Next Article in Journal
Selenium + Vitamin E Supplementation in Anestrus Goats: A Strategy to Enhance Reproductive Outcomes Under a Semi-Arid Production System
Previous Article in Journal
ATR Deficiency Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Accelerates Cellular Senescence in Bovine Mammary Epithelial Cells, Leading to Lactation Dysfunction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/ani15101420
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Microplastics in Cronius ruber: Links to Wastewater Discharges

by
Sofía Huelbes
1,*,
May Gómez
1,
Ico Martínez
1,
Raül Triay-Portella
2,
Miguel González-Pleiter
3 and
Alicia Herrera
1
1
Marine Ecophysiology Group (EOMAR), Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Acuicultura Sostenible y Ecosistemas Marinos (ECOAQUA), Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Canary Islands, Spain
2
Biodiversity and Conservation Group (BIOCON), Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Acuicultura Sostenible y Ecosistemas Marinos (ECOAQUA), Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Canary Islands, Spain
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(10), 1420; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15101420
Submission received: 31 March 2025 / Revised: 26 April 2025 / Accepted: 9 May 2025 / Published: 14 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Ecology and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

This study focuses on microplastic pollution in Cronius ruber, an invasive crab species found in the Canary Islands, and its connection to wastewater discharges. Researchers examined 63 crabs from four beaches around Gran Canaria and found that over half had microplastics in their stomachs. Most of these microplastics were fibers commonly used in textiles, revealing that wastewater—especially from laundry processes—plays a significant role in pollution. Beaches near unauthorized wastewater discharges showed higher levels of contamination, with Anfi del Mar and El Puertillo being the most affected. This is the first study to document microplastic ingestion in C. ruber, raising concerns about the ecological impacts and potential bioaccumulation of these pollutants.

Abstract

Microplastic pollution in the ocean is a growing problem. It affects the entire ecosystem and, therefore, the species that inhabit it. Plastics can be filtered or ingested by organisms, entering and negatively affecting individuals. Among the populations affected are crustaceans. In previous studies, fibers have been found mainly in the stomach contents of these animals, although other types, such as pellets, have also been found. This study examines the presence of microplastics in Cronius ruber, an invasive crab species in the Canary Islands, and investigates their potential links to nearby wastewater discharges. A total of 63 crabs were sampled from four beaches in Gran Canaria in 2021, and their stomach contents were analyzed through alkaline digestion, filtration, and micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (micro-FTIR). Microplastics were detected in 52% of individuals; the particles averaged 0.7 ± 0.5 mm in length, with an average of 1.73 ± 1.02 particles per crab. Fibers constituted 89% of the microplastics, with blue and black being the predominant colors. Rayon, commonly used in textiles, was the most frequently identified polymer (52%), highlighting the role of wastewater from laundry processes as a significant pollution source. Beaches close to unauthorized wastewater discharges, such as Anfi del Mar (n = 3) and El Puertillo (n = 32), showed the highest contamination levels, with a frequency of occurrence (FO) of microplastic particles of 67% and 58%, respectively. Playa de Las Nieves was the one with the lowest contamination level (n = 22), with a frequency of occurrence of microplastic particles of 41%. This is the first study to document microplastic ingestion in C. ruber, raising concerns about its ecological presence and the potential bioaccumulation of contaminants in marine ecosystems. Further research is essential to understand the long-term consequences of microplastic exposure on invasive species and their possible roles in pollutant transfer through food webs.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, plastics have become one of the major ecological problems worldwide. Their massive production, combined with their low biodegradability and persistence in the environment, has steadily increased their accumulation in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. This phenomenon not only poses a challenge for their extraction, but also generates a growing problem due to the continuous diversification of their forms and contamination pathways.
In marine ecosystems, plastics have proven to be disruptive agents with ecologically and economically adverse effects. For example, abandoned or lost fishing nets contribute to the phenomenon known as ghost fishing, in which marine species are inadvertently trapped, compromising their survival and that of other associated species [1]. Furthermore, microplastics, defined as plastic fragments of less than 5 mm in diameter, represent a less visible but equally dangerous form of pollution, as they contain chemical additives that can act as carriers of toxic substances [2], causing problems in reproduction, development, and genetic integrity, even in organisms such as fish and crustaceans [3,4]. These compounds accumulate in the organisms that ingest them, generating bioaccumulative and biomagnifying effects in trophic chains [5].
An important yet frequently underestimated source of microplastics is the release of synthetic fibers from washing machines. A significant proportion of modern garments are composed of plastic-based materials, such as nylon, polyester, and acrylic, whose fibers are released during washing cycles. Domestic laundering contributes to microplastic pollution through the release of synthetic fibers. Factors such as the fabric type and washing conditions significantly influence the extent of fiber shedding from garments [6]. Furthermore, production techniques, material selection, and post-consumer care practices collectively determine a fabric’s propensity to shed microfibers [7]. Aggregated across millions of households, conventional laundry practices represent a major pathway for microplastic fibers to enter aquatic and terrestrial environments [8]. These fibers are assumed to accumulate along coastal areas near discharge points, potentially affecting the organisms inhabiting these areas.
This study was carried out in Gran Canaria, belonging to the Canary Islands, an archipelago located in the North Atlantic Ocean off the west coast of Africa (Figure 1). These islands lie in the path of the Canary Current, a branch of the Azores Current, which transports pollutants from northern areas to their coasts.
Previous studies have demonstrated the accumulation of plastic pollutants on various beaches of the Canary Islands, including Gran Canaria [9,10,11,12], and their impacts on the marine biota, including microplastic ingestion by fish [13,14], sea birds [15], and jellyfish [16]. In this context, research on species such as the Atlantic m4ackerel (Scomber colias) has shown that 78% of individuals caught near the coast contained microplastics in their digestive tracts [14]. These findings underscore the need to assess the level of this contamination and its potential ecological and toxicological effects on other local species.
Previous studies have shown the presence of microplastics in crab species such as Carcinus aestuarii [17] or Lithodes santolla [18]. Some of these studies reveal the leaching of the microplastic particles into different tissues of the animal, such as the gills [19], digestive tract [20], hepatopancreas [21], or tissues [22]. Additionally, there is evidence of the impacts of these plastics on reproduction and embryonic development in individuals [23].
For this study, the species of interest is Cronius ruber, a predatory crab that has been reported as an invasive species in the Canary Islands since its first observation in 2016. It is speculated that the introduction of this crab to the islands may have occurred through maritime traffic or the movement of oil platforms within the archipelago [24]. Since then, its population has experienced exponential growth, and it is commonly found along the archipelago’s coasts. This crab occupies a significant ecological role as a generalist predator, feeding on annelids, bivalves, small fish, and other crustaceans, and competes with native crabs [25].
Our starting hypothesis is that C. ruber, inhabiting coastal waters near discharge points and feeding on benthic organisms and invertebrates, could be ingesting microplastics either directly or through its prey. This study aims to evaluate the presence of microplastics in this species, providing relevant data on the interactions between plastic pollution and invasive species such as C. ruber, as well as the potential impact of microplastics on the local trophic networks and marine ecosystems in the Canary Archipelago.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Area

The Canary Islands are an archipelago located in the North Atlantic Ocean, off the west coast of Africa, between the coordinates (27°37′ and 29°25′ north latitude and 13°20′ and 18°10′ west latitude). These islands have a subtropical climate and temperate waters.
Crabs were collected from 4 beaches on the island of Gran Canaria (Figure 1): Playa de Las Nieves in the northwest, La Laja Beach in the northeast, El Puertillo Beach in the north, and Anfi del Mar Beach in the south. These beaches were chosen because of their proximity to illegal wastewater discharge points nearby, their ease of access, and the presence of the crabs.

2.2. Crab Harvesting

According to the methodology established by Triay-Portella [26], divers collected the crabs by hand using artificial lights during the night, as this is when C. ruber has its peak activity. Sampling was carried out at depths of 1 to 7 m on sandy and rocky bottoms during May, June, July, and October 2021. The maximum number of samples was sought at the four sampling locations, where a total of 63 samples were frozen (−20 °C) instantly after collection to maintain their quality.

2.3. Laboratory Procedures

The crab samples were kept in the freezer until dissection. Their stomach contents were placed in 10% KOH in glass beakers and completely covered with an alkaline solution. They were kept under digestion at 60 °C for a minimum of 24 h and a maximum of 72 h for samples that were not fully digested (Table 1). Prior to digestion, the stomachs were opened due to their hardness to facilitate the digestion of the organic material.
After the alkaline digestion was completed, the obtained samples were filtered through 25 µm metal filters using a suction pump.
Protective gloves and lab coats were worn throughout the sample analysis process, which was carried out inside a fume hood. All materials were thoroughly washed and inspected before use to avoid any possible contamination during the laboratory procedures.
Once the samples were filtered and dried, a visual inspection was carried out using a binocular stereomicroscope to identify any particles suspected to be microplastics. All suspected particles were photographed, measured (the particles averaged 0.7 ± 0.5 mm in length), and classified by type (fibers, films, and fragments) and color. To keep track of possible contamination during the latter process, a 25 μm mesh Petri dish was placed next to the microscope to control possible contamination in the air inside the laboratory.

2.4. Micro-FTIR Analysis

For the micro-FTIR analysis, the particles were analyzed using micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (micro-FTIR), using a Perkin-Elmer Spotlight 200i micro-FTIR instrument equipped with an MCT (Mercury Cadmium Telluride) detector. The instrument was operated in transmission mode on KBr disks with a spectral resolution of 8 cm−1 and a wavelength range of 550–4000 cm−1 [27] at the Interdepartmental Research Service (SIDI) of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Beforehand, the samples were concentrated and refiltered. In this way, all suspected plastics were assembled and reorganized to obtain six glass plates with 57 particles to analyze. From these 57 particles, 70% (40 items) were analyzed, and 82.5% (33 items) were confirmed as plastic polymers.

2.5. Wastewater Discharge Point Locations

With the visor GRAFCAN from the IDE Canarias (Canary Government, https://visor.grafcan.es/visorweb/, accessed on April 2025), wastewater discharge points were tracked near the beaches where the crabs were collected. The discharges that were half a kilometer or less from the beaches sampled are shown in Figure 2.

2.6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT version GPT-4 for the purposes of rewriting to improve the language and readability. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

3. Results

3.1. Frequency of Occurrence

Of the total number of crabs analyzed, 33 (52%) were suspected to be contaminated with microplastic particles in their stomachs. Fibers, films, and fragments were found.
In total, 57 suspect microplastic particles were identified across all samples analyzed. The average number of microplastic particles per contaminated individual was 1.73 ± 1.02 (mean ± SD), as shown in Table 2. Anfi del Mar Beach showed the highest contamination rate, with 67% of its samples contaminated (n = 3). In contrast, El Puertillo Beach showed a 58% contamination rate with the largest sample size (n = 32). Playa de Las Nieves had the lowest frequency of microplastic occurrence, with 41% in its 22 samples. At La Laja Beach, a frequency of 50% was detected in the six samples collected. Due to the highly unbalanced sample sizes between Anfi del Mar Beach (n = 3) and El Puertillo Beach (n = 32), the assumptions required for robust statistical analysis, including reliable estimates of variability and underlying distributional assumptions, were not met.

3.2. Characteristics of Microplastics

Among the particles suspected of being microplastics, fibers, fragments, and films were found (Figure 3).
As for the colors (Figure 4B), blue was the predominant color in most of the suspicious particles (55%). Black was the second most abundant color (19%), followed by transparent (12%). Green (7%), red (5%), and purple (2%) appeared in smaller proportions.
A total of 40 microplastics were analyzed, and the composition of 33 was confirmed by micro-FTIR (82.5%) (Figure 5). Rayon, a material from the textile industry, was the most frequent, with more than half of the microplastics identified as such. Other materials were cellulose (15.2%), polypropylene (PP, 12.1%), acrylic, nylon, and polyester (6.1% each), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET, 3.0%). The composition of all samples can be checked in the table attached as Table 3.

4. Discussion

More than half of the individuals examined had particles suspected of being microplastics in their stomach contents (52%). Of the 57 particles suspected to be microplastics, 40 particles were analyzed, of which the plastic composition of 33 (82.5%) was confirmed. Microplastic ingestion occurred at all sites (40–67% frequency), though the small samples limited the statistical comparisons.
As explained, the Canary Current brings with it plastic debris that is deposited on the islands of the Canary Archipelago, which acts as a natural barrier to the current. Although this pollution is quite high [9,10], the plastic pollution by fibers found on the beaches and in these four coastal areas could be explained by the presence of discharges close to them or by anthropogenic pressure [10].
In the case of Playa de Las Nieves, there is an unauthorized discharge close to the beach. At El Puertillo Beach, there are four unauthorized dumping points and four that are still being processed. Anfi del Mar Beach has three unauthorized dumping points nearby. Finally, La Laja Beach has one unauthorized discharge point on one side of the beach, while on the other side, there are several authorized and pending discharges a little further away. All of these wastewater discharges could expel microplastic (mainly fibers from laundry) pollutants that end up on the beaches, and therefore in the organisms themselves either directly through filtration, in the case of filter-feeding species, or through the simple confusion of this anthropogenic debris with the diets of certain generally small species. It can also occur indirectly by trophic transfer in the case of predatory species.
As specified in Figure 4A, 89% of the microplastic particles found corresponded to fibers, which was expected, since fibers are the most abundant type of pollution in the oceans [28]. According to the micro-FTIR analysis (Figure 5), a 52% content of rayon (a regenerated cellulose fiber that involves chemical modification with hazardous components [29]) was obtained. In addition, other types of materials used in clothing manufacturing, such as polyester, cellulose, or nylon, among others, were observed. Fiber pollution is closely related to wastewater discharges due to the use of washing machines, which are estimated to release more than 700,000 microplastic fibers in a single medium-load wash [6]. Fibers are readily ingested by filter feeders like bivalves, which are already known to filter these fibers and bioaccumulate [30,31,32].
The diet of C. ruber could also influence its ingestion of microplastics. As a generalist predator, this crab consumes a variety of prey, including annelids, fish, mollusks, and other crustaceans [25]. In the case of the mollusks, some of the species consumed are filter feeders. Several studies show how the presence of contaminants in prey affects predatory crab species [33,34,35,36], so C. ruber could suffer not only from bioaccumulation, but also biomagnification.
Of the colors found, the most abundant were blue, with 55%, and black, with 19% of occurrence, according to Figure 4B. Studies in other species show that these two colors tend to predominate in the stomach contents of marine organisms, together with white or transparent colors [37,38,39,40]. These higher concentrations of blue and black fibers could be explained by the wastewater discharges that carry fibers coming from washing machines, as explained above. These fibers would not have to be exclusively of plastic; they could be of other materials, but always of anthropogenic origin, being able to transport chemical products such as detergents or laundry conditioners [6,41]. Blue and black fibers are the most common fibers in clothing, and black fibers may also be discolored as they degrade into blue tones. It has also been observed that the ingestion of blue and black plastics occurs in fishes and other benthic crab species inhabiting coastal areas, so this possibility could be supported [42,43].
This is the first study that considers the possible existence of microplastics in the species C. ruber. There are no prior data or observations to compare with our results. In addition, the real impact that these contaminants could have in the long term on the digestive systems of the crabs is not yet known.
It is not yet possible to know how microplastics affect the species C. ruber, so future research should explore the ecological and physiological implications of microplastic contamination in C. ruber. Comparative studies across different geographical regions could provide valuable insights into the relationship between habitat-specific pollution and species-level responses. Cronius ruber appears to be a promising species for microplastic analysis, and could be further utilized in future studies on environmental contamination.

5. Conclusions

More than half (n = 33) of the Cronius ruber samples analyzed contained anthropogenic particles, of which 82.5% of the particles analyzed were microplastics and were detected at all locations. Fibers were the dominant type of microplastic found, accounting for 89% of the total, with rayon being the most common material, emphasizing the role of textile laundering as a major source of contamination. In all likelihood, the proximity to authorized and unauthorized wastewater discharge points contributed significantly to the contamination in the coastal areas.
The diet of C. ruber, which includes filter-feeding prey, suggests that the microplastics are ingested by trophic transfer. Blue and black fibers were the most abundant, supporting the textile origins and wastewater discharges, as these fibers are common in clothing and degrade over time in marine environments.

Author Contributions

Methodology, S.H., R.T.-P., M.G.-P. and A.H.; validation, M.G., R.T.-P. and A.H.; formal analysis, S.H.; investigation, R.T.-P., M.G.-P. and A.H.; resources, M.G.; data curation, S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H. and A.H.; writing—review and editing, M.G., I.M., R.T.-P., M.G.-P. and A.H.; visualization, A.H.; supervision, M.G. and A.H.; project administration, M.G.; funding acquisition, M.G. and A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the ASTRESS project (ProID2024010013, of the Canary Island government and ERDF funds), awarded to A.H. and M.G. S.H. received financial support from a predoctoral grant (FPI2024010075) from the “Agencia Canaria de Investigación, Innovación y Sociedad de la Información (ACIISI)”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleague Luis Larumbe Canalejo, from the Interdepartmental Research Service (SIDI) of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, who helped with the infrared analysis at their facilities. ChatGPT was used in the revision of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Thushari, G.G.N.; Senevirathna, J.D.M. Plastic Pollution in the Marine Environment. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Beiras, R.; Verdejo, E.; Campoy-López, P.; Vidal-Liñán, L. Aquatic Toxicity of Chemically Defined Microplastics Can Be Explained by Functional Additives. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 406, 124338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rochman, C.M.; Hoh, E.; Kurobe, T.; Teh, S.J. Ingested Plastic Transfers Hazardous Chemicals to Fish and Induces Hepatic Stress. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 3263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wright, S.L.; Thompson, R.C.; Galloway, T.S. The Physical Impacts of Microplastics on Marine Organisms: A Review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Setälä, O.; Fleming-Lehtinen, V.; Lehtiniemi, M. Ingestion and Transfer of Microplastics in the Planktonic Food Web. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Napper, I.E.; Thompson, R.C. Release of Synthetic Microplastic Plastic Fibres from Domestic Washing Machines: Effects of Fabric Type and Washing Conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Stanton, T.; Stanes, E.; Gwinnett, C.; Lei, X.; Cauilan-Cureg, M.; Ramos, M.; Sallach, J.B.; Harrison, E.; Osborne, A.; Sanders, C.H.; et al. Shedding Off-the-Grid: The Role of Garment Manufacturing and Textile Care in Global Microfibre Pollution. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 428, 139391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, C.; Song, J.; Nunes, L.M.; Zhao, H.; Wang, P.; Liang, Z.; Arp, H.P.H.; Li, G.; Xing, B. Global Microplastic Fiber Pollution from Domestic Laundry. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 477, 135290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rapp, J.; Herrera, A.; Martinez, I.; Raymond, E.; Santana, Á.; Gómez, M. Study of Plastic Pollution and Its Potential Sources on Gran Canaria Island Beaches (Canary Islands, Spain). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 153, 110967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Herrera, A.; Asensio, M.; Martínez, I.; Santana, A.; Packard, T.; Gómez, M. Microplastic and Tar Pollution on Three Canary Islands Beaches: An Annual Study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Camacho, M.; Herrera, A.; Gómez, M.; Acosta-Dacal, A.; Martínez, I.; Henríquez-Hernández, L.A.; Luzardo, O.P. Organic Pollutants in Marine Plastic Debris from Canary Islands Beaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Reinold, S.; Herrera, A.; Stile, N.; Saliu, F.; Hernández-González, C.; Martinez, I.; Ortega, Z.; Marrero, M.D.; Lasagni, M.; Gómez, M. An Annual Study on Plastic Accumulation in Surface Water and Sediment Cores from the Coastline of Tenerife (Canary Island, Spain). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 113072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Reinold, S.; Herrera, A.; Saliu, F.; Hernández-González, C.; Martinez, I.; Lasagni, M.; Gómez, M. Evidence of Microplastic Ingestion by Cultured European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 168, 112450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Herrera, A.; Ŝtindlová, A.; Martínez, I.; Rapp, J.; Romero-Kutzner, V.; Montoto, T.; Aguiar-González, B.; Packard, T.; Gómez, M. Microplastic Ingestion by Atlantic Chub Mackerel (Scomber colias) in the Canary Islands Coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 139, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Navarro, A.; Luzardo, O.P.; Gómez, M.; Acosta-Dacal, A.; Martínez, I.; Felipe de la Rosa, J.; Macías-Montes, A.; Suárez-Pérez, A.; Herrera, A. Microplastics Ingestion and Chemical Pollutants in Seabirds of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 186, 114434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rapp, J.; Herrera, A.; Bondyale-Juez, D.R.; González-Pleiter, M.; Reinold, S.; Asensio, M.; Martínez, I.; Gómez, M. Microplastic Ingestion in Jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskal, 1775) in the North Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 166, 112266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Piarulli, S.; Scapinello, S.; Comandini, P.; Magnusson, K.; Granberg, M.; Wong, J.X.W.; Sciutto, G.; Prati, S.; Mazzeo, R.; Booth, A.M.; et al. Microplastic in Wild Populations of the Omnivorous Crab Carcinus aestuarii: A Review and a Regional-Scale Test of Extraction Methods, Including Microfibres. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 251, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Andrade, C.; Ovando, F. First Record of Microplastics in Stomach Content of the Southern King Crab Lithodes santolla (Anomura: Lithodidadae), Nassau Bay, Cape Horn, Chile. An. Inst. Patagonia 2017, 45, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Watts, A.J.R.; Urbina, M.A.; Goodhead, R.; Moger, J.; Lewis, C.; Galloway, T.S. Effect of Microplastic on the Gills of the Shore Crab Carcinus maenas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5364–5369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Villagran, D.M.; Truchet, D.M.; Buzzi, N.S.; Forero Lopez, A.D.; Fernández Severini, M.D. A Baseline Study of Microplastics in the Burrowing Crab (Neohelice granulata) from a Temperate Southwestern Atlantic Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brennecke, D.; Ferreira, E.C.; Costa, T.M.M.; Appel, D.; da Gama, B.A.P.; Lenz, M. Ingested Microplastics (>100 Μm) Are Translocated to Organs of the Tropical Fiddler Crab Uca Rapax. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 96, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Waite, H.R.; Donnelly, M.J.; Walters, L.J. Quantity and Types of Microplastics in the Organic Tissues of the Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica and Atlantic Mud Crab Panopeus herbstii from a Florida Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Horn, D.A.; Granek, E.F.; Steele, C.L. Effects of Environmentally Relevant Concentrations of Microplastic Fibers on Pacific Mole Crab (Emerita analoga) Mortality and Reproduction. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2020, 5, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. González, J.A.; Triay-Portella, R.; Escribano, A.; Cuesta, J.A. Northernmost Record of the Pantropical Portunid Crab Cronius ruber in the Eastern Atlantic (Canary Islands): Natural Range Extension or Human-Mediated Introduction? Sci. Mar. 2017, 81, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Triay-Portella, R.; Martín, J.A.; Luque, L.; Pajuelo, J.G. Relevance of Feeding Ecology in the Management of Invasive Species: Prey Variability in a Novel Invasive Crab. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2022, 274, 107949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Triay-Portella, R.; Escribano, A.; Pajuelo, J.G.; Tuya, F. Perception of Faunal Circadian Rhythms Depends on Sampling Technique. Mar. Environ. Res. 2018, 134, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Edo, C.; Fernández-Piñas, F.; Leganes, F.; Gómez, M.; Martínez, I.; Herrera, A.; Hernández-Sánchez, C.; González-Sálamo, J.; Borges, J.H.; López-Castellanos, J.; et al. A Nationwide Monitoring of Atmospheric Microplastic Deposition. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 905, 166923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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]
  29. Mendes, I.S.F.; Prates, A.; Evtuguin, D.V. Production of Rayon Fibres from Cellulosic Pulps: State of the Art and Current Developments. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 273, 118466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pan, Z.; Liu, Q.; Xu, J.; Li, W.; Lin, H. Microplastic Contamination in Seafood from Dongshan Bay in Southeastern China and Its Health Risk Implication for Human Consumption. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 303, 119163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Esterhuizen, M.; Buchenhorst, L.; Kim, Y.J.; Pflugmacher, S. In Vivo Oxidative Stress Responses of the Freshwater Basket Clam Corbicula javanicus to Microplastic Fibres and Particles. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 134037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Jong, M.-C.; Li, J.; Noor, H.M.; He, Y.; Gin, K.Y.-H. Impacts of Size-Fractionation on Toxicity of Marine Microplastics: Enhanced Integrated Biomarker Assessment in the Tropical Mussels, Perna viridis. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 835, 155459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Farrell, P.; Nelson, K. Trophic Level Transfer of Microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ. Pollut. 2013, 177, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Crooks, N.; Parker, H.; Pernetta, A.P. Brain Food? Trophic Transfer and Tissue Retention of Microplastics by the Velvet Swimming Crab (Necora puber). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2019, 519, 151187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, T.; Hu, M.; Xu, G.; Shi, H.; Leung, J.Y.S.; Wang, Y. Microplastic Accumulation via Trophic Transfer: Can a Predatory Crab Counter the Adverse Effects of Microplastics by Body Defence? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Welden, N.A.; Abylkhani, B.; Howarth, L.M. The Effects of Trophic Transfer and Environmental Factors on Microplastic Uptake by Plaice, Pleuronectes plastessa, and Spider Crab, Maja squinado. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 239, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Devriese, L.I.; van der Meulen, M.D.; Maes, T.; Bekaert, K.; Paul-Pont, I.; Frère, L.; Robbens, J.; Vethaak, A.D. Microplastic Contamination in Brown Shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from Coastal Waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel Area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 98, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boerger, C.M.; Lattin, G.L.; Moore, S.L.; Moore, C.J. Plastic Ingestion by Planktivorous Fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 2275–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Piyawardhana, N.; Weerathunga, V.; Chen, H.S.; Guo, L.; Huang, P.J.; Ranatunga, R.R.M.K.P.; Hung, C.C. Occurrence of Microplastics in Commercial Marine Dried Fish in Asian Countries. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 423, 127093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Okamoto, K.; Nomura, M.; Horie, Y.; Okamura, H. Color Preferences and Gastrointestinal-Tract Retention Times of Microplastics by Freshwater and Marine Fishes. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 304, 119253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sillanpää, M.; Sainio, P. Release of Polyester and Cotton Fibers from Textiles in Machine Washings. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 19313–19321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. 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] [PubMed]
  43. Ogunola, S.O.; Reis-Santos, P.; Wootton, N.; Gillanders, B.M. Microplastics in Decapod Crustaceans Sourced from Australian Seafood Markets. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 179, 113706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 15 01420 g001
Figure 1. The location map of the sampling beaches. The map of Gran Canaria is in UTM coordinates (zone 28N, EPSG:32628): Playa de Las Nieves (28° 06′ 04,345″ N 15° 42′ 40,886″ W); La Laja Beach (28° 3′ 39,238″ N 15° 25′ 11,95″ W); El Puertillo Beach (28° 9′ 9,338″ N 15° 31′ 58,642″ W); Anfi del Mar Beach (27° 46′ 22″ N 15° 41′ 45″ W).
Figure 1. The location map of the sampling beaches. The map of Gran Canaria is in UTM coordinates (zone 28N, EPSG:32628): Playa de Las Nieves (28° 06′ 04,345″ N 15° 42′ 40,886″ W); La Laja Beach (28° 3′ 39,238″ N 15° 25′ 11,95″ W); El Puertillo Beach (28° 9′ 9,338″ N 15° 31′ 58,642″ W); Anfi del Mar Beach (27° 46′ 22″ N 15° 41′ 45″ W).
Animals 15 01420 g001
Animals 15 01420 g002
Figure 2. Images of the sampling locations represented by the purple area (200 m scale) with the nearby wastewater discharge points. The sampling area at each beach is outlined in pink. (A) El Puertillo Beach; (B) Playa de Las Nieves; (C) La Laja Beach; (D) Anfi del Mar Beach.
Figure 2. Images of the sampling locations represented by the purple area (200 m scale) with the nearby wastewater discharge points. The sampling area at each beach is outlined in pink. (A) El Puertillo Beach; (B) Playa de Las Nieves; (C) La Laja Beach; (D) Anfi del Mar Beach.
Animals 15 01420 g002
Animals 15 01420 g003
Figure 3. Photos of types and colors of microplastic particles which were found in stomachs of Cronius ruber specimens from Gran Canaria: (a) films (3.5%); (b) fragments (7%); (c) fibers (89.5%); (d) blue fiber; (e) black fiber; (f) red fiber.
Figure 3. Photos of types and colors of microplastic particles which were found in stomachs of Cronius ruber specimens from Gran Canaria: (a) films (3.5%); (b) fragments (7%); (c) fibers (89.5%); (d) blue fiber; (e) black fiber; (f) red fiber.
Animals 15 01420 g003
Animals 15 01420 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of suspected microplastic particle forms in percentages (A) and distribution of suspected microplastic colors in percentages (B).
Figure 4. Distribution of suspected microplastic particle forms in percentages (A) and distribution of suspected microplastic colors in percentages (B).
Animals 15 01420 g004
Animals 15 01420 g005
Figure 5. Types of polymer microplastics found in invasive Cronius ruber from Gran Canaria.
Figure 5. Types of polymer microplastics found in invasive Cronius ruber from Gran Canaria.
Animals 15 01420 g005
Table 1. Summary of samples with basic information.
Table 1. Summary of samples with basic information.
LocationIDSexWSC (gr)YearMonthDayDepthObservation
Playa de Las NievesB01711.54662021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB01811.56352021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB01910.7272021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02010.35552021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02210.92872021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02310.31842021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02411.42021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02511.58892021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02610.862021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02721.72982021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02821.58152021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB02920.83092021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03021.15972021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03120.34752021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03220.85492021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03322.30752021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03420.93572021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03520.8442021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03620.7962021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03720.522021692–5 m24 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03821.3642021692–5 m72 h KOH
Playa de Las NievesB03921.442021692–5 m72 h KOH
La Laja BeachB04011.970520216152–5 m72 h KOH
La Laja BeachB04111.66520216152–5 m24 h KOH
La Laja BeachB04211.037720216152–5 m72 h KOH
La Laja BeachB04310.680520216152–5 m72 h KOH
La Laja BeachB04420.570520216152–5 m24 h KOH
La Laja BeachB04520.303620216152–5 m72 h KOH
Anfi del Mar BeachB04621.7232021512–3 m24 h KOH
Anfi del Mar BeachB04720.84722021512–3 m24 h KOH
Anfi del Mar BeachB04820.54242021512–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05011.289720217201–3 m72 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05111.748320217201–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05210.935920217201–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05320.752920217201–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05420.54820217201–3 m72 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05610.680820217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05710.690620217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05811.703520217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB05911.26520217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB06012.202920217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB06110.693420217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB06210.847220217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB06311.254620217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB06410.422620217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB06511.779320217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07121.616120217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07221.027120217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07321.3120217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07420.502820217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07521.545420217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07621.460420217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07720.747120217271–3 m72 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07821.055720217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB07920.521820217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08020.75620217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08120.670720217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08220.232320217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08320.482220217271–3 m72 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08420.608320217271–3 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08521.2220211011–4 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08621.264920211011–4 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB0871-20211011–4 m24 h KOH
El Puertillo BeachB08821.057920211011–4 m24 h KOH
ID = identification name. Sex: 1 = male, 2 = female. WSC (gr) = weight of the stomach contents of each crab in grams.
Table 2. Summary of data samples by location.
Table 2. Summary of data samples by location.
LocationnMean MP/indSDFO%
Playa de Las Nieves221.560.7341
La Laja Beach63.672.0850
Anfi del Mar Beach33.001.4167
El Puertillo Beach321.370.6058
Total631.731.1052
n: number of samples; mean MP/ind: mean number of microplastics per individual; SD: standard deviation; FO%: frequency of occurrence of microplastic particles as percentage.
Table 3. Results of micro-FTIR analysis and their percentages of coincidence.
Table 3. Results of micro-FTIR analysis and their percentages of coincidence.
SampleTypePolymerCoincidence (%)
1FiberCellulose73
2FiberNI-
3FragmentNI-
4FiberNI-
5FiberCellulose87
6FiberNI-
7FiberPolyethylene Terephthalate83
8FiberRayon85
9FiberPolymethyl Methacrylate83
10FiberRayon67
11FiberCellulose89
12FiberRayon73
13FiberNI-
14FiberPolypropylene95
15FiberRayon68
16FiberRayon68
17FiberRayon76
18FiberRayon83
19FiberPolyester94
20FiberRayon74
21FragmentNI-
22FiberPolypropylene95
23FiberRayon75
24FiberRayon72
25FiberPolyester75
26FiberRayon83
27FiberPP94
28FiberRayon85
29FiberNylon88
30FragmentPolymethyl Methacrylate75
31FiberNylon95
32FiberRayon57
33FiberRayon87
34FiberCellulose70
35FiberNI-
36FiberRayon71
37FiberRayon69
38FiberRayon 79
39FiberPolypropylene91
40FiberCellulose82
NI = No identification.
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

Huelbes, S.; Gómez, M.; Martínez, I.; Triay-Portella, R.; González-Pleiter, M.; Herrera, A. Microplastics in Cronius ruber: Links to Wastewater Discharges. Animals 2025, 15, 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15101420

AMA Style

Huelbes S, Gómez M, Martínez I, Triay-Portella R, González-Pleiter M, Herrera A. Microplastics in Cronius ruber: Links to Wastewater Discharges. Animals. 2025; 15(10):1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15101420

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huelbes, Sofía, May Gómez, Ico Martínez, Raül Triay-Portella, Miguel González-Pleiter, and Alicia Herrera. 2025. "Microplastics in Cronius ruber: Links to Wastewater Discharges" Animals 15, no. 10: 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15101420

APA Style

Huelbes, S., Gómez, M., Martínez, I., Triay-Portella, R., González-Pleiter, M., & Herrera, A. (2025). Microplastics in Cronius ruber: Links to Wastewater Discharges. Animals, 15(10), 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15101420

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