Next Article in Journal
Identifying Key Influences on Surface Water Quality in Freshwater Areas of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta from 2018 to 2020
Next Article in Special Issue
Polylactic Acid-Based Microplastic Particles Induced Oxidative Damage in Brain and Gills of Goldfish Carassius auratus
Previous Article in Journal
Removal of Ag, Au, and As from Acid Mine Water Using Lemna gibba and Lemna minor—A Performance Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Environmental Contamination with Micro- and Nanoplastics Changes the Phototaxis of Euryhaline Zooplankton to Paired Photostimulation
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Risk of Expanded Polystyrene Ingestion by Climbing Perch Anabas testudineus

Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences—IEE RAS, Leninsky pr. 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia
Coastal Branch of Joint Vietnam-Russia Tropical Science and Technology Research Center, Nguyen Thien Thuat 30, Nha Trang 57000, Vietnam
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(7), 1294;
Submission received: 2 March 2023 / Revised: 23 March 2023 / Accepted: 23 March 2023 / Published: 25 March 2023


The climbing perch Anabas testudineus is widespread in the inland waters of Vietnam and according to its ecology could have contact with floating plastic waste. Fragments of expanded polystyrene (EPS) are detected in the fresh waters of Vietnam in Khanh Hoa, Lam Dong, and Phu Yen provinces. Our study focused on estimating the probability of ingestion of EPS pellets (size 2.5–3.5 mm) by adult climbing perch. In the experiments, 3 types of treatment pellets were offered to fish: 24 feed pellets (Fps), 24 expanded polystyrene pellets (Pps), and 12 feed and 12 expanded polystyrene pellets (FPps). Fish grasping time of the first pellet was independent in all treatment types. The grasping time of the 12th pellet was insignificant in Fps (63 s) and Pps (75 s). Climbing perch grasped and ingested the 24th Fp significantly (p = 0.02) earlier (143 s), than they grasped the 24th Pp (817 s). Fish with FPp treatment grasped feed along with EPS pellets, but grasping the 12th Fp was significantly (p = 0.02) earlier (49 s) than the 12th Pp (193 s). By the end of the tests, the fish had ingested all feed pellets. We discovered that climbing perch grasped Pps and kept them in the oral cavity, but rejected them in 100% of the cases. This result provided evidence that climbing perch have an effective defense mechanism for avoiding ingestion of expanded polystyrene pellets with a size of 2.5–3.5 mm.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In recent years, an increasing number of studies on environmental pollution from various types of plastic waste and its impact on living organisms have been conducted. Plastic contamination was found in soil, air and fresh and seawater [1]. According to FAO data in the Asian region, Vietnam ranked fourth in the amount of plastic waste at sea, after China, Indonesia and the Philippines [2]. A Vietnamese person uses no less than 30 kg of plastic products per year [3]. For example, in 2018, plastic contamination in the Saigon River totaled 0.35–7.27 kg per person [4]. Rivers provide some of the most important repositories of plastic waste in marine ecosystems [5,6]. Plastic contamination often spreads from rivers and estuary systems to the East Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Most studies monitoring plastic contamination and assessing its impact on hydrobionts are conducted in seawater rather than fresh water.
Floating plastic fragments are similar in size and color to prey, such as fish, fish eggs and larvae, that contribute to its ingestion by various species of marine organisms [7,8]. Organisms on the first trophic levels ingest small plastic fragments that result in plastic transfer up the food chain [9]. Both juvenile and adult fish grasp and ingest large amounts of microplastics (<5 mm) [10,11,12,13,14,15] leading to changes in their behavior, mechanical damage to organs and tissues, transport of plastic fragments to the liver, changes in lipid metabolism, intestinal blockage and histopathological alterations in the intestine [16]. Therefore, ingestion of plastic is considered one of the main threats to marine organisms [11].
One of the common types of plastic contamination is expanded polystyrene (EPS). EPS products are widely used on land and at sea. European data for 2016/2017 suggested that waste generation of foamed polystyrene (expanded and extruded) from construction and packaging was about 530,000 tons. EPS contains a high proportion of air (>95%); therefore it easily spreads over long distances [17]. In nature, polystyrene products become microplastics through fragmentation due to mechanical damage or ultraviolet radiation [11,17,18]. EPS commonly fragments into separate 2–5 mm spheres, which subsequently degrade to a smaller size. Polystyrene fragments accumulate in microalgae [19], invertebrates [20,21], fish [22,23,24], birds [25,26] and marine mammals [27].
One of the common fish in Southeast Asia is climbing perch Anabas testudineus. In Vietnam, this species lives in standing and slow-flowing water bodies, including ponds and channels of the rice paddy systems. Many rice paddies are located within urban areas in Vietnam, which helps explain their heavy plastic pollution. Adult climbing perch are omnivores and partially consume food from the water surface [28,29]. Expanded polystyrene due to its positive buoyancy has a high probability of being ingested by fish. The climbing perch has high plasticity and adaptability that allows it to survive under conditions in which many other fishes could not live [30]. To date, no researchers have estimated the probability of climbing perch consuming microplastics.
The aim of this work was to assess the feeding behavior of climbing perch in the presence of expanded polystyrene pellets and the risk of EPS ingestion.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in January–March 2022. Before the study, we estimated the probability of hydrobionts, in particular climbing perch, coming into contact with EPS in nature. Visual monitoring of plastic contamination of water bodies was carried out in Central Vietnam. Large-sized plastic waste (>1 cm, macroplastics) was estimated. Detected plastic was identified and divided into 6 types based on the classification of Kershow et al. [31]. The presence of expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polypropylene (PP), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and multilayer polymer films (other) was estimated in water bodies. The plastic presence was determined in the random chosen littoral zone of the water bodies, which includes areas within 1 m of the shore and within 0.5 m of the shore. The presence of macroplastics was assessed in Khan Hoa, Phu Yen and Lam Dong provinces (Figure 1): in total five rivers, three reservoirs, and one irrigation channel were evaluated.

2.2. Fish Maintenance

The study was performed on adult climbing perch with fork length 98 ± 2.4 (80–137) mm and weight 16 ± 1.4 (8.8–42.7) g. Fish were caught using traditional artificial shelter-traps in the Am Chua irrigation channel. The channel is located in Nha Trang city and nearby agricultural areas (12°17′26″ N, 109°06′04″ E). The channel flows out of the Am Chua reservoir and connects with the Cai River. It is 2 km long, 6 to 12 m wide and 1 m deep. Many smaller channels diverge from the Am Chua channel and supply water to adjacent rice paddies. During our study, the water transparency in the channel did not exceed 20–30 cm, and total dissolved solids were 300 ppm (Xiaomi Mi TDS pen). The caught fish were transferred to the laboratory in 20 L tanks. The tanks were filled with 10 L of water from the channel.
In the laboratory, fish were acclimated to new water conditions. New water was gradually added into the transportation tanks over two hours. The hydrochemistry of the water in the laboratory was normal for fish maintenance (Sera Aqua-test box); total dissolved solids were 200 ppm. Three 80 L tanks were used for experimental fish maintenance. A total of 40 fish were kept in each tank with water temperature of 25–26 °C. The volume of water was permanent: 50 L per tank. Such volume of water was necessary to provide access to atmospheric air for the climbing perch, which combine gill respiration with atmospheric air breathing in a labyrinthine accessory breathing organ [32,33]. All tanks were covered with translucent white film to ensure the visual isolation of the fish. Illumination in the tanks was natural (through the laboratory windows), and it varied during the 24 h from 0.1 Lx to 100 Lx (lux meter Lutron LX-1102). We implemented water purification in each tank using automatic filters (Eheim Classic 150). It allowed carrying out a manual cleaning of the tanks one time per day, and filters were cleaned every five days. Each tank was covered with a white plastic lid. The lid had rectangular holes to accommodate automatic feeders (Eheim Auto Feeder). The feeding started twenty-four hours after the fish were transferred to the laboratory. We fed the climbing perch twice a day, at 7:00 a.m. and at 5:00 p.m. Dry feed pellets Humpy Head (“Yi Hu Fish Farm Trading”, Singapore) were used. The feeding ration was ~2% of the average fish weight. The feed pellets had positive buoyancy and stayed on the water surface more than 30 min. When the feed pellets entered the water, their size increased to 3.5 mm in the first 10 min. Fish began to ingest the feed pellets during the first three days after their transfer into the laboratory. Fish mortality was observed only in the first week after transfer and did not exceed 5%.

2.3. Experimental Design

For the feeding behavior experiment, three types of treatment pellets were prepared: (a) 24 feed pellets (Fps), (b) 24 expanded polystyrene pellets (Pps), and (c) a mix of 12 feed pellets and 12 expanded polystyrene pellets (FPps). This meant that each experimental group of fish was provided 24 pellets. Feed pellets had a cylindrical shape (diameter 2–3 mm, length 3–3.5 mm) and brown color. Expanded polystyrene pellets (“Nhu Phuong Investment and Manufacturing Co.”, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam) had a spherical shape (diameter 2.5–3.5 mm) and white color. All used EPS pellets were stored in a container with feed pellets for one week before the experiment. We did so to achieve a flavored organoleptic imitation of plastic, i.e., for increasing the similarity with an edible object (feed pellets). In nature, some biological objects grow on the plastic surface [11]. That could increase the possibility of attracting fish to the plastic [34].
To estimate the possibility of the climbing perch consuming the expanded polystyrene pellets, we used three experimental tanks. Their size was similar to the maintenance tanks. Each tank was filled with 30 L of water at a depth of 15 cm. The experimental tanks were also covered with translucent white film. White plastic lids with a hole (4 × 4 cm2) in the middle for video cameras SjCam A10 were installed on the top of the tanks.
The experiment began two weeks after acclimatizing the climbing perch to the laboratory conditions. Before the trial, all fish were not fed for one day. Tests were held from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Illumination in the tanks was similar and changed from 40 to 80 Lx during the test period. Six fish were randomly placed in each experimental tank. After that, the cameras were installed to the lid holes, and video recording started (720 p, 30 frames/s). Twenty minutes after the trial began, each group of fish was given one of the three types of treatment pellets (Fp, Pp, FPp). The pellets were introduced to the tank from Petri dishes through the lid holes. Cameras were carefully picked up to provide the space to drop the pellets, and then returned to the lid holes. The duration of pellet introduction in each tank was no longer than three seconds. The assessment was finished twenty minutes later: video recording was stopped and assessed fish were transferred to the recovery tank. The number of each type of remaining pellets in the tanks was counted, and the presence of mechanical damage of the pellets was fixed. The tanks were alternated according to pellet treatment. For every pellet treatment, we used 36 fish in 6 trials. Every fish was used in the test only once, i.e., a total of 108 fish were used. In the laboratory, fish had their first contact with EPS.
The feeding behavior of climbing perch during the experiment was evaluated on the video recordings. Twelve hours of trial videos were analyzed. We analyzed fish behavior in the tanks, fixed the time of the first pellet grasping and the time required for grasping the 12th pellet and the 24th pellet. Repetitive grasping of the same pellet was counted as a new action. Statistical data analysis was determined by the Mann–Whitney test for small samples.
All experimental procedures with fish were carried out according to the guidelines and following the laws and ethics of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and approved by the ethics committee of the Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative Evaluation of Plastic Contaminations in Water Bodies of Central Vietnam

Macroplastics found in water bodies were identified under visual estimation according to external characteristics because the fragments usually did not have identification codes. Most often, we discovered samples of LDPE (household bags) and PP (plastic bags 20–50 L) (Table 1). Less commonly (4 studied areas or probability of finding 0.67), we found fragments of EPS (insulated containers) and multilayer polymer films (packaging for food and household goods). Fragments of nylon fishing nets were found in two areas. Plastic cups and bottles (PET) were predominant along the shores of the Dankia Reservoir and the Am Chua Reservoir. Fragments of transport containers (disposable lunch boxes) made of extruded polystyrene (XPS) were found in two studied areas.

3.2. Climbing Perch Reaction to the Feed and Polystyrene Pellets

After transferring to the experimental tanks, climbing perch swam actively throughout the entire available volume of water. Sometimes, fish jumped out of the water but not more than 10 jumps during the 40 min of the trial. During the test, fish often demonstrated aggressive behavior when one or two fish attacked and pursued another for 2–10 s. We did not find changes in fish aggression before and after dropping pellets.
Fish reacted to dropping different pellets (Fp, Pp, FPp) in the tank, rising up to the water surface to grasp them. When the fish swam to the feed pellets, they mostly grasped and ingested feed pellets. Fish swam close to EPS pellets and after touching them, they either grasped them or swam away. Occasionally, the fish grasped several pellets (2–4) of feed or EPS at once. Usually, such behavior was observed during the first minute of the trial. After grasping a few feed pellets, the fish for one minute could retain them in their oral cavity, later rejecting the pellets and repeatedly grasping them again before finally ingesting them. The number of times the fish repeatedly grasped feed pellets did not exceed three times. Fish that were given FPps could grasp one or two EPS pellets with the feed pellets at a time. At the same time, fish always rejected the EPS pellets, either immediately or after one minute as shown in the animation (Video S1). Fish could repeatedly test the same pellets of EPS. An EPS pellet that was refused by one fish could be quickly grasped (less than 5 s) by another fish. Fish attempted to bite EPS pellets during grasping and retention. Therefore, some of the EPS pellets (7.3% in Pp trials and 7.7% with FPp trials) were deformed or divided into 2–3 fragments by the end of the trial (Figure 2). All (100%) EPS pellets were refused by fish during the trial, in contrast to the feed pellets. During the trial, fragments of EPS pellets were not grasped. In the Pp trial, fish grasped EPS pellets more actively within the first 5 min after pellets were dropped into the water, on average 16 ± 3.3 (3–23) pcs. In the next 5 min, the number of grasped EPS pellets decreased to 3 ± 1.3 (0–8) pcs.
Fish could grasp different types of pellets either immediately or up to 2.5 min after dropping. The time of grasping the first pellet did not depend (p > 0.05) on the type of pellets. The first grasping of Fps usually (>80% of trials) occurred within 5 s after pellets were dropped into the water. For the same period, grasping Pps occurred in only 50% of the trials. The grasping time of the 12th and 24th feed or EPS pellets significantly varied in each trial (Table 2). When FPps were introduced, the fish grasped feed pellets faster than EPS pellets. Therefore, in experiments with FPps, fish on average spent 3 times more time (p = 0.020) until grasping the 12th EPS pellet compared to the 12th feed pellet. A similar result was observed in trials with FPps compared to trials with Fps: fish spent more time until grasping the 12th EPS pellet (p = 0.031). In trials with Pps (introduced only EPS pellets) climbing perch on average spent 5.7 times more time (p = 0.020) until grasping the 24th EPS pellet than fish in trials with only feed pellets.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Presence of Macroplastics in Water Bodies of Central Vietnam

All studied water bodies of Central Vietnam had contamination from different types of macroplastics. Low-density polyethylene and polypropylene were one of the most common plastics found in the largest number of water bodies. Less often (four of six studied areas), fragments of expanded polystyrene were found. In the Saigon River, polystyrene products made up 9–22% of all plastic waste [4]. However, the fraction of expanded polystyrene out of total polystyrene contaminations was not specified by the authors. The presence of polystyrene in freshwater bodies of Vietnam assumes the risk of EPS consumption by hydrobionts.

4.2. The Risks of the EPS Ingestion by Fish

The potential ingestion of plastic could influence fish health through nonspecific chemical effects [16]. Nonspecific chemical effects include release of additives (ethylene, styrene, plasticizers, dyes) during the disintegration of plastic [35] and by organic substances that accumulate on its surface [36]. Unlike other types of plastics, white EPS usually does not contain plasticizers, but it possibly includes antioxidant tris (4-nonylphenyl)-phosphite which has a potent estrogen mimic function [35] and disrupts reproductive functions in fish. For example, 10 μm of polystyrene microplastics inhibited steroidogenesis in female marine medaka Oryzias melastigma, delaying ovarian maturation and reducing fertility [37]. In addition, EPS could contain nanosilver particles (AgNPs) due to its antibacterial function [38]. AgNPs are toxic to invertebrates and fish [39,40,41]. Being on the surface of the water, foam polystyrene accumulates other organic substances [17]. All described points may affect the physiological state of fish in the case of EPS ingestion.

4.3. Estimation of EPS Grasping by Climbing Perch

In our experiments, we provided expanded polystyrene pellets to climbing perch, which were similar to artificial feed pellets in size and positive buoyancy. It is possible that the similarity to organoleptic properties was because EPS and feed pellets were stored in a container together. It means that the chance of EPS pellets being consumed by climbing perch was deliberately enhanced. Probably, the similarity to the organoleptic properties of the EPS pellets with the feed reduced after dropping them in water, due to the small feed fragments on the plastic surface washing out. However, due to low density and the ability to adsorb water, the surface structure of the polystyrene pellet [17,42] promotes the accumulation of foreign additives, including organic substances. The EPS and feed pellets differed noticeably in color. Differences in color and shape of feed or EPS pellets did not affect the timing of the first pellet grasping. Similar primary reactions to different types of pellets could be related to the fact that fish were hungry (for twenty-four hours) and observed food competition. This is consistent with the fact that after the pellets were dropped, the tested fish often threw and occasionally grasped several pellets at once. Another variant of feeding behavior was noticed when the feed or EPS pellets were grasped: fish swam close to the pellets and then either moved away or grasped a pellet. Fish could use chemoreception to assess the taste attractivity of pellets. Climbing perch are known to express their ability for local olfactory search [33]. However, the second variant of feeding behavior with pellet pre-testing often resulted in EPS pellets being grasped also. We suspect that this could be related to the presence of the small feed fragments on the surface of polystyrene pellets, so fish perceived plastic as a food object. It is known that the small size of microplastics is one of the reasons for its consumption by fish and other organisms. Hydrobionts are not able to detect microplastics and ingest them together with food objects [14]. In our experiments, the opposite was true: the climbing perch saw EPS pellets and grasped them.
The priority of pellet grasping by climbing perches gradually changed during the trial. Thus, when the mix of pellets was offered, the fish grasped the 12th feed pellet earlier than the 12th EPS pellet. Fish spent noticeably less time to grasp the 24th feed pellet than the 24th EPS pellet. The faster grasping of feed pellets compared to EPS pellets could relate to their better visibility (contrast brown color) and that experimental fish were trained to consume feed pellets. The time until the 12th pellet grasping was not different in the trials with only feed or EPS pellets. This indicates that the color of the pellets is not very important to climbing perch feeding behavior.

4.4. Estimation of EPS Ingestion by Climbing Perch

Our experiment showed that climbing perch grasped and retained EPS pellets or their large fragments but did not ingest them and in 100% of the cases rejected them. Fish rejected EPS pellets even when grasping them simultaneously with feed pellets. The duration of the EPS pellet retention in the mouth varied from a few seconds to one minute. Probably during this period, fish performed intraoral testing on the quality of the object using their taste system and/or tactile receptors. The combination of taste properties of food with its mechanical characteristics (hardness, plasticity and strength of the object, its viscosity and fluidity, surface roughness, etc.) could be a determining factor for fish to consume or reject a grasped object [43,44]. There is no doubt that EPS and feed pellets noticeably differ in a number of mechanical characteristics, including shape recovery after deformation that could result in a rejection of EPS pellet ingestion. When EPS pellets came into contact with water, their mechanical resistance did not decrease, unlike feed pellets that swell in the water. The increase of feed mechanical resistance results in decreasing consumption by carp Cyprinus carpio, whose reactions are mostly controlled by tactile receptors rather than a taste system [44]. Differences in mechanical resistance between EPS and feed pellets did not prevent climbing perch from biting the EPS pellets. That indicates a predisposition of this species to consume solid food. Initial biting of food prior to ingestion or rejection was also observed in other fish species. For example, brown trout Salmo trutta caspius [45] or barramundi Lates calcarifer [46] bit artificial pellets that had the weakest aversive taste. We assume the biting the EPS pellets was the final testing phase evaluation of taste attractivity by climbing perch. This behavior of climbing perch provides a reliable and accurate identification of food quality before ingestion, as well as reduces the probability of consuming inadequate food. This defense mechanism of climbing perch may significantly reduce the consumption of plastic [34]. The ability of fish to avoid plastic consumption could be related to their ecology and food selectivity [47,48]. Intraspecific individual preferences of fish to plastic consumption are also discussed in [49]. A lot of microplastics in water could contribute to increasing ingestion by fish [14]. The present study shows that the climbing perch is capable of successfully avoiding EPS consumption despite its consumption of diverse foods [28]. It is unlikely that climbing perch would consume larger sizes of EPS (2.5–3.5 mm). Only accidental ingestion of EPS with a size less than 2.5 mm poses a risk to this species. The literature review revealed [50] that fish mostly ingested microplastics less than one mm. Coral fish Acanthochromis polyacanthus frequently grasped plastic less than 0.3 mm because they do not detect a foreign object and consume it with food [14]. We admit that while evaluating EPS pellets taste (biting and fragmentation) climbing perch could ingest small fragments of plastic. Nanoparticles of polystyrene (24 nm and 27 nm) that enter the bodies of zebrafish Danio rerio in the food chain (algae–daphnia–fish) affected food consumption and group behavior and decreased fish activity [23]. Response to plastics accumulation registered on behavioral, morphological and metabolic levels. The experimental maintenance of zebrafish in water with polystyrene particles with a size of 20 μm and 70 nm resulted in accumulation of plastics in the gills and intestines and impairment of lipid and energy metabolism in the liver [22]. Later, the accumulation and negative impact of polystyrene with a size of 5–12 µm was found in perch Perca fluviatilis [24] and medaka [37].

5. Conclusions

We estimated the expanded polystyrene distribution (probability of finding 0.67) in freshwater bodies in Central Vietnam. Our experiment revealed an effective defense mechanism of climbing perch to avoid the ingestion of expanded polystyrene pellets with size 2.5–3.5 mm. This mechanism was realized through the taste system and tactile reception of fish. The avoidance of plastic consumption by climbing perch facilitates its survival in water bodies contaminated with plastic waste. We hypothesize that some organic substances and additives from EPS could remain in the oral cavity of the climbing perch after the rejection of EPS granules. Such biologically active substances could create a potential risk for the physiological state of climbing perch.
There is no doubt that we need to monitor the amount and type of plastics that enter both freshwater and seawater environments. It is also required that we investigate the problem of plastic contamination in terms of plastic avoidance mechanisms in different hydrobionts. Further studies on this topic will facilitate the protection and conservation of the organisms that do not have an effective defense mechanism against ingestion of microplastics.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at:; Video S1: EPS pellets grasping.

Author Contributions

E.V.G. and E.D.P. contributed to the study conception and design; E.V.G., E.D.P. and T.D.D. made material preparation and data collection; analyses were performed by E.V.G. and E.D.P. the first draft of the manuscript was written by E.D.P. and E.V.G. and T.D.D. commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by Coastal Branch of Joint Vietnam–Russia Tropical Science and Technology Research Center, Nha Trang, Vietnam (Ecolan 3.2 “Taxonomic diversity, ecology and behavior of freshwater hydrobionts”).

Data Availability Statement

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


Authors would like to thank the administration and staff of the Coastal Branch of the Joint Russian–Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technological Center for their help in organizing field sample collection and kindly allowing us to use their laboratories and experimental facilities. We are grateful to A.O. Kasumyan (Moscow State University) for valuable comments on the text of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 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] [PubMed]
  2. Truong, T.H.; Vu, H.N. The Crisis of Plastic Waste in Vietnam is Real. Eur. J. Eng. Tech. Res. 2019, 4, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Danh, N.T.; Hoi, H.T. Effects of plastic waste to sea environment in Vietnam. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 351, 012023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lahens, L.; Strady, E.; Kieu-Le, T.-C.; Dris, R.; Boukerma, K.; Rinnert, E.; Gaspery, G.; Tassin, B. Macroplastic and microplastic contamination assessment of a tropical river (Saigon River Vietnam) transversed by a developing megacity. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 661–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Veerasingam, S.; Mugilarasan, M.; Venkatachalapathy, R.; Vethamony, P. Influence of 2015 flood on the distribution and occurrence of microplastic pellets along the Chennai coast India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gundogdu, S.; Cevik, C.; Ayat, B.; Aydogan, B.; Karaca, S. How microplastics quantities increase with flood events? An example from Mersin Bay NE Levantine coast of Turkey. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 239, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Laist, D.W. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1987, 18, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.J.; John, A.W.G.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 2004, 304, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. 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]
  11. Carson, H.S.; Nerheim, M.S.; Carroll, K.A.; Eriksen, M. The plastic-associated microorganisms of the North Pacific Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 75, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. Critchell, K.; Hoogenboom, M.O. Effects of microplastic exposure on the body condition and behaviour of planktivorous reef fish (Acanthochromis polyacanthus). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Koraltan, I.; Mavruk, S.; Güven, O. Effect of Biological and Environmental Factors on Microplastic Ingestion of Commercial Fish Species. Chemosphere 2022, 303, 135101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Jovanović, B. Ingestion of microplastics by fish and its potential consequences from a physical perspective. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag 2017, 13, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Turner, A. Foamed polystyrene in the marine environment: Sources additives transport behavior and impacts. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2020, 54, 10411–10420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arthur, C.; Baker, J.; Bamford, H. Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30; NOAA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2009. Available online: (accessed on 26 January 2023).
  19. Xiao, Y.; Jiang, X.; Liao, Y.; Zhao, W.; Zhao, P.; Li, M. Adverse physiological and molecular level effects of polystyrene microplastics on freshwater microalgae. Chemosphere 2020, 255, 126914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Iannilli, V.; Di Gennaro, A.; Lecce, F.; Sighicelli, M.; Falconieri, M.; Pietrelli, L.; Poeta, G.; Battisti, C. Microplastics in Talitrus saltator (Crustacea Amphipoda): New evidence of ingestion from natural contexts. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 28725–28729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kazour, M.; Amara, R. Is blue mussel caging an efficient method for monitoring environmental microplastics pollution? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 135649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, Y.; Jiang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Geng, J.; Ding, L.; Ren, H. Uptake and Accumulation of Polystyrene Microplastics in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) and Toxic Effects in Liver. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4054–4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mattsson, K.; Ekvall, M.T.; Hansson, L.-A.; Linse, S.; Malmendal, A.; Cedervall, T. Altered behavior physiology and metabolism in fish exposed to polystyrene nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kaloyianni, M.; Bobori, D.C.; Xanthopoulou, D.; Malioufa, G.; Sampsonidis, I.; Kalogiannis, S.; Feidantsis, K.; Kastrinaki, G.; Dimitriadi, A.; Koumoundouros, G.; et al. Toxicity and functional tissue responses of two freshwater fish after exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Toxics 2021, 9, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Avery-Gomm, S.; O’Hara, P.D.; Kleine, L.; Bowes, V.; Wilson, L.K.; Barry, K.L. Northern fulmars as biological monitors of trends of plastic pollution in the eastern North Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 1776–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gray, H.; Lattin, G.L.; Moore, C.J. Incidence mass and variety of plastics ingested by Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis) and Blackfooted Albatrosses (P. nigripes) recovered as by-catch in the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 2190–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Williams, R.; Ashe, E.; O’Hara, P.D. Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British Columbia Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1303–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shingh, K.P.; Samuel, P. Food feeding habits and gut contents of Anabas testudineus (Bloch). Matsya 1981, 7, 96. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pavlov, E.D.; Ganzha, E.V.; Pavlov, D.S. Climbing perch Anabas testudineus feeding in the darkness: Observation in infrared light. Inland Water Biol. 2021, 14, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nordin, I.L.; Ibrahim, N.; Hamidin, N.; Lutifi, A.L.O.; Ghani, N.A.A. Acute toxicity of endosulfan to Anabas testudineus. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2015, 9, 341–345. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kershaw, P.; Turra, A.; Galgani, F. Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter in the ocean. GESAMP Rep. Stud. 2019, 99, 123. [Google Scholar]
  32. Liem, K.F. Functional design of the air ventilation apparatus and overland escursions by teleosts. Fieldiana Zool. 1987, 37, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kasumyan, A.O.; Pashchenko, N.I.; Oanh, L.T. Morphology of the olfactory organ in the climbing perch (Anabas testudineus Anabantidae Perciformes). Biol. Bull. 2021, 48, 1298–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Savoca, M.S.; Tyson, C.W.; McGill, M.; Slager, C.J. Odours from marine plastic debris induce food search behaviours in a forage fish. Proc. R. Soc. B 2017, 284, 1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Farrelly, T.A.; Shaw, I.C. Polystyrene as Hazardous Household Waste. In Household Hazardous Waste Management; Mereki, D.M., Ed.; Intech Open: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Thompson, R. Plastic debris in the marine environment: Consequences and solutions. In Marine Nature Conservation in Europe; Krause, J., Von Nordheim, H., Brager, S., Eds.; Bundesamt fur Naturschutz Stralsund: Bonn, Germany, 2006; pp. 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Lu, L.; Zheng, M.; Zhang, X.; Tian, H.; Wang, W.; Ru, S. Polystyrene microplastics cause tissue damages sex-specific reproductive disruption and transgenerational effects in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 113024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Silva, A.O.; Bezerra, A.V.A.; Neubauer, T.M.; Ribeiro, L.F.B.; Hotza, D.; Machado, R. Nanocomposites production of polystyrene/silver obtained by embedding silver nanoparticles in situ with styrene polymerization. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2022, 39, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ratte, H.T. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver compounds: A review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1999, 18, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ali, D.; Yadav, P.G.; Kumar, S.; Ali, H.; Alarifi, S.; Harrath, A.H. Sensitivity of freshwater pulmonate snail Lymnaea luteola L., to silver nanoparticles. Chemosphere 2014, 104, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abramenko, N.; Demidova, T.B.; Krutyakov, Y.A.; Zherebin, P.M.; Krysanov, E.Y.; Kustov, L.M.; Peijnenburg, W. The effect of capping agents on the toxicity of silver nanoparticles to Danio rerio embryos. Nanotoxicology 2019, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Hansen, E.; Nilsson, N.H.; Lithner, D.; Lassen, C. Hazardous Substances in Plastics. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 132, 2014; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014; Available online: (accessed on 26 January 2023).
  43. Kasumyan, A.O.; Døving, K.B. Taste preferences in fishes. Fish Fish. 2003, 4, 289–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kasumyan, A.O. The intraoral tactile reception and its interaction with the gustatory system in fish. Dokl. Biol. Sci. 2012, 447, 374–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kasumyan, A.O.; Sidorov, S.S. Taste properties of free amino acids for Caspian brown trout Salmo trutta caspius. J. Ichthyol. 1994, 34, 831–838. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  46. Kasumyan, A.O.; Isaeva, O.M.; Oanh, L.T.K. Taste attractivity of tropical echinoderms for barramundi Lates calcarifer. Aquaculture 2022, 553, 738051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hobson, E.S.; Chess, J.R. Trophic relationships among fishes and plankton in the lagoon at Enewetak Atoll Marshall Islands. Fish Bull. 1977, 76, 133–153. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ma, Z.; Guo, H.; Zhang, D.; Hu, C.; Jiang, S. Food ingestion consumption and selectivity of pompano Trachinotus ovatus (Linnaeus 1758) under different rotifer densities. Aquac. Res. 2015, 46, 2593–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hoogenboom, M.O.; Armstrong, J.D.; Groothuis, T.G.G.; Metcalfe, N.B. The growth benefits of aggressive behavior vary with individual metabolism and resource predictability. Behav. Ecol. 2013, 24, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Lim, K.P.; Lim, P.E.; Yusoff, S.; Sun, C.; Ding, J.; Loh, K.H. A meta-analysis of the characterisations of plastic ingested by fish globally. Toxics 2022, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Geographical position of macroplastics sampling (red dots) (QGIS 3.26.2).
Figure 1. Geographical position of macroplastics sampling (red dots) (QGIS 3.26.2).
Water 15 01294 g001
Figure 2. EPS pellet before grasping (a) and after grasping (b) by Anabas testudineus. Scale bar 2 mm.
Figure 2. EPS pellet before grasping (a) and after grasping (b) by Anabas testudineus. Scale bar 2 mm.
Water 15 01294 g002
Table 1. Qualitative evaluation of macroplastics contaminations in water bodies of Central Vietnam.
Table 1. Qualitative evaluation of macroplastics contaminations in water bodies of Central Vietnam.
Studied AreasWaterbodiesProvinceSampling CoordinatesType of Macroplastics
1.Cai River (lower reaches)Khanh Hoa12°16′22″ N 109°09′25″ ELDPE, PP, EPS, XPS
2.Am Chua Reservoir 12°18′35″ N 109°05′46″ ELDPE, EPS, PET, Other
Am Chua Irrigation channel 12°17′26″ N 109°06′04″ ELDPE, PP, EPS, PET, Other
3.Da Rang River (middle reaches)Phu Yen13°00′52″ N 109°11′36″ EPP, Other
Da Rang River (estuary)13°03′54″ N 109°18′41″ ELDPE, PP, EPS, XPS
4.Krong No River (upper reaches)Lam Dong12°15′10″ N 108°26′23″ ELDPE, PP, Nylon, Other
Krong No River (lower reaches)12°10′55″ N 108°08′12″ ELDPE, PP, Other
5.Da Nhim Reservoir 11°40′38″ N 108°19′41″ ELDPE, Other
Da Nhim River (middle reaches)11°46′16″ N 108°31′00″ ELDPE, PP, Other
6.Dankia Reservoir11°59′31″ N 108°22′17″ ELDPE, PP, EPS, PET
Ankroet River (connected with Dankia Reservoir)12°00′12″ N 108°21′01″ ELDPE, PP, Nylon
Notes: EPS—expanded polystyrene; XPS—extruded polystyrene; PP—polypropylene; LDPE—low-density polyethylene; PET—polyethylene terephthalate; Other—multilayer polymer films.
Table 2. The time of grasping feed and EPS pellets by Anabas testudineus during 20 min.
Table 2. The time of grasping feed and EPS pellets by Anabas testudineus during 20 min.
Type of Introducing PelletsFeed PelletsEPS Pellets24th Grasping
1st Grasping 12th Grasping1st Grasping12th Grasping
Feed12 ± 9.0
63 ± 43.5
143 ± 63.8 (5)
Expanded polystyrene35 ± 22.7
75 ± 4.3
817 ± 129.0 (4)
Feed and Expanded polystyrene2 ± 0.6
49 ± 17.1
14 ± 7.2
193 ± 62.4
Notes: Above the line M ± m (mean and standard error); below the line min–max; numbers (4, 5) indicate amount of the trials used in the calculation, if it was <6. In some trials, the amount of grasping of feed or EPS pellets was not always more than 24 times during the 20 min.
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

Ganzha, E.V.; Pavlov, E.D.; Dien, T.D. Risk of Expanded Polystyrene Ingestion by Climbing Perch Anabas testudineus. Water 2023, 15, 1294.

AMA Style

Ganzha EV, Pavlov ED, Dien TD. Risk of Expanded Polystyrene Ingestion by Climbing Perch Anabas testudineus. Water. 2023; 15(7):1294.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ganzha, Ekaterina V., Efim D. Pavlov, and Tran Duc Dien. 2023. "Risk of Expanded Polystyrene Ingestion by Climbing Perch Anabas testudineus" Water 15, no. 7: 1294.

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