in Health Professions’ Education: Benefits and Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Association between Musculoskeletal Injuries and Depressive Symptoms among Athletes: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inhibition Effect of Ionic Liquid [Hmim]Cl on Microcystis Growth and Toxin Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 12
10.3390/ijerph20126132
ijerph-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Riverine Microplastic Pollution: Insights from Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines

by
Aiza D. Gabriel
1,
Ruben F. Amparado, Jr.
1,2,
Arnold A. Lubguban
3,4 and
Hernando P. Bacosa
1,4,*
1
Environmental Science Graduate Program, Department of Biological Sciences, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Tibanga, Iligan City 9200, Philippines
2
Premier Research Institute of Science and Mathematics, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Tibanga, Iligan City 9200, Philippines
3
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Tibanga, Iligan City 9200, Philippines
4
Environmental Pollution and Innovation Laboratory, Center for Sustainable Polymers, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Tibanga, Iligan City 9200, Philippines
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(12), 6132; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126132
Submission received: 31 March 2023 / Revised: 27 May 2023 / Accepted: 12 June 2023 / Published: 15 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Pollution and Ecological Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Rivers are vital water sources for humans and homes for aquatic organisms. Conversely, they are well known as the route of plastics into the ocean. Despite being the world’s number one emitter of riverine plastics into the ocean, microplastics (MPs), or plastic particles less than 5 mm, in the Philippines’ rivers are relatively unexplored. Water samples were collected from six sampling stations along the river channel of the Cagayan de Oro River, one of the largest rivers in Northern Mindanao, Philippines. The extracted microplastics’ abundance, distribution, and characteristics were analyzed using a stereomicroscope and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The results showed a mean concentration of 300 items/m3 of MPs dominated by blue-colored (59%), fiber (63%), 0.3–0.5 mm (44%), and polyacetylene (48%) particles. The highest concentration of microplastics was recorded near the mouth of the river, and the lowest was in the middle area. The findings indicated a significant difference in MP concentration at the sampling stations. This study is the first assessment of microplastic in a river in Mindanao. The results of this study will aid in formulating mitigation strategies for reducing riverine plastic emissions.

1. Introduction

Plastics advance several societal sectors and improve our quality of life due to their various uses. These include packaging, coatings, adhesives, fabrics, transportation, construction, biomedicine, organic electronics, and nanotechnology [1,2]. Plastic production continues to increase due to its low density, strength, user-friendly design, fabrication capabilities, and, most importantly, low cost [3,4,5]. In addition, the plastic industry has a vital part to play in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) since it generates thousands of job opportunities essential to combatting extreme poverty (SDG 1), which can also impact the other SDGs [6]. However, despite their advantages, plastics are often treated only as disposable commodities, which comes with a significant drawback: waste accumulation [2,6].
When managed appropriately, freshwater ecosystems offer essential ecosystem services to humans such as fish production, water supply, nutrient transport, and recreational value [7,8]. Though the planet comprises about 70% water, only 2.5% is freshwater [9,10]. Freshwater resources on our planet are sparse, but they are, nonetheless, in danger of contamination. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), freshwater pollution comes from various sources: power generation, heavy industry, automobiles, municipal, industrial, agricultural, wastewater, fertilizer runoff, and others. Freshwater and marine ecosystems share many similar causes of plastic pollution, including inefficient waste management and improper disposal from residential, industrial, and farming practices, generating plastics that will eventually end up in lakes, rivers, and streams [11]. Additionally, most marine plastics are presumed to be transferred from the land to the ocean via rivers [12,13,14]; however, the plastic pollution in the riverine system in the Philippines is poorly documented.
Plastic pollution is a persistent problem in every country globally, and has increased dramatically for 50 years and impacts living and nonliving ecosystem components [15,16]. In freshwater and marine environments, 80% comes from land-based sources, and the remaining 20% from ocean-based sources such as fishing nets and fishing ropes [17,18]. When exposed to the environment, plastics undergo various weathering processes, which include mechanical fragmentation, photo-degradation, thermal-degradation, and biodegradation [19,20,21,22]. The mechanical and physicochemical properties of these plastics give rise to deterioration and the formation of plastic fragments, known as microplastics (MPs) when their size is less than 5 mm [23,24]. One of the primary sources of plastic pollution in the marine environment is the rivers, which can act as a sink [13,25]. The estimate of the yearly global intake of plastic into the oceans from rivers ranges from 1.15 to 2.41 million tons, with rivers on the Asian continent contributing the majority of this amount [26]. On the other hand, based on the model estimations of Meijer et al. [27], the global annual emissions range between 0.8 million and 2.7 million metric tons per year. With this data, they estimate that there are more than 1000 rivers accounting for 80% of the global annual emission of plastics, wherein the most polluting are those small urban rivers. These model estimations are valuable, yet actual field data are still necessary to validate these findings.
The Philippines is ranked as the third largest emitter of plastic waste into the ocean and the most significant contributor to plastic emissions from riverine sources [27,28]. Plastic litter or macroplastics has been documented in seagrass beds [29], on beaches [30,31,32,33], on seabeds [34], and in riverine systems [35,36]. Persistent plastics can be estimated to degrade over a hundred years; however, they can disintegrate into microplastics (less than 5 mm) and nanoplastics (less than 100 nm) over shorter periods, making it easier for biota to absorb them throughout the food chain [37,38]. Rivers are also prone to the same sources of microplastic as marine habitats, and there is little water for dilution, implying a high concentration of microplastic in the rivers [39]. Most plastic additives in plastics, such as plasticizers, flame retardants, antioxidants, and heavy metals, are not chemically adhered; they can leach and increase the ecotoxicological hazard to aquatic organisms [40,41,42]. Additionally, microplastic contamination has spread to various food products in recent years, directly compromising human health [43,44,45]. Furthermore, they may be potential carriers for spreading bacteria, viruses, organic contaminants, and marine microbes, including antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) [46,47,48]. Despite the serious implications of microplastics, research about them is still in its earliest phases due to methodological and technological constraints [49]. The immediate response was to ban single-use plastic to control the sources of plastic pollution; however, environmental control technology for microplastic is still lacking.
Microplastics can be categorized as primary and secondary microplastics. Primary microplastics, such as those found in facial cleansers and cosmetics, are microscopic when manufactured. Secondary microplastics are produced when huge plastic waste is fragmented through physical, biological, and chemical processes [50,51,52]. Since microplastics are known as emerging contaminants, it has become a concern recently [53]. In the Philippines, microplastics were documented in the marine coastal environment [30,53,54,55,56,57,58], in freshwaters [59,60,61,62], in mangroves [63], in the air [64], and also in the digestive tracts of a variety of organisms [56,65] which conveys the prevalence of microplastics in various environments. Although the Philippines is a prominent plastic polluter from rivers to the ocean [27,35,36,66], the microplastics in rivers are less explored than in the marine environment.
Cagayan de Oro City is a first-class, highly urbanized city in Northern Mindanao, Philippines. It is undergoing rapid commercial, residential, and industrial expansion and is considered an economic hotspot that links agro-based products of neighboring provinces to the country’s central economic institutions in metropolitan cities such as Manila, Cebu, and even abroad [67]. It has a total population of 728,402, with a growth rate of 1.58% (2020 Census of Population and Housing). The Cagayan de Oro River, the study’s focus, is known as the “Whitewater Rafting Capital in the Philippines” since it offers year-round rafting, making it more popular with tourists. It has enormous economic and environmental significance and potential as it serves as a water supply for domestic, industrial, agricultural settings, and for hydroelectric power generation [68]. However, it is also one of five river systems that the country’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources–Environment Management Bureau (DENR–EMB) has identified as biologically threatened [69]. Based on the study undertaken by Meijer et al. [70], the Cagayan de Oro River ranked 32nd (3.6 × 103 metric tons/year) of the top 50 plastic-emitting rivers into the ocean globally. Exposed plastics may degrade into microplastics, and the fact that people who lived close to rivers rely on river life forms, including fish, snails, and plants, for sustenance and household consumption [71] makes it more alarming, highlighting the dire need for this study. However, the extent of microplastic pollution in this ecologically important river has not been systematically studied yet.
In this study, we hypothesized that the lowest microplastic concentrations would be relatively low upstream of the Cagayan de Oro River and higher downstream due to increasing anthropogenic activities. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the abundance, concentration, and distribution of microplastics in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River. Specifically, this study aimed to: (a) quantify the microplastic concentrations at the six sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River; and (b) determine the color, shape, size, and polymer types of microplastics in the Cagayan de Oro River.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted along the Cagayan de Oro River, located in Northern Mindanao. It is part of a river system that drains into the northern central part of Mindanao. The river’s headwaters are situated in the Kalatungan Mountain Range, which is in the central part of the province of Bukidnon [69,72]. It traverses through Talakag, Baungon, and Libona municipalities, filling up tributaries. It finally drains into Macajalar Bay at Cagayan de Oro City in the province of Misamis Oriental [69].

2.1. Sampling

This study established six sampling stations, with three sampling points in each station perpendicular to the river channel (Figure 1, Table 1). Two sampling points were established separately within five meters of the riverbanks and one point at the center. Stations 1, 2, and 3 (S1–S3) were established at barangay Macasandig with 3743/km2 population density, Station 4 (S4) at barangay Nazareth with 10,002/km2 population density, Station 5 (S5) at barangay Kauswagan with 8167/km2 population density, and Station 6 (S6) at barangay Puntod with 13,412/km2 population density. Barangay Puntod has the highest population density while barangay Macasandig has the lowest. From upstream (S1) to downstream (S6), each station was situated around 1.9 km apart (Figure 1).
We used an inflatable boat to travel to every station. Surface water samples were collected on 15 December 2022, following the methods of Osorio et al. [62] with minor modifications, such as increasing the number of sampling points from one sampling point to three and using a 0.3-mm metal sieve instead of different sizes. Three water samples were collected at each station since there may be variations in microplastic concentration across the channel [73]. A total of 180 L (0.18 m3) of water samples were collected across all stations using a stainless steel bucket [62,74], and taking a 10 L (0.01 m3) sample from each point at a depth of up to 50 cm. The samples were immediately sieved through a 0.3-mm metal sieve and rinsed with distilled water while being collected in a labeled glass bottle [75,76]. The mouths of the glass bottles were covered with aluminum foil before being sealed with a cap to limit light exposure and contamination. Water samples secured in an ice box were carried to the laboratory and kept in the dark pending further analysis.

2.2. Microplastic Extraction and Identification

The sieved samples were placed in a beaker and 10% KOH was added, twice the sample’s volume, to digest the organic matter. The samples were heated to 60 °C for 24 h in the oven. After digestion, the supernatant liquid was vacuum filtered using a 40 mm diameter Whatman GF/C glass filter. The remaining sample with solids underwent density separation for at least 2 h to float the less dense microplastics by adding 30% NaCl solution, twice the volume of the remaining sample. The supernatant carrying microplastics was vacuum filtered again using a Whatman GF/C glass filter. All filter papers used during vacuum filtration were placed in a clean petri dish and dried. The dried filter papers were visually inspected using a stereomicroscope (40× magnification) to classify the suspected microplastics according to color and shape under the criteria set by previous research [77,78]. The suspected microplastics were mounted in between two clean and labeled glass slides using a clean needle and measured afterward. Similar to the method employed by Abidli et al. [79] and Toumi et al. [80], a stereomicroscope with calibrated ocular micrometer was used to measure the size of the suspected microplastics. After microscopy, the suspected microplastics were subjected to Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis (Shimadzu IRTracer-100) to classify polymer type. This method is the most cost-effective way to obtain information regarding particle quantities, polymer types, and sizes [81]. According to Tirkey and Upadhyay [82], FTIR is possibly the best technique for chemical characterization aside from Raman spectroscopy. Compared to Raman spectroscopy with a lower detection threshold (down to 1 μm), FTIR is less time-consuming [81,83]. Additionally, the FTIR method is accurate, does not damage the samples, and produces spectra; however, it has a limited detection threshold that is only feasible for particles up to 20 μm.

2.3. Quality Control

Before proper laboratory work, we ensured the laboratory glassware was thoroughly washed and rinsed with distilled water to remove contaminants. Every sample preparation process involved including one control group to confirm the validity of the data collected. Background contamination in the air was also tested through wet filter paper in a petri dish, and no contamination occurred.

2.4. Data Analysis

The microplastic concentration was expressed in items per m3. The data were first tested with a normality test using the Shapiro–Wilk test. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if significant differences were present at the six sampling stations. Tukey’s test for pairwise mean comparisons was used after testing for significance in the ANOVA test at the 95% significance level. Statistical analyses were employed using the PAST software version 4.12b.

3. Results

All six sampling stations were contaminated with microplastics, which varied in abundance (Table 1). From a total of 90 suspected microplastics that were extracted, 54 (60%) were confirmed to be microplastics after FTIR analysis. Across all the stations, we recorded a mean concentration of 300 items/m3 MPs in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River. The highest number of MPs with 18 items was at S6, which was close to the mouth of the river, followed by S5 with 17 items, S2 with eight items, S1 with six items, S4 with three items, while the lowest was at S3 (middle) with two items (Table 1). No pattern was observed across all the stations, but it is still evident that the downstream has three times more MPs than were found in the upstream. Figure 2 shows images of the microplastics extracted from the Cagayan de Oro River, along with the stations where they were taken and their sizes. The highest concentration of MPs was detected at S6 (600 ± 57.74 items/m3) in barangay Puntod, located downstream near Macajalar Bay. At the station, we observed several pump boats that people use for their livelihood for fishing and transportation, suggesting more anthropogenic activities in the area. Station 6 was situated between two barangays that were connected by a path made possible by the use of pump boats. The second highest concentration was found at S5, located in barangay Kauswagan with 566.7 ± 83.89 items/m3, followed by S2 located in barangay Macasandig with 266.7 ± 50.92 items/m3, S1 located also in barangay Macasandig with 200 ± 66.67 items/m3, and S4 located in barangay Nazareth with 100 ± 57.74 items/m3. Meanwhile, the lowest concentration of MPs was found at S3 (middle), located in barangay Macasandig, with 66.7 ± 19.25 items/m3. Station 3 was observed to have only a few settlements near the river and was not accessible compared to the other stations. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) present at the six sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines. Through the Tukey test (p < 0.05), we confirmed that S5 (566.7 ± 83.89 items/m3) and S6 (600 ± 57.74 items/m3) were significantly higher than S3 (66.7 ± 19.25 items/m3) and also S6 (600 ± 57.74 items/m3) was significantly higher compared to S4 (100 ± 57.74 items/m3). Conversely, there is no significant difference between S6 and S1; however, it is observed that S6 has three times more MP concentration compared to S1, suggesting that there are more MPs downstream than upstream.
Extracted MPs were documented and classified based on color, shape, size, and polymer types. As shown in Figure 3, dominant MPs in the Cagayan de Oro River based on the four properties are blue-colored (59%), fiber (63%), 0.3–0.5 mm (44%), and polyacetylene (48%). Blue-colored MP has the highest concentration of 177.8 items/m3, accounting for 59% of the total MPs. Red-colored MP has the second highest concentration of 44.4 items/m3, accounting for 15% of the total MPs, and is comparable to white-colored MPs with 33.3 items/m3, accounting for 11% of the total MPs. Transparent and brown-colored MPs are comparable, with concentrations of 22.2 items/m3 (7%) and 16.7 items/m3 (6%), respectively. The lowest concentration is black-colored MPs, with only 5.6 items/m3 accounting for 2% of the total MPs. We observed that blue and red MPs were present at all stations. Conversely, black-colored MPs were only observed at S1.
Figure 3B and Figure 4B show that fibers have the highest concentration, totaling 188.9 items/m3 and accounting for 63% of the total MPs. The filament has the second highest concentration, with 77.8 items/m3 accounting for 26% of the total. In addition, the filament is about two times more than the lowest concentration, fragment (33.3 items/m3), accounting for 11% of the total MPs. Microplastics were also classified into four size fractions: 0.3–0.5 mm, 0.5–1.0 mm, 1.0–2.5, and 2.5–5.0 mm (Figure 3C and Figure 4C). The most prevalent sizes were 0.3–0.5 mm with 133.3 items/m3 accounting for 44%, followed by 1.0–2.5 mm with 77.8 items/m3 (26%), 0.5–1.0 mm with 66.7 items/m3 (22%), and 2.5–5.0 mm with 22.2 items/m3 (7%). On the other hand, FTIR results confirmed five polymer types in this study: polyacetylene, polyester, polyurethane, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyamide (Figure 5). Their concentrations are 144.4 items/m3, 105.6 items/m3, 38.9 items/m3, 5.6 items/m3, and 5.6 items/m3, accounting for 48%, 35%, 13%, 2%, and 2%, respectively. Polyacetylene has the highest concentration found present at all sampling stations. Polyester has the second highest concentration and was also present at all stations. On the other hand, polyurethane was only identified at S1 and S6, while polyethylene terephthalate and polyamide were only identified at S5.

4. Discussion

We identified that the microplastic concentrations at S6 and S5, located downstream near the mouth of the river, were significantly higher than at S3, which was situated in the middle, and S6 was also significantly higher than S4. There was no significant difference between S6 and S1; however, S6 (downstream) had three times more microplastic than S1 (upstream). The results were similar to the study conducted by Tang et al. [84] in the Songhua River, China, and Buwono et al. [85] in the Brantas River, Indonesia, which also observed that there were higher microplastic concentrations downstream than upstream due to human interference and possible accumulation at the river mouth. Moreover, according to Requiron and Bacosa [35], the closer the sampling point is to the river mouth, the higher the possibility of accumulating plastic litter.
We also observed that the accumulation of microplastic is related to population density since S6, located in barangay Puntod with the highest population density, also has the highest microplastic concentration. In contrast, S3, located in barangay Macasandig with the lowest population density, accumulates the lowest microplastic concentration. Based on the study conducted by Ta and Babel [86], there is a direct correlation between population density and microplastic abundance in the river. In relation to this, anthropogenic activities are closely related to microplastic contamination [87]. At S6, a residential area, the river portion is used for various purposes, including fishing and transportation via pump boat to nearby barangays. Conversely, S3, a non-residential area, has no intensive anthropogenic activities observed.
Compared to other studies, the mean concentration in the Cagayan de Oro River, which is 300 items/m3, is considered the lowest among the rivers documented in the Philippines (Table 2). It is also expected since the Pasig River, Parañaque River, Meycauayan River, and Tullahan River were listed as top plastic emitters based on the study conducted by Meijer et al. [27]. Compared to other rivers in China, our study is higher than the study conducted by Mai et al. [88] at the Pearl River Delta and lower than that of Lin et al. [89] along the Pearl River. These variations may be due to methodological approach differences, such as using different mesh or pore sizes during sample collection. Smaller mesh or pore size can collect smaller plastic particles, thereby higher microplastic concentration. In this study, we used a 0.3 mm mesh sieve. In comparison with the other studies with similar mesh or pore sizes, such as the studies conducted along the Gave de Pau River (France), the Surabaya River (Indonesia), the Ofanta River (Italy), and the Pearl Delta River (China), the Cagayan de Oro River has the highest microplastic concentration suggesting regional variation depending on plastic emissions.
Extracted microplastics were classified based on color, shape, size, and polymer type. These properties are potentially relevant to their ecotoxicity; however, changes still depend on environmental conditions and degradation pathways [94].
Blue-colored microplastic was the most dominant color found in the study, which was consistent with the findings of Arcadio et al. [60] in Laguna de Bay, Navarro et al. [63] in Butuan Bay, and Sajorne et al. [30] in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Previous research revealed that blue-colored MPs were one of the colors highly associated with ropes, safeguard lines, and fishing materials [95,96]. In addition, sources of blue MPs could be linked to plastic and packaging products with long lifespans [47]. Usually, colored MPs are commonly used in packaging, clothing materials, and many other applications [97]. Consequently, studies found that fish seem to mistakenly ingest blue microplastics similar to their copepod prey [98,99]. Ingestion of MPs by aquatic organisms starts harmful effects on gut microbiota [100,101]. A recent study in China showed that various aquatic organisms in the area had been found to consume an average number of MPs ranging from 0.07 particles to 164 particles per individual in different organisms [100]. According to Egbeocha et al. [102], microplastic ingestion can cause endocrine disorders in adult fish, which leads to neoplasia via epigenetic programming. By identifying colors, sources of MPs may also be determined [97].
In terms of shape, the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines, was dominated by fiber MPs, similar to the study conducted along the Pearl River, China, which accounted for 94.4% of the total [89]. In addition, microplastic studies in the Philippines such as the study undertaken by Arcadio et al. [60] in Laguna de Bay, Navarro et al. [63] in Butuan Bay, and Sajorne et al. [30] on Puerto Princesa Beach, Palawan were all dominated by fiber MPs. One of the causes of the release of fiber MP is washing a garment that can shed more than 1900 fibers per wash, releasing more than 100 fibers per liter of effluent [55]. Fish cages, fishing equipment, and nylon rope deterioration are also significant sources of MP fibers [96]. Studies have shown several negative impacts of MP fibers on aquatic organisms, such as tissue damage, reduced growth, severe intestinal toxicity, and even mortality [103,104]. This can lead to a reduced fish catch, affecting the livelihoods of the local populations, or worse, microplastic-contaminated fish could be eaten by humans.
The most dominant size range of MPs found in the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines was 0.3–0.5 mm. This is comparable to the study conducted by Faulstich et al. [105] in the sediments of the Namibian River, Namibia where this size range comprised 33.7% of the total MPs. In addition, the study conducted in the Tamsui River also identified 0.3–5 mm size range particles [106]. Different size ranges of MPs represent different pathways for MP exposure and impacts on organisms [107].
Polyacetylene was present at all six sampling stations established in the study area. Recent studies also found polyacetylene in rivers and other environments [108,109,110,111]. It is a conductive polymer that is used as a doping agent for manufacturing various electronic devices due to its thin and stretchable characteristics [112]. Polyester, found in the second-highest level of abundance in the study, was also found at all stations. During the fieldwork, we observed locals washing their clothes in the river. It can be attributed to the presence of polyester since previous research revealed that even delicate hand washing of clothes releases microfiber polyester [113].
Aside from anthropogenic activities, variations in levels of microplastics may be affected by other factors. The previous study confirmed that rainfall significantly increased microplastic concentration [114]. Days before our sampling, rainfall occurred, possibly affecting the MP concentration in the area, and this needs further investigation. Aside from that, hydrodynamic conditions significantly affected the microplastic distribution through the construction of water conservancy hubs and changes in the river’s width [115]. We noticed a higher MP concentration at the stations with wider river widths and vice versa.

5. Conclusions

Our study revealed that all six sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines, were contaminated with microplastics. Higher MP concentrations were observed at Station 6, located downstream near Macajalar Bay, compared to stations found upstream and midstream. Aside from the anthropogenic activities, we also observed that river width affects MPs concentration. The largest river width was identified as having the highest concentration of MPs and vice versa. This study imparts the first documented evidence of the abundance, distribution, and composition of microplastics in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines, and the first among the rivers in Mindanao, the second largest island in the Philippines. The river is an essential resource for humans and aquatic organisms. Determining pollutants such as microplastics or having baseline data such as documented in the current study will help in achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, or clean water and sanitation, by informing people, especially policymakers and stakeholders, to take immediate action. This data will help them create new prevention strategies or update existing policies guided by scientific evidence. Furthermore, re-evaluation and stringent enforcement of plastic legislation and the imposition of fines for illegal dumping are encouraged to minimize plastic accumulation, plastic degradation, and detrimental effects on aquatic organisms as well as on humans. Aside from immediate action by policymakers and stakeholders, residents may help address the increasing plastic waste problem by using biodegradable alternatives to plastics and adhering to basic waste management and disposal practices. Adherence to plastic ordinances, such as the recently passed “Single-Use Plastic Ban”, to prevent additional plastic being transported to rivers and other aquatic environments will be highly beneficial.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.G. and H.P.B.; methodology, A.D.G., A.A.L. and H.P.B.; software, A.D.G. and H.P.B.; validation, H.P.B., A.A.L. and R.F.A.J.; formal analysis, A.D.G.; investigation, A.D.G. and H.P.B.; resources, A.D.G., A.A.L. and H.P.B.; data curation, A.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D.G.; writing—review and editing, H.P.B. and R.F.A.J.; visualization, A.D.G. and H.P.B.; supervision, H.P.B., A.A.L. and R.F.A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Department of Science and Technology—Accelerated Science and Technology Human Resource Development Program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to acknowledge the support from the Department of Science and Technology through the Accelerated Science and Technology Human Resource Development Program (ASTHRDP) scholarship program. We thank Rey Capangpangan, Sherley Ann Inocente, and Joanna Mea Celmar for their input and suggestions. We also thank the Center for Sustainable Polymers, Mindanao State University–Iligan Institute of Technology for the assistance in analyzing the samples’ polymer type.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Horton, A.A. Plastic Pollution: When Do We Know Enough? J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 422, 126885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Moad, G.; Solomon, D.H. The Critical Importance of Adopting Whole-of-Life Strategies for Polymers and Plastics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bajt, O. From Plastics to Microplastics and Organisms. FEBS Open Bio 2021, 11, 954–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Balakrishnan, P.; Sreekala, M.S. Recycling of Plastics. In Recycling of Polymers: Methods, Characterization, and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mitrano, D.M.; Wagner, M. A Sustainable Future for Plastics Considering Material Safety and Preserved Value. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021, 7, 71–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. de Sousa, F.D.B. The Role of Plastic Concerning the Sustainable Development Goals: The Literature Point of View. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021, 3, 100020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Durance, I.; Bruford, M.W.; Chalmers, R.; Chappell, N.A.; Christie, M.; Cosby, B.J.; Noble, D.; Ormerod, S.J.; Prosser, H.; Weightman, A.; et al. The Challenges of Linking Ecosystem Services to Biodiversity. In Advances in Ecological Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 54, pp. 87–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vári, Á.; Podschun, S.A.; Erős, T.; Hein, T.; Pataki, B.; Iojă, I.-C.; Adamescu, C.M.; Gerhardt, A.; Gruber, T.; Dedić, A.; et al. Freshwater Systems and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Chances for Cross-Fertilization of Disciplines. Ambio 2022, 51, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Otieno, M.O. How much of the Earth is covered by freshwater? World Atlas. Available online: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-much-of-the-earth-is-covered-by-freshwater.html (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  10. Román-Palacios, C.; Moraga-López, D.; Wiens, J.J. The Origins of Global Biodiversity on Land, Sea and Freshwater. Ecol. Lett. 2022, 25, 1376–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Superio, M.D.A.; Abreo, N.A.S. Plastic in Freshwater Ecosytems: A Looming Crisis in the Philippines. Philipp. Sci. Lett. 2020, 13, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  12. van Emmerik, T.; Strady, E.; Kieu-Le, T.-C.; Nguyen, L.; Gratiot, N. Seasonality of Riverine Macroplastic Transport. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. van Emmerik, T.; Mellink, Y.; Hauk, R.; Waldschläger, K.; Schreyers, L. Rivers as Plastic Reservoirs. Front. Water 2022, 3, 786936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vriend, P.; van Calcar, C.; Kooi, M.; Landman, H.; Pikaar, R.; van Emmerik, T. Rapid Assessment of Floating Macroplastic Transport in the Rhine. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ahmad, J.; Majdi, A.; Babeker Elhag, A.; Deifalla, A.F.; Soomro, M.; Isleem, H.F.; Qaidi, S. A Step towards Sustainable Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste in Concrete: Overview on Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis. Crystals 2022, 12, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Iroegbu, A.O.C.; Ray, S.S.; Mbarane, V.; Bordado, J.C.; Sardinha, J.P. Plastic Pollution: A Perspective on Matters Arising: Challenges and Opportunities. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 19343–19355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Sebille, E.; Spathi, C.; Gilbert, A. The Ocean Plastic Pollution Challenge: Towards Solutions in the UK; Technical Report; Imperial College London: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  18. Widyaningrum, S.; Alkyana, M.S.; Kartini, E. Indonesia Strategy to Reduce Land-Based Sources Pollution to Achieve the SDG Target on Life below Water; AIP Publishing: South Tangerang, Indonesia, 2022; p. 070008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, L.; Chiu, M.-H.; Xu, C.; Lin, P.; Schwehr, K.A.; Bacosa, H.; Kamalanathan, M.; Quigg, A.; Chin, W.-C.; Santschi, P.H. The Effects of Sunlight on the Composition of Exopolymeric Substances and Subsequent Aggregate Formation during Oil Spills. Mar. Chem. 2018, 203, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Duan, J.; Bolan, N.; Li, Y.; Ding, S.; Atugoda, T.; Vithanage, M.; Sarkar, B.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Kirkham, M.B. Weathering of Microplastics and Interaction with Other Coexisting Constituents in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. Water Res. 2021, 196, 117011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bacosa, H.P.; Ancla, S.M.B.; Arcadio, C.G.L.A.; Dalogdog, J.R.A.; Ellos, D.M.C.; Hayag, H.D.A.; Jarabe, J.G.P.; Karim, A.J.T.; Navarro, C.K.P.; Palma, M.P.I.; et al. From Surface Water to the Deep Sea: A Review on Factors Affecting the Biodegradation of Spilled Oil in Marine Environment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Andrady, A.L. Weathering and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in the Ocean Environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 180, 113761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tan, E.; Jaafar, N.F.; Aileen Tan, S.H.; Mohd Zanuri, N.B. A Review of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution towards the Malaysian Marine Environment. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1013, 012012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, K.; Hamidian, A.H.; Tubić, A.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, J.K.H.; Wu, C.; Lam, P.K.S. Understanding Plastic Degradation and Microplastic Formation in the Environment: A Review. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 274, 116554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Winton, D.J.; Anderson, L.G.; Rocliffe, S.; Loiselle, S. Macroplastic Pollution in Freshwater Environments: Focusing Public and Policy Action. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 704, 135242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lebreton, L.C.M.; van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.-W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River Plastic Emissions to the World’s Oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Meijer, L.J.J.; van Emmerik, T.; van der Ent, R.; Schmidt, C.; Lebreton, L. More than 1000 Rivers Account for 80% of Global Riverine Plastic Emissions into the Ocean. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eaaz5803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gaboy, S.M.M.; Guihawan, J.Q.; Leopardas, V.E.; Bacosa, H.P. Unravelling Macroplastic Pollution in Seagrass Beds of Iligan City, Mindanao, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 185, 114233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sajorne, R.E.; Cayabo, G.D.B.; Gajardo, L.J.A.; Mabuhay-Omar, J.A.; Creencia, L.A.; Bacosa, H.P. Disentangling Microplastic Pollution on Beach Sand of Puerto Princesa, Palawan Island, Philippines: Abundance and Characteristics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Acot, F.T.; Sajorne, R.E.; Omar, N.-A.K.; Suson, P.D.; Rallos, L.E.E.; Bacosa, H.P. Unraveling Macroplastic Pollution in Rural and Urban Beaches in Sarangani Bay Protected Seascape, Mindanao, Philippines. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Inocente, S.A.; Bacosa, H. Assessment of Macroplastic Pollution on Selected Tourism Beaches of Barobo, Surigao Del Sur, Philippines. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2022, 11, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Morales, I.D.G.; Macusi, E.D.; Jondonero, M.A.P.; Guihawan, J.Q.; Bacosa, H.P.; Amparado, R.F. Facemask: Protection or Threat? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 188, 114681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pacilan, C.J.; Bacosa, H. Assessment of Macroplastic Litter on the Coastal Seabeds of Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao Del Norte, Philippines. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2022, 11, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Requiron, J.C.; Bacosa, H. Macroplastic Transport and Deposition in the Environs of Pulauan River, Dapitan City, Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci. 2022, 151, 1211–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Escañan, A.; Bacosa, H. Assessment of Riverine Plastic Flux in Pulot River and Its Tributary in Sofronio Española, Palawan, Philippines. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2022, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gallo, F.; Fossi, C.; Weber, R.; Santillo, D.; Sousa, J.; Ingram, I.; Nadal, A.; Romano, D. Marine Litter Plastics and Microplastics and Their Toxic Chemicals Components: The Need for Urgent Preventive Measures. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kristanti, R.A.; Wong, W.L.; Darmayati, Y.; Hatmanti, A.; Wulandari, N.F.; Sibero, M.T.; Afianti, N.F.; Hernandes, E.; Lopez-Martinez, F. Characteristics of Microplastic in Commercial Aquatic Organisms. Trop. Aquat. Soil Pollut. 2022, 2, 134–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McCormick, A.R.; Hoellein, T.J.; London, M.G.; Hittie, J.; Scott, J.W.; Kelly, J.J. Microplastic in Surface Waters of Urban Rivers: Concentration, Sources, and Associated Bacterial Assemblages. Ecosphere 2016, 7, e01556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. da Costa, J.P.; Avellan, A.; Mouneyrac, C.; Duarte, A.; Rocha-Santos, T. Plastic Additives and Microplastics as Emerging Contaminants: Mechanisms and Analytical Assessment. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 158, 116898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hermabessiere, L.; Dehaut, A.; Paul-Pont, I.; Lacroix, C.; Jezequel, R.; Soudant, P.; Duflos, G. Occurrence and Effects of Plastic Additives on Marine Environments and Organisms: A Review. Chemosphere 2017, 182, 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Luo, H.; Liu, C.; He, D.; Sun, J.; Li, J.; Pan, X. Effects of Aging on Environmental Behavior of Plastic Additives: Migration, Leaching, and Ecotoxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 849, 157951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sewwandi, M.; Wijesekara, H.; Rajapaksha, A.U.; Soysa, S.; Vithanage, M. Microplastics and Plastics-Associated Contaminants in Food and Beverages; Global Trends, Concentrations, and Human Exposure. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 317, 120747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sridhar, A.; Kannan, D.; Kapoor, A.; Prabhakar, S. Extraction and Detection Methods of Microplastics in Food and Marine Systems: A Critical Review. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vitali, C.; Peters, R.J.B.; Janssen, H.-G.; Nielen, M.W.F. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Food, Water, and Beverages; Part I. Occurrence. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 159, 116670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Caruso, G. Microplastics as Vectors of Contaminants. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 146, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, L.; Geng, S.; Wu, C.; Song, K.; Sun, F.; Visvanathan, C.; Xie, F.; Wang, Q. Microplastics Contamination in Different Trophic State Lakes along the Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River Basin. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 112951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Perveen, S.; Pablos, C.; Reynolds, K.; Stanley, S.; Marugán, J. Microplastics in Fresh- and Wastewater Are Potential Contributors to Antibiotic Resistance—A Minireview. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2022, 6, 100071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Galarpe, V.R.K.R.; Jaraula, C.M.B.; Paler, M.K.O. The Nexus of Macroplastic and Microplastic Research and Plastic Regulation Policies in the Philippines Marine Coastal Environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. 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]
  51. Mani, T.; Hauk, A.; Walter, U.; Burkhardt-Holm, P. Microplastics Profile along the Rhine River. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 17988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Tong, H.; Zhong, X.; Duan, Z.; Yi, X.; Cheng, F.; Xu, W.; Yang, X. Micro- and Nanoplastics Released from Biodegradable and Conventional Plastics during Degradation: Formation, Aging Factors, and Toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 833, 155275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lin, L.; Pan, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, D.; Zhai, W.; Wang, Z.; Tao, J.; Mi, C.; Li, Q.; Crittenden, J.C. Distribution and Source of Microplastics in China’s Second Largest Reservoir—Danjiangkou Reservoir. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 102, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Argamino, C.R.; Janairo, J.I.B. Qualitative Assessment and Management of Microplastics in Asian Green Mussels (Perna Viridis) Cultured in Bacoor Bay, Cavite, Phillipines. EnvironmentAsia 2016, 9, 48–54. [Google Scholar]
  55. Browne, M.A.; Crump, P.; Niven, S.J.; Teuten, E.; Tonkin, A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R. Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9175–9179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bucol, L.A.; Romano, E.F.; Cabcaban, S.M.; Siplon, L.M.D.; Madrid, G.C.; Bucol, A.A.; Polidoro, B. Microplastics in Marine Sediments and Rabbitfish (Siganus Fuscescens) from Selected Coastal Areas of Negros Oriental, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Esquinas, G.G.M.S.; Mantala, A.P.; Atilano, M.G.; Apugan, R.P.; Galarpe, V.R.K.R. Physical Characterization of Litter and Microplastic along the Urban Coast of Cagayan de Oro in Macajalar Bay, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 154, 111083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kalnasa, M.L.; Lantaca, S.M.O.; Boter, L.C.; Flores, G.J.T.; Galarpe, V.R.K.R. Occurrence of Surface Sand Microplastic and Litter in Macajalar Bay, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Paler, M.K.O.; Malenab, M.C.T.; Maralit, J.R.; Nacorda, H.M. Plastic Waste Occurrence on a Beach off Southwestern Luzon, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 141, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Arcadio, C.G.L.A.; Navarro, C.K.P.; Similatan, K.M.; Inocente, S.A.T.; Ancla, S.M.B.; Banda, M.H.T.; Capangpangan, R.Y.; Torres, A.G.; Bacosa, H.P. Microplastics in Surface Water of Laguna de Bay: First Documented Evidence on the Largest Lake in the Philippines. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 29824–29833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Deocaris, C.C.; Allosada, J.O.; Ardiente, L.T.; Bitang, L.G.G.; Dulohan, C.L.; Lapuz, J.K.I.; Padilla, L.M.; Ramos, V.P.; Padolina, J.B.P. Occurrence of Microplastic Fragments in the Pasig River. H2Open J. 2019, 2, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Osorio, E.D.; Tanchuling, M.A.N.; Diola, M.B.L.D. Microplastics Occurrence in Surface Waters and Sediments in Five River Mouths of Manila Bay. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 719274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Navarro, C.K.P.; Arcadio, C.G.L.A.; Similatan, K.M.; Inocente, S.A.T.; Banda, M.H.T.; Capangpangan, R.Y.; Torres, A.G.; Bacosa, H.P. Unraveling Microplastic Pollution in Mangrove Sediments of Butuan Bay, Philippines. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Romarate, R.A.; Ancla, S.M.B.; Patilan, D.M.M.; Inocente, S.A.T.; Pacilan, C.J.M.; Sinco, A.L.; Guihawan, J.Q.; Capangpangan, R.Y.; Lubguban, A.A.; Bacosa, H.P. Breathing Plastics in Metro Manila, Philippines: Presence of Suspended Atmospheric Microplastics in Ambient Air. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 53662–53673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cabansag, J.B.P.; Olimberio, R.B.; Villanobos, Z.M.T. Microplastics in Some Fish Species and Their Environs in Eastern Visayas, Philippines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Requiron, J.C.; Gutierrez, C.S.; Inocente, S.A.T.; Pacilan, C.J.M.; Gaboy, S.M.M.; Sison, C.P.; Amparado, R.F.; Bacosa, H.P. Aquaculture Farmers’ Perception and Level of Awareness of Plastic Litter in San Pedro, Dapitan City, Mindanao, The Philippines. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 2023, 18, 77–91. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lo, D.S.; Oreta, W.C. Seismic Risk Mapping at Micro-Scale: The Case of Barangay Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. In Proceedings of the Harnessing Lessons Towards an Earthquake-Resilient Nation, Sydney, Australia, August 8–12 2010. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sinco, A.L.; Sendaydiego, J.P.; Saab, L.L.; Mojica, G.R.; Tampus, G.G.; Rondez, A.S. Riverine Biota as Indicators of Water Quality in Tropical Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines. Adv. Environ. Sci. 2014, 6, 157–167. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mirasol, J.M. Exploring the Confluence of the Cagayan de Oro River’s Ecosystems. Liceo J. High. Educ. Res. 2014, 10, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Meijer, L.; van Emmerik, T.; Lebreton, L.; Schmidt, C.; van der Ent, R. Over 1000 Rivers Accountable for 80% of Global Riverine Plastic Emissions into the Ocean. Engineering 2019. preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Japos, G.V.; Lubos, L.C. Practices, Behaviors, and Action on Climate Change and Environmental Protection and Conservation of Settlers along the Banks of Oro River, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. Asian J. Biodivers 2014, 5, 109–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lubos, L.C.; Amoroso, V.B.; Coritico, F.; Demetillo, M. Species Richness and Riparian Vegetation of Plants in Cagayan de Oro River, Mindanao, Philippines. Asian J. Biodivers. 2016, 6, 41–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chen, H.L.; Gibbins, C.N.; Selvam, S.B.; Ting, K.N. Spatio-Temporal Variation of Microplastic along a Rural to Urban Transition in a Tropical River. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 289, 117895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Han, M.; Niu, X.; Tang, M.; Zhang, B.-T.; Wang, G.; Yue, W.; Kong, X.; Zhu, J. Distribution of Microplastics in Surface Water of the Lower Yellow River near Estuary. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 135601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Egessa, R.; Nankabirwa, A.; Ocaya, H.; Pabire, W.G. Microplastic Pollution in Surface Water of Lake Victoria. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Masura, J.; Baker, J.; Foster, G.; Arthur, C. Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Synthetic Particles in Waters and Sediments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-48. OceanBestPractices 2015, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of the Methods Used for Identification and Quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Su, L.; Xue, Y.; Li, L.; Yang, D.; Kolandhasamy, P.; Li, D.; Shi, H. Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 216, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Abidli, S.; Toumi, H.; Lahbib, Y.; Trigui El Menif, N. The First Evaluation of Microplastics in Sediments from the Complex Lagoon-Channel of Bizerte (Northern Tunisia). Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Toumi, H.; Abidli, S.; Bejaoui, M. Microplastics in Freshwater Environment: The First Evaluation in Sediments from Seven Water Streams Surrounding the Lagoon of Bizerte (Northern Tunisia). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 14673–14682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Primpke, S.; Christiansen, S.H.; Cowger, W.; De Frond, H.; Deshpande, A.; Fischer, M.; Holland, E.B.; Meyns, M.; O’Donnell, B.A.; Ossmann, B.E.; et al. Critical Assessment of Analytical Methods for the Harmonized and Cost-Efficient Analysis of Microplastics. Appl. Spectrosc. 2020, 74, 1012–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tirkey, A.; Upadhyay, L.S.B. Microplastics: An Overview on Separation, Identification and Characterization of Microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 170, 112604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cunsolo, S.; Williams, J.; Hale, M.; Read, D.S.; Couceiro, F. Optimising Sample Preparation for FTIR-Based Microplastic Analysis in Wastewater and Sludge Samples: Multiple Digestions. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2021, 413, 3789–3799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tang, S.; Gao, L.; Gao, H.; Zou, D. Characteristics and Distribution of Microplastics in the Surface Water of the Songhua River in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 64268–64277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Buwono, N.R.; Risjani, Y.; Soegianto, A. Distribution of Microplastic in Relation to Water Quality Parameters in the Brantas River, East Java, Indonesia. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ta, A.T.; Babel, S. Occurrence and Spatial Distribution of Microplastic Contaminated with Heavy Metals in a Tropical River: Effect of Land Use and Population Density. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 191, 114919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Liu, Y.; You, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; He, Y.; Breider, F.; Tao, S.; Liu, W. Insights into the Horizontal and Vertical Profiles of Microplastics in a River Emptying into the Sea Affected by Intensive Anthropogenic Activities in Northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mai, L.; You, S.-N.; He, H.; Bao, L.-J.; Liu, L.-Y.; Zeng, E.Y. Riverine Microplastic Pollution in the Pearl River Delta, China: Are Modeled Estimates Accurate? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 11810–11817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lin, L.; Zuo, L.-Z.; Peng, J.-P.; Cai, L.-Q.; Fok, L.; Yan, Y.; Li, H.-X.; Xu, X.-R. Occurrence and Distribution of Microplastics in an Urban River: A Case Study in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Bruge, A.; Dhamelincourt, M.; Lanceleur, L.; Monperrus, M.; Gasperi, J.; Tassin, B. A First Estimation of Uncertainties Related to Microplastic Sampling in Rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Lestari, P.; Trihadiningrum, Y.; Wijaya, B.A.; Yunus, K.A.; Firdaus, M. Distribution of Microplastics in Surabaya River, Indonesia. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Campanale, C.; Stock, F.; Massarelli, C.; Kochleus, C.; Bagnuolo, G.; Reifferscheid, G.; Uricchio, V.F. Microplastics and Their Possible Sources: The Example of Ofanto River in Southeast Italy. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 258, 113284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Liu, R.; Li, Z.; Liu, F.; Dong, Y.; Jiao, J.; Sun, P.; Rm, E.-W. Microplastic Pollution in Yellow River: Current Status and Research Progress of Biotoxicological Effects. China Geol. 2021, 4, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lambert, S.; Scherer, C.; Wagner, M. Ecotoxicity Testing of Microplastics: Considering the Heterogeneity of Physicochemical Properties: Ecotoxicity Testing of Microplastics. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2017, 13, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Akkajit, P.; Tipmanee, D.; Cherdsukjai, P.; Suteerasak, T.; Thongnonghin, S. Occurrence and Distribution of Microplastics in Beach Sediments along Phuket Coastline. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 169, 112496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kasamesiri, P. Microplastics Ingestion by Freshwater Fish in the Chi River, Thailand. Int. J. GEOMATE 2020, 18, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Xu, P.; Peng, G.; Su, L.; Gao, Y.; Gao, L.; Li, D. Microplastic Risk Assessment in Surface Waters: A Case Study in the Changjiang Estuary, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Clere, I.K.; Ahmmed, F.; Remoto, P.I.J.G.; Fraser-Miller, S.J.; Gordon, K.C.; Komyakova, V.; Allan, B.J.M. Quantification and Characterization of Microplastics in Commercial Fish from Southern New Zealand. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 184, 114121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Ory, N.C.; Sobral, P.; Ferreira, J.L.; Thiel, M. Amberstripe Scad Decapterus Muroadsi (Carangidae) Fish Ingest Blue Microplastics Resembling Their Copepod Prey along the Coast of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fu, Z.; Chen, G.; Wang, W.; Wang, J. Microplastic Pollution Research Methodologies, Abundance, Characteristics and Risk Assessments for Aquatic Biota in China. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Li, W.; Chen, X.; Li, M.; Cai, Z.; Gong, H.; Yan, M. Microplastics as an Aquatic Pollutant Affect Gut Microbiota within Aquatic Animals. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 423, 127094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Egbeocha, C.; Malek, S.; Emenike, C.; Milow, P. Feasting on Microplastics: Ingestion by and Effects on Marine Organisms. Aquat. Biol. 2018, 27, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Rebelein, A.; Int-Veen, I.; Kammann, U.; Scharsack, J.P. Microplastic Fibers—Underestimated Threat to Aquatic Organisms? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Qiao, R.; Deng, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wolosker, M.B.; Zhu, Q.; Ren, H.; Zhang, Y. Accumulation of Different Shapes of Microplastics Initiates Intestinal Injury and Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in the Gut of Zebrafish. Chemosphere 2019, 236, 124334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Faulstich, L.; Prume, J.A.; Arendt, R.; Reinhardt-Imjela, C.; Chifflard, P.; Schulte, A. Microplastics in Namibian River Sediments—A First Evaluation. Microplast. Nanoplast. 2022, 2, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wong, G.; Löwemark, L.; Kunz, A. Microplastic Pollution of the Tamsui River and Its Tributaries in Northern Taiwan: Spatial Heterogeneity and Correlation with Precipitation. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 260, 113935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lehtiniemi, M.; Hartikainen, S.; Näkki, P.; Engström-Öst, J.; Koistinen, A.; Setälä, O. Size Matters More than Shape: Ingestion of Primary and Secondary Microplastics by Small Predators. Food Webs 2018, 17, e00097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Desai, A.; Srimuruganandam, B.; Nanajkar, M.; Kumar, M.; Saha, M.; Rathore, C.; Gupta, P.; Naik, A. Abundance and Quantification of Microplastics in Water and Sediments of Sal River and an Approach to Study the Degradation of Microplastics. In Proceedings of the Ocean Society of India Conference (OSICON–19), Kochi, India, 12–14 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
  109. Gupta, P.; Saha, M.; Rathore, C.; Suneel, V.; Ray, D.; Naik, A.; Unnikrishnan, K.; Dhivya, M.; Daga, K. Spatial and Seasonal Variation of Microplastics and Possible Sources in the Estuarine System from Central West Coast of India. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 288, 117665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Kataoka, T.; Nihei, Y.; Kudou, K.; Hinata, H. Assessment of the Sources and Inflow Processes of Microplastics in the River Environments of Japan. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 244, 958–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Saha, M.; Naik, A.; Desai, A.; Nanajkar, M.; Rathore, C.; Kumar, M.; Gupta, P. Microplastics in Seafood as an Emerging Threat to Marine Environment: A Case Study in Goa, West Coast of India. Chemosphere 2021, 270, 129359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dagani, T. Organic Battery Uses Polyacetylene Electrodes. Chem. Inf. 1981, 12, 39–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rathinamoorthy, R.; Raja Balasaraswathi, S. Investigations on the Impact of Handwash and Laundry Softener on Microfiber Shedding from Polyester Textiles. J. Text. Inst. 2022, 113, 1428–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Xia, W.; Rao, Q.; Deng, X.; Chen, J.; Xie, P. Rainfall Is a Significant Environmental Factor of Microplastic Pollution in Inland Waters. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Huang, D.; Zhou, Z.; Xiao, R.; Du, L.; Su, H.; Wang, K.; Tian, Q.; Tang, Z.; et al. Abundance, Characteristics, and Distribution of Microplastics in the Xiangjiang River, China. Gondwana Res. 2022, 107, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 06132 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines showing the six sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River from upstream (S1) to downstream (S6).
Figure 1. Map of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines showing the six sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River from upstream (S1) to downstream (S6).
Ijerph 20 06132 g001
Ijerph 20 06132 g002 550
Figure 2. Types of microplastics collected in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines: (A) fiber, S3 (0.7 mm); (B) fiber, S2 (0.9 mm); (C) filament, S5 (0.5 mm); and (D) fragment, S6 (0.4 mm).
Figure 2. Types of microplastics collected in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines: (A) fiber, S3 (0.7 mm); (B) fiber, S2 (0.9 mm); (C) filament, S5 (0.5 mm); and (D) fragment, S6 (0.4 mm).
Ijerph 20 06132 g002
Ijerph 20 06132 g003 550
Figure 3. Relative abundance of microplastics in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines based on (A) color, (B) shape, (C) size, and (D) polymer type at different sampling stations.
Figure 3. Relative abundance of microplastics in the surface water of the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines based on (A) color, (B) shape, (C) size, and (D) polymer type at different sampling stations.
Ijerph 20 06132 g003
Ijerph 20 06132 g004 550
Figure 4. Microplastic distribution at each sampling station based on (A) color, (B) shape, (C) size, and (D) polymer type.
Figure 4. Microplastic distribution at each sampling station based on (A) color, (B) shape, (C) size, and (D) polymer type.
Ijerph 20 06132 g004
Ijerph 20 06132 g005 550
Figure 5. Typical FTIR spectra of collected microplastics, (A–D) (top) and standard microplastics, (A–D) (bottom).
Figure 5. Typical FTIR spectra of collected microplastics, (A–D) (top) and standard microplastics, (A–D) (bottom).
Ijerph 20 06132 g005
Table
Table 1. Geographical coordinates and characteristics of sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines, with the number of microplastics and their mean concentration.
Table 1. Geographical coordinates and characteristics of sampling stations along the Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines, with the number of microplastics and their mean concentration.
Sampling StationSampling PointCoordinatesCharacteristicsNo. of MPsMean Concentration (Items/m3 ± SD)
S1P1
P2
P3		8.429735 N, 124.638408 E
8.429853 N, 124.638133 E
8.430017 N, 124.637802 E		Fishing, Recreational2
4
0		200 ± 66.67 abc
S2P1
P2
P3		8.446211 N, 124.640646 E
8.446159 N, 124.640544 E
8.446132 N, 124.640422 E		Fishing, Recreational1
3
4		266.7 ± 50.92 abc
S3P1
P2
P3		8.455706 N, 124.634622 E
8.455736 N, 124.634365 E
8.455706 N, 124.634140 E		Non-residential0
1
1		66.7 ± 19.25 c
S4P1
P2
P3		8.470570 N, 124.64066 E
8.470710 N, 124.64024 E
8.470918 N, 124.63982 E		Non-residential0
0
3		100 ± 57.74 bc
S5P1
P2
P3		8.488010 N, 124.64183 E
8.488176 N, 124.64121 E
8.488471 N, 124.64058 E		Fishing, Residential8
3
6		566.7 ± 83.89 ab
S6P1
P2
P3		8.497271 N, 124.653097 E
8.427902 N, 124.652271 E
8.498613 N, 124.651289 E		Fishing, Residential7
7
4		600 ± 57.74 a
Note: Different superscripts in the last column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test).
Table
Table 2. Comparison of microplastic concentration in the Cagayan de Oro River compared to other rivers in the Philippines and those in other countries.
Table 2. Comparison of microplastic concentration in the Cagayan de Oro River compared to other rivers in the Philippines and those in other countries.
Study AreaMesh Size/Pore Size (mm)MP Concentration (Items/m3)Reference
Cagayan de Oro River (Philippines)0.3300This study
Cañas River (Philippines)0.0751580Osorio et al. [62]
Pasig River (Philippines)0.0753405Osorio et al. [62]
Parañaque River (Philippines)0.0755015Osorio et al. [62]
Tullahan River (Philippines)0.07511,475Osorio et al. [62]
Meycauayan River (Philippines)0.07557,665Osorio et al. [62]
Gave de Pau River (France)0.333.26Bruge et al. [90]
Surabaya River (Indonesia)0.3331.47–43.11Lestari et al. [91]
Ofanto River (Italy)0.3330.9–13Campanale et al. [92]
Pearl River Delta (China)0.330.005–0.7Mai et al. [88]
Pearl River (China)0.02379–7924Lin et al. [83]
Yellow River (China)0.055358–595,270Liu et al. [93]
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

Gabriel, A.D.; Amparado, R.F., Jr.; Lubguban, A.A.; Bacosa, H.P. Riverine Microplastic Pollution: Insights from Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126132

AMA Style

Gabriel AD, Amparado RF Jr., Lubguban AA, Bacosa HP. Riverine Microplastic Pollution: Insights from Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(12):6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126132

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gabriel, Aiza D., Ruben F. Amparado, Jr., Arnold A. Lubguban, and Hernando P. Bacosa. 2023. "Riverine Microplastic Pollution: Insights from Cagayan de Oro River, Philippines" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 12: 6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126132

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