Microplastics Pollution of Water, Sediment, and Selected Fish Species from Bayelsa State, Nigeria

353 Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 p ISSN: 2635-3342; e ISSN: 2635-3350 Original Research Article Microplastics Pollution of Water, Sediment, and Selected Fish Species from Bayelsa State, Nigeria *1Felagha, I., 1Boco-Joel, A., 2Okwakpam, F.N., 2George, M.S. and 3Afia, I.U. 1Department of Chemical Sciences (Biochemistry Unit), Faculty of Basic and Applied Sciences, University of Africa, Toru-Orua, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. 2Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, Rivers State University, Nkpolu-Oroworukwo, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. 3Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute, Rumueme, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. *felagha0[email protected]m http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18061119 ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT Article history: Received 04 Aug. 2025 Revised 07 Oct. 2025 Accepted 10 Oct. 2025 Available online 30 Dec. 2025 Microplastics are persistent microscopic pollutant particles which are found in many aquatic ecosystems and are harmful to living organisms. The present study investigated microplastics concentration in water, sediment and selected fish species from three communities in Sagbama Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. Samples of study were collected following standard procedure while microplastics concentration was determined using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Data generated were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS and values presented as mean and standard deviation (n=3). In all samples analyzed, microplastics included Polyethylene (PE), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP), Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), Polypropylene (PP), Acrylic fiber (AF) and Polystyrene (PS). In the water samples, TBBPA was the most prevalent microplastic while PP was the least; among the sediment samples, PE was the most prevalent while PET was the least prevalent; in the fish species, DOTP was the most prevalent while AF was the least prevalent. The findings of this study indicate the presence of microplastics in the Niger Delta especially in widely consumed fish species in coastal communities. This calls for more action in the fight against plastics pollution of our ecosystems as a way of safeguarding the health of the people. © 2025 RJEES. All rights reserved. Keywords: Microplastics Gas chromatography Harmful Pollutant Health 1. INTRODUCTION Plastics are ubiquitous and one of the most common and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in modern days and biodegradation is often hampered by the durability, stability, crystallinity, and macroscopic 354 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 structure of the polymers (Espinosa, 2020). Their visibility in litters of many terrestrial and aquatic environments poses a great challenge for environmentalists, microbiologists, and the global community. Microplastics are considered as a new class of contaminant whose emergence derives from the enormous growth in plastics use over the last 70 years and the progressive fragmentation of the resulting plastic waste debris dispersed into the environment (Andrady, 2011). They are solid plastic particles insoluble in water with any dimension between 1μm and 1,000μm and large microplastic as particles between 1 and 5mm (Koelmans, 2015; Ter Halle, 2017). The increase in plastic production, associated with inefficient waste management systems, resulted in more than eight million tons of plastic entering the oceans annually (Jambeck et al., 2015). In 2015, an estimated 236 tons of plastic floated in oceans (Peng et al., 2020). Although plastics have been produced as an inert material, which is welcome for many industrial purposes, plastic waste in general presents a low degradability rate, being only fragmented when exposed to the environment (González-Pleiter et al., 2019; Hernandez et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020). The presence of MPs has been reported in air, surface and deep-sea waters, soil, sediments, and biota at a global scale, including in the extreme poles (Arctic and Antarctica) (GonzálezPleiter et al., 2020; Jamieson et al., 2019; Kelly et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2020). Depending on their sources and uses, microplastics are classified as primary microplastics (used in commercial products such as body creams, mouthwash, polyester fibers etc) or secondary microplastics (from fragmentation of plastics in the environment) (Prata et al., 2019). Microplastics have been found in different spheres of the environment, including seas, freshwater lakes, rivers, terrestrial environments, and atmospheric fallout (Ilechukwu et al., 2019). They have become of concern in recent years because they are not only a source of toxic chemicals added as ingredients during plastic manufacturing but also a sink for toxic chemicals such as hydrophobic organic pollutants and metals from the surrounding environment (Wang et al., 2017; Lithner et al., 2011). There are different types of microplastics including acrylic (AC), polyamide (PA), polyethylene (PE), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyester (PES), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyoxymethylene (POM), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyurethane (PUR), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Attah, et al. 2023). Microplastics have been found to be consumed by fish, snails, marine turtles, water birds, earthworms, lobsters, prawns, clams, and bivalves (Ilechukwu, et al., 2021). Exposure of aquatic organisms to microplastics results in changes in their reproductive processes, immobilisation, and disruption of their antioxidant system (Cole et al. 2011; Cong et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2017). Some studies have reported the impact of microplastics in the marine environment, biota and, recently, in humans (Peng et al., 2020; Prata et al., 2020). Recently, it was demonstrated that human ingestion of microplastics is about 120 thousand particles annually, coming from water, food, and even air (Cox et al., 2019). The ingestion of microplastics can result in the blockage of the digestive tract and has been associated with the absorption of toxic metals such as Cd, Cr, Cu, Co, Ni, Pb, and Zn (Brennecke et al., 2016; Godoy et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). In humans, microplastics cause a wide range of effects including oxidative stress, DNA damage, organ dysfunction, metabolic disorder, immune response, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity (Cox et al., 2019). It must be mentioned that these effects may not manifest immediately especially if the quantities are low but they accumulate in the body and effects observed later in life and may not be directly traceable to microplastics. In Nigeria, plastic waste is poorly recycled; the majority ends up in landfill or water bodies where it may take centuries for such material to break down and decompose. Despite plastics being an internationally recognized pollutant with legislation in place aimed to curb the quantity of plastic debris entering the marine environment, the problem persists (Gregory, 2009; Wang, et al. 2016). The National Environmental Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) prohibiting persons from dropping litter (polyethene bags inclusive) on roads, public spaces, drainages, or other undesignated places, set in 2009, is poorly implemented/enforced (Briggs, et al. 2019). Plastic production and consumption are on the increase annually with 10.3% and 6.5% respectively (Enyoh, and Verla, 2019). Production and consumption stood at 436 kilotons and 1,090 kilotons in 2018 respectively causing increase in the abundance of plastics in the inland freshwater system (Wirnkor, et al. 2019). Various researchers have shown that there is widespread microplastic pollution in Nigeria (Briggs, et al. 2019; Akindele, et al. 355 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 2019; Attah, et al. 2023; Ogbomida, et al. 2023; Adamma, et al. 2024; Idowu, et al. 2024). The main source of protein in most coastal communities is fish however, it must be noted that there is limited data on microplastics in water, sediment, and aquatic species in Bayelsa State. This study therefore aimed to investigate microplastics levels in water, sediment, and selected fish samples from Sagbama Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Site Description The research was conducted in a stretch of the Sagbama River which is located in Sagabma Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, Nigeria. The Sagbama river (located on latitude 5.152239°N and longitude 6.192479°E) is a tributary of the Forcados river which cuts across Delta and Bayelsa States. The Sagbama river traverses several communities including Bolou-Orua, Tungbo, Toru-Angiama, Tour-Orua, Ebedebiri, Angalabiri, Adagbabiri, amongst others (Ogbole, and Oyelana, 2020). 2.2. Sample Collection Water, sediment, and fish samples were collected in July 2023 from three collection points located at BolouOrua, Toru-Angiama and Toru-Orua communities respectively all in Sagbama Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. Water samples were collected in triplicates (per sampling location) using stainless steel buckets into appropriately labelled glass sample bottles (W1, W2, W3) according to standard protocols. Samples were filtered using 0.48 μm stainless steel sieve and fixed in formalin (5%) and stored at 4 °C prior to analysis (Wang et al., 2017). Sediment samples were obtained from river bed using Van Veen Grab and placed in glass sample bottles (S1, S2, and S3) and preserved at 4 °C before microplastic extraction and analysis (Wang et al., 2017). Fish samples were obtained from fishermen using nets. Per sampling point, three individual fish samples were taken. Fish samples selected were commercially important and widely consumed species-Gnathonemus tamandua, Cyphomyrus pssitacus (Elephant-nose), Mugil cephalus and Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus (Silver catfish). Fish samples were kept frozen and prior to being transported to laboratory for analysis. All samples were collected in triplicate per sampling location. 2.3. Sample Preparation for Microplastic Analysis Water samples were prepared by filtration using 0.7μm Whatman GF/C glass fibre followed by rinsing with 40ml of 35% H2O2 into 100ml flasks. The essence of this treatment was to ensure the removal of organic materials. The treated water samples were left at room temperature for a further 48 hours for complete digestion of any remaining organic materials (Nwonumara, et al., 2021). Sediment samples were prepared for microplastics determination by procedures described by Foekema et al. (2013). Fish guts were excised by ventral dissection and placed in beakers following by digestion using 10% KOH three times the volume of the content (Lusher and HernandezMilian, 2018). This was followed by incubation at 40 o C for 48 hrs; this was to ensure the dissolution of all organic tissues. The resulting solution after digestion was filtered, the filtrate discarded while the microplastic-containing residue was dried at 60 o C in an oven until the samples were dried. The dried samples were then stored in a Petri dish for microplastics analysis. 2.3.1 Determination of microplastics concentration The microplastics concentration of the samples were determined using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) (Agilent 6890N Gas Chromatograph with Agilent 5975 Mass Selective Detector) following the manufacturer’s instructions. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The findings of this study showed the presence of various micro plastic particles including polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), dioctyl terephthalate (DT), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBPA), polypropylene (PP), acrylic fiber (AF), and polystyrene (PS) in water, sediment, and fish samples (Figure 1-6). The results in Figure 1 shows that microplastic concentration were as follows: Toru-OruaPE (0.14 ppm), PET (0.12 ppm), DOTP (0.09 ppm), PBDE (0.18 ppm), TBPA (0.21 ppm), PP (0.07 ppm), AF (0.34 ppm), and PS (0.22 ppm); Bolou-OruaTBPA (0.64 ppm), PBDE (0.53 ppm), AF (0.48 ppm), PE (0.42 ppm), 356 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 DOTP (0.37 ppm), PS (0.31 ppm), PET (0.28 ppm) and PP (0.21 ppm); Toru-AngiamaPE (0.38 ppm), PET (0.19 ppm), DOTP (0.10 ppm), PBDE (0.22 ppm), TBPA (0.39 ppm), PP (0.26 ppm), AF (0.14 ppm) and PS (0.21 ppm). In Figure 2, the concentrations of microplastics in sediments were as follows: Toru-OruaPE (0.37 ppm), PET (0.18 ppm), DOTP (0.31 ppm), PBDE (0.09 ppm), TBPA (0.11ppm), PP (0.29 ppm), AF (0.04 ppm) and PS (0.15 ppm); Bolou-OruaPE (0.98 ppm), PET (0.11 ppm), DOTP (0.62 ppm), PBDE (0.41 ppm), TBPA (0.48 ppm), PP (0.33 ppm), AF (0.19 ppm) and PS (0.25 ppm); Toru-AngiamaPE (0.21 ppm), PET (0.06 ppm), DOTP (0.04 ppm), PBDE (0.25 ppm), TBPA (0.11 ppm), PP (0.16 ppm), AF (0.24 ppm) and PS (0.31 ppm). Figure 3 shows the microplastics concentration in fish samples as follows: M. cephalusPE (0.08 ppm), PET (0.11 ppm), DOTP (0.34 ppm), TBPA (0.18 ppm), PP (0.01 ppm), AF (0.02 ppm), PBDE and PS were not detected (nd); G. tamanduaPE (0.06 ppm), PET (0.04 ppm), DOTP (0.17ppm), TBPA (0.22 ppm), PP (0.08), PBDE, AF and PS were not detected (nd); C. nigrodigitatusPE (0.13 ppm), DOTP (0.21 ppm), TBPA (0.28 ppm), PP (0.36 ppm), PS (0.17 ppm), PET, PBDE and AF were not detected (nd); C. pssitacusPE (0.14 ppm), PET (0.12 ppm), DOTP (0.09 ppm), PBDE (0.18 ppm), TBPA (0.21 ppm), PP (0.07 ppm), AF (0.34 ppm) AND PS (0.22 ppm). In Figure 4, the percentage microplastics composition in water samples were as follows: Toru-OruaAF (25 %), PS (16 %), TBPA (15 %), PBDE (13 %), PE (10 %), PET (9 %), DOTP (7 %) and PP (5 %); BolouOruaTBPA (20 %), PBDE (16 %), AF (15 %), PE (13 %), DOTP (11 %), PS (10 %), PET (9 %), and PP (6 %); Toru-AngiamaTBPA (21 %), DOTP (5 %), PE (20 %), PP (14 %), PBDE (12 %), PS (11 %), PET (10 %) and AF (7 %). Figure 5 shows the percentage distribution of microplastics in sediment samples as follows: Toru-OruaPP (19 %), DOTP, (20 %), PE (24 %), PET, (12 %), PS (10 %), TBPA (7 %), PBDE (6 %) and AF (2 %); Bolou-OruaPE (29 %), DOTP (18 %), TBPA (14 %), PBDE (12 %), PP (10 %), PS (8 %), AF (6 %) and PET (3 %); Toru-AngiamaPE (15 %), TBPA (8 %), DOTP (3 %), PBDE (18 %), PP (12 %), PS (23 %), AF (17 %) and PET (4 %). Figure 6 showed the percentage of microplastics in fish samples as follows: M. cephalusPP (1 %), AF (3 %), PE (11 %), PET (15 %), TBPA (24 %) and DOTP (46%). G. tamanduaPE (10 %), PET (7 %), DOTP (30 %), TBPA (39 %) and PP (14 %); C. nigrodigitatusPP (31 %), TBPA (25 %), DOTP (18 %), PS (15 %) and PE (11 %); C. PsittacusAF (25 %), PP (5 %), PS (16 %), TBPA (15%), PBDE (13 %), PE (10 %), PET (9 %) and DOTP (7%). The findings of this present study on the presence of microplastics in aquatic environment corroborates the findings of other researchers. Akindele et al. (2019) investigated freshwater microplastics in West Africa using three species of gastropods (L. varicus, M. tuberculata and T. fluviatilis) using Osun and Rhine rivers respectively as bioindicators. Their finding showed that microplastics were detected in gastropods (L. varicus, M. tuberculata and T. fluviatilis) from Osun and Rhine Rivers respectively. Further analysis showed that the microplastic particles were made of polyethylene, nylon and polypropylene. There was a statistically significant variation in micro plastic load among the three species with L. varicus and M. tuberculata recording about 17 and 7 times the microplastics load in individual T. fluviatilis respectively. Ilechukwu et al., (2021) also investigated microplastics in silver catfish (Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus) from New Calabar River in Niger Delta, Nigeria. The findings of this study showed that a total of 174 microplastics were found at an average number of 3.87±5.97 particles per fish. The observed microplastics included irregularly shaped fragments (87.93%), fibres (10.92%) and pellets (1.15%). In a study by Attah, et al. (2023), to assess micro plastic pollution in pollution in selected water bodies in River State, Nigeria, they assessed water, sediment and fish samples from one fresh water (New Calabar River) and one estuary (Bonny River). Microplastics were characterised by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and the findings showed the presence of various plastic particles in water, sediment and fish (Pseudotolithus elongatus) sample including polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene and polypropylene were detected in all samples, dioctyl terephthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ether, acrylic fibre and tetrabromobisphenol A. in a related study, Ogbomida et al. (2023) assessed microplastics in water, sediment, and two fish species (Clarias gariepinus and Oreochromis niloticus) of the Ikpoba River, Edo State using Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). The results indicate the widespread presence of microplastics in the Ikpoba river ecosystem with a high prevalence of polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), 357 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 and polyethylene (PE) in surface water and Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in sediment samples as well as in the selected fish samples. C. gariepinus was identified to have accumulated the highest concentration of microplastics compared to O. niloticus. In addition, PE was highest in both fish species followed by PC. In a recent publication, Idowu, et al. (2024) investigated micro plastic pollution of the water, sediments and fish species of River Osun using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The results of the study revealed seven polymer materials, including acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), that have not been commonly reported for river environments. Microplastics ranged from 407 ± 244 to 1691.7 ± 443 particles in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) of six fish species analysed, with silver catfish (Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus) having the highest concentration. Microplastics in the fish samples were comparatively higher than those reported for fishes in Asia and Europe, but similar to some other plastic pollution hotspots in Africa. Figure 1: Microplastics in water samples Figure 2: Microplastics in sediment samples 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 PE PET DOTP PBDE TBPA PP AF PS Microplastics concentration (ppm) Toru-Orua Bolou-Orua Toru-Angiama 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 PE PET DOTP PBDE TBPA PP AF PS Microplastics concentration (ppm) Toru-Orua Bolou-Orua Toru-Angiama 358 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 Figure 3: Microplastics concentration (ppm) in selected fish species Figure 4: Percentage microplastics detected in water samples (A-Toru-Orua; BBolou-Orua; CToruAngiama) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 PE PET DOTP PBDE TBPA PP AF PS Microplastics concentration (ppm) G. tamandua Elephant-nose M. cephalus Silver catfish 359 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 Figure 5: Percentage of microplastics detected in sediment (A-Toru-Orua; BBolou-Orua; C-ToruAngiama) PE 24% PET 12% DOTP 20% PBDE 6% TBPA 7% PP 19% AF 2% PS 10% A PE 29% PET 3% DOTP 18% PBDE 12% TBPA 14% PP 10% AF 6% PS 8% B PE 15% PET 4% DOTP 3% PBDE 18% TBPA 8% PP 12% AF 17% PS 23% C 360 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 Figure 6: Percentage microplastics detected in fish species (A-M. cephalus; B-Elephantnose fish; C-G. tamandua; D-Silver Catfish) 4. CONCLUSION Microplastics are persistent environmental pollutants that pose significant threats to aquatic ecosystems and human health. This study has confirmed the presence of microplastics in water, sediment, and fish species within the Sagbama Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, Nigeria. The findings underscore the urgent need for proactive measures to address plastic pollution in our ecosystems. Mitigating this environmental challenge is essential to safeguard both biodiversity and public health, emphasizing the critical importance of policy interventions, public awareness, and sustainable waste management practices. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance and contributions of undergraduate students of the Department of Chemical Sciences (Biochemistry program), University of Africa, Toru-Orua, Bayelsa State (Chinaza Desire Ikoroma, John Gift Ariye, Onomuoma Goodnews, Omoregbe Blessing Osayuwamen, Sunano Ephraim and Egedegbe Blessing), Scientist Oyinpre Yerinbide and Scientist Ibuomo Esther Imbazi as well as staff of Austino Research and Analysis Laboratory Nigeria Ltd, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. 361 I. Felagha et al. / Nigerian Research Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 10(2) 2025 pp. 353-362 6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST There is no conflict of interest associated with this work. REFERENCES Adamma, C., Nwabueze, O., Ifeyinwa, M., Uchechukwu, E. and Peter, C. (2024). Assessment of Microplastic Pollution in Surface Water and Sediments of Otammiri River, Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology, 27 (7), pp. 296-317. Akindele, E. O., Ehlers, S. M. and Koop, J. H. (2019). First empirical study of freshwater microplastics in West Africa using gastropods from Nigeria as bioindicators. Limnologica, 78, pp. 125708. Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 62(8), pp. 1596-1605. Attah, J. S., Stanley, H. O., Sikoki, F. D. and Immanuel, O. M. (2023). Assessment of Microplastic Pollution in Selected Water Bodies in Rivers State, Nigeria. Archives of Current Research International, 23(7), pp. 45-52. Brennecke, D., Duarte, B., Paiva, F., Caçador, I., and Canning-Clode, J. (2016). Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 178, pp. 189-195. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., and Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine pollution bulletin, 62(12), pp. 2588-2597. Cong, Y., Jin, F., Tian, M., Wang, J., Shi, H., Wang, Y., and Mu, J. (2019). Ingestion, egestion and post-exposure effects of polystyrene microspheres on marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Chemosphere, 228, pp. 93-100. Cox, K. D., Covernton, G. A., Davies, H. L., Dower, J. F., Juanes, F., and Dudas, S. E. (2019). Human consumption of microplastics. Environmental science & technology, 53(12), pp. 7068-7074. Enyoh, C. E., and Verla, A. W. (2019). We are breathing plastic; don’t just look down, look up. In 3rd IMSU World Environment Day International Conference. Espinosa, M. J. C., Blanco, A. C., Schmidgall, T., Atanasoff-Kardjalieff, A. K., Kappelmeyer, U., Tischler, D., and Eberlein, C. (2020). Toward biorecycling: isolation of a soil bacterium that grows on a polyurethane oligomer and monomer. Frontiers in microbiology, 11, pp. 404. Foekema, E. M., De Gruijter, C., Mergia, M. T., van Franeker, J. A., Murk, A. J., and Koelmans, A. A. (2013). Plastic in North sea fish. Environmental science & technology, 47(15), pp. 8818-8824. Godoy, V., Blázquez, G., Calero, M., Quesada, L., and Martín-Lara, M. A. (2019). The potential of microplastics as carriers of metals. Environmental Pollution, 255, pp. 113363. González-Pleiter, M., Tamayo-Belda, M., Pulido-Reyes, G., Amariei, G., Leganés, F., Rosal, R., and Fernández-Piñas, F. (2019). Secondary nanoplastics released from a biodegradable microplastic severely impact freshwater environments. Environmental Science: Nano, 6 (5), pp. 1382-1392. Gregory, M. R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), pp. 2013-2025. Hernandez, L. M., Xu, E. G., Larsson, H. C., Tahara, R., Maisuria, V. B., and Tufenkji, N. (2019). Plastic teabags release billions of micro particles and nanoparticles into tea. Environmental science & technology, 53(21), pp. 12300-12310. Idowu, G. A., Oriji, A. Y., Olorunfemi, K. O., Sunday, M. O., Sogbanmu, T. O. and Bodunwa, O. K. (2024). Why Nigeria should ban single-use plastics: Excessive microplastic pollution of the water, sediments and fish species in Osun River, Nigeria. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 13, pp. 100409. Ilechukwu, I., Ndukwe, G. I., Ehigiator, B. E., Ezeh, C. S., and Asogwa, S. L. (2021). Microplastics in silver catfish (Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus) from new Calabar River in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Ghana Journal of Science, 62(2), pp. 16-24. Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., and Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), pp. 768-771. Jamieson, A. J., Brooks, L. S. R., Reid, W. D., Piertney, S. B., Narayanaswamy, B. E., and Linley,T. D. (2019). Microplastics and synthetic particles ingested by deep-sea amphipods in six of the deepest marine ecosystems on Earth. Royal Society Open science, 6(2), pp. 180667. Kelly, A., Lannuzel, D., Rodemann, T., Meiners, K. M., and Auman, H. J. (2020). Microplastic contamination in east Antarctic Sea ice. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 154, pp. 111130. Koelmans, A, A., Besseling E, and Shim W.J. (2015). Nanoplastics in the aquatic environment. Critical review. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, eds. Marine anthropogenic litter: Springer International Publishing; pp. 325–340.