Rio study reveals microplastic contamination threatens marine life and food security

Local populations consuming contaminated seafood face health risks from bioaccumulated plastic-derived toxins; artisanal fishing communities face threats to food security and livelihoods.
The seafood people eat is contaminated
A study of Rio de Janeiro's coastal waters reveals microplastics and toxic compounds from plastic degradation accumulating in fish and shellfish consumed by local populations.

Microplastics and chemical contaminants from plastic degradation are accumulating in Rio's marine ecosystems, affecting fish, shrimp, and mollusks critical to local fishing and food supply. Advanced laboratory analysis using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry identified toxic effects on marine species, with shrimp and fish showing highest susceptibility to plastic-derived pollutants.

  • Microplastics and plastic-derived chemicals found across Rio's Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas, Guanabara Bay, and open ocean beaches
  • Shrimp and fish identified as most susceptible to toxic effects from plastic-derived pollutants
  • Study used advanced techniques including gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, and molecular biomarkers to measure contamination and toxicity
  • Research led by biologist Raquel de Almeida F. Neves at Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, funded by FAPERJ

A comprehensive study by UNIRIO researcher Raquel de Almeida F. Neves documents microplastic pollution across Rio de Janeiro's coastal waters, revealing risks to marine life and human food security through seafood consumption.

Across Rio de Janeiro's waterways—from the enclosed Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas to the open beaches and islands of Guanabara Bay—a contamination is spreading that no one can see. Microplastics and the chemical compounds they shed as they break down are accumulating in the sediment, the water, and the bodies of the fish, shrimp, mussels, and sea urchins that feed the city. A new study led by biologist Raquel de Almeida F. Neves at the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro has mapped the scope of this threat across multiple points along the coast, revealing not just an ecological problem but a public health one: the seafood people eat is contaminated.

Neves and her team, funded by Rio de Janeiro's research foundation FAPERJ, collected samples from strategic locations—the lagoon, the bay's islands and beaches, the open ocean shoreline, and estuaries in southern Bahia. They gathered sediment from the seafloor, water samples, and living organisms: the creatures that matter most to local fishers and dinner tables. The goal was to identify and measure the specific toxins that leach from degrading plastic—bisfenols, phthalates, and others—and to trace how these substances move through the food chain. "We collected water, sediment, and organisms simultaneously," Neves explained, "which lets us understand the complete cycle of contamination and its impact on the fish and shellfish people actually consume." The team then ran chemical tests in the lab, using advanced techniques like gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify what was there, and toxicity tests to measure what it actually does.

The laboratory work was rigorous. Researchers reproduced marine conditions in controlled settings and exposed various species to different concentrations of the pollutants, measuring both immediate and long-term effects. They calculated critical thresholds—the concentrations at which half the organisms showed toxic effects or died. They also tracked molecular and behavioral changes in the animals, looking for damage at multiple biological levels. Shrimp and fish proved most vulnerable, which matters because these are the species that sustain both the local fishing economy and the protein intake of people who depend on them.

The study produced concrete outputs: environmental and biological indicators that can be used to monitor plastic pollution going forward; detailed maps showing which coastal areas are most contaminated; risk assessments for both marine life and human consumption; and proposed biomarkers to track the health of fish stocks. But Neves was clear that the research was not meant to stay in the laboratory. The team conducted public lectures in cultural spaces across Rio, ran educational programs in public schools, and worked directly with artisanal fishers—the people most affected by both the contamination and the solutions. "Our goal is that this research leads to concrete actions for preservation," she said. "The engagement of fishers and dialogue with schools are fundamental to raising awareness."

What emerges from the data is a picture of a city whose relationship with its own coast has become complicated. The people who fish these waters for their living, and the people who buy and eat what they catch, are now consuming organisms that have accumulated plastic-derived toxins. The contamination is not visible—it does not change the color or smell of the shrimp or the fish—but it is there. The research provides the evidence base for monitoring and for policy, but it also raises a question that sits beneath all the science: what happens when the food that sustains a community becomes a vector for harm?

We collected water, sediment, and organisms simultaneously, which lets us understand the complete cycle of contamination and its impact on the fish and shellfish people actually consume.
— Raquel de Almeida F. Neves, lead researcher
Our goal is that this research leads to concrete actions for preservation. The engagement of fishers and dialogue with schools are fundamental to raising awareness.
— Raquel de Almeida F. Neves
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Inventor

Why does it matter that the study looked at water, sediment, and organisms all at the same time?

Model

Because contamination doesn't stay in one place. The plastic breaks down into chemicals that dissolve in the water, settle into the mud, and get absorbed by the animals living there. If you only test the water, you miss what's already in the food chain. You need the whole picture.

Inventor

The study mentions shrimp and fish are most susceptible. Does that mean they're dying in large numbers?

Model

Not necessarily dying in the ocean—the lab tests showed what happens at high concentrations. But it means these species accumulate the toxins more readily than others, so they're the canaries. If they're affected, the people eating them are exposed.

Inventor

What's the difference between what the researchers found and what people already suspected about plastic in the ocean?

Model

Suspicion and evidence are different things. Everyone knows plastic is in the water. This study quantified it, mapped where it's worst, identified the specific toxic compounds, and measured the actual biological damage. That's what lets you make policy, not just worry.

Inventor

Why involve fishers in the research if they're not scientists?

Model

Because they know the water better than anyone. They see changes in catches, in fish behavior, in what washes up. And they're the ones who'll have to live with whatever comes next—whether that's new regulations or new ways of working. You can't solve a problem that affects them without them at the table.

Inventor

Does this study solve the problem?

Model

No. It identifies it precisely. That's the first step. The real work—stopping the plastic from getting into the ocean in the first place, cleaning up what's already there—that's what comes next. This gives you the map to start.

Contact Us FAQ