Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Biomonitoring of Trace Metals in the Coastal Waters Using Bivalve Molluscs

Written By

Periyadan K. Krishnakumar, Mohammad A. Qurban and Geetha Sasikumar

Submitted: October 17th, 2017 Reviewed: April 3rd, 2018 Published: September 5th, 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.76938

From the Edited Volume

Trace Elements

Edited by Hosam El-Din M. Saleh and Eithar El-Adham

Chapter metrics overview

1,785 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Several environmental contaminants including toxic trace metals are being discharged into the coastal environment causing serious threat to marine organisms and posing public health risk. Marine bivalves (mussel, oyster, and clam) have been successfully used as sentinel organisms for monitoring contaminant levels, including trace metals, in coastal waters around the globe. Chemical analyses measure the contaminants present in the biota but do not necessarily reveal potential biological effects. Therefore, the need to detect and assess the effects of contaminants, especially at low concentrations, has led to the development of molecular markers of contaminant effects called biomarkers. Owing to their short time of response, biomarkers in marine bivalves are used as early warning signals of biological effects caused by environmental pollutants. Research into the development and application of accurate biomarker-based monitoring tools for the environmental contaminants has been intensified in several developed countries.


  • bivalves
  • bioaccumulation
  • biomarkers
  • trace metals
  • mussel watch

1. Introduction

Marine pollution is a major problem that has negative effects on the ocean’s ecosystems. Economic developments and urbanization are taking place at an accelerated rate in the coastal zones across the world, putting enormous pressures on coastal waters and marine habitats. Incidents of coastal and marine water pollution have increased throughout the world, mainly due to discharges from rivers, increased surface run-off, drainage from expanding port areas, oil spills, discharges from shipping activities, and domestic and industrial effluent discharges. Most of the world’s wastes around 20 billion tons per year end up in the sea, often without any preliminary processing.

Trace metals are introduced into the coastal waters through natural process and anthropogenic activities. The natural process includes river discharge, rock weathering, wind-generated dust from arid and semi-arid regions of the continents, and hydrothermal circulation at mid-ocean ridges. The anthropogenic sources of metals include agriculture, fossil fuel extraction, refining and burning, chemical production, and intentional and accidental discharges. Trace levels of trace metals naturally occur in the marine environment, and many of them at low concentrations are essential for marine life. However, if their concentrations exceed the natural levels, it will cause a serious threat to marine life. Monitoring and assessment programs are routinely conducted in the coastal waters for planning and implementing mitigation measures to control trace metal pollution. Historically as one of the simple and widely used monitoring techniques, sampling, and analysis of seawater and sediment are being employed for estimating the levels of contaminants including trace metals in coastal waters. Instead of using water or sediment samples, tissue concentrations of contaminants in marine organisms, especially bivalves, are being used as a reliable method for assessing the coastal water quality since 1960s [14].

Most of the marine bivalves such as mussels, oysters, and clams are commercially important groups, and several of them are being used for coastal farming around the globe and as popular seafood. Since late 1960s and early 1970s, bivalves such as mussels were used for biomonitoring trace metals in coastal waters [3, 5]. In biomonitoring, tissue burden of trace metals in marine organisms are analyzed, and the biological responses of organisms are measured to assess changes in the environmental quality caused by toxic contaminants [68]. This chapter will attempt to provide an overview of the basic concept, methods and the present status of the biomonitoring of trace metals in the coastal waters using bivalve molluscs.


2. Why bivalves

Generally, bivalves are suspension feeders or deposit feeders, or even utilize both feeding methods. They feed on microscopic algae, bacteria, and detritus through filter feeding process. They draw water from the posterior ventral side through the inhalant siphon, and the water passes through the gills and gets expelled through the exhalent siphon. In this process, they filter large quantities of seawater, and the water filtering capacity of typical natural mussel beds has been calculated as 7–12 m3, m−1, h−1 [9, 10]. One single adult blue mussel pumps around 50 ml of seawater per minute during active feeding [11]. As bivalves filter large quantiles of seawater, their tissues absorb some of the contaminants present in water and food particles. Bivalves accumulate trace metals from the surrounding aquatic medium across the cellular membrane (dissolved source) and from the food materials (dietary source) [12].

Historically, bivalve molluscs are considered as valuable marine organisms for environmental monitoring and used as biomonitors of chemical pollution of coastal waters [3, 5, 13]. Bivalves are widely distributed from the North Pole to the South Pole, sessile in nature, and easy to sample and available in a suitable size for chemical analysis. Bivalves are also resistant to a wide range of contaminants and may thrive even in highly polluted environments [3, 14]. These qualities make them a group of candidate species for biomonitoring programs across the globe. As filter feeders, they bioaccumulate various contaminants and their tissue concentrations provide a time-integrated picture of contaminants in the environment [15, 16]. It has been reported that bivalves accumulate trace metals in their tissues at levels up to 100–100,000 times higher than the concentrations observed in the seawater in which they live [5, 17]. Therefore, several chemical contaminants, including trace metals, present at undetectable levels in seawater can be detected in bivalve tissues. Different species of clams, mussels, and oysters have widespread distribution across the continents (Figure 1), and many of those species have been successfully used for monitoring the concentrations of contaminants in the marine environment [5].

Figure 1.

Common marine bivalves and their habitats from the Indian coast. (A) Intertidal rocky area showing green mussel beds from the south west coast of India; (B) green mussel Perna viridis; (C) enlarged view of green mussels; (D) oyster bed consisting of Crassostrea madrasensis and Saccostrea cucullata exposed during low tide; and (E) enlarged view of C. madrasensis and S. cucullata; (E) clam bed consisting of Meretrix casta and (F) enlarged view of the clam Paphia malabarica.


3. Metal bioaccumulation in bivalves

Cobalt, copper, chromium, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc are essential metals that are required for various biochemical and physiological functions of animals [18] while other metals such as aluminum, antinomy, arsenic, barium, cadmium, gold, lead, lithium, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, strontium, tin, titanium, and vanadium have no established biological functions and are considered as non-essential metals [19]. However, the essential metals will be harmful to the organisms if their concentrations exceed the natural levels. The expert’s group of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and Oslo and Paris Conventions (OSPAR) highlighted the trace metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, and zinc in the marine environment as key substances of concern [20].

Bivalves accumulate both essential and non-essential metals in their soft tissues above the background levels in seawater or sediments, and this process is called bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation is a good integrative indicator of the chemical exposures of marine organisms such as bivalves in polluted waters [21]. Trace metals cannot be metabolized by organisms, and hence bioaccumulation of trace metals is of particular value as an exposure indicator. However, metal bioaccumulation can be complex. The bioaccumulation levels in mollusks differ among metals in the same bivalve species and among species [13, 2123] due to the biological role of different metals and to specific strategies of accumulation [23]. In addition, the metal bioaccumulation in bivalves depends on the marine environmental factors (temperature, pH, salinity, co-occurrence of metals, etc.) and the biological conditions (age, sex, sexual maturity stage, etc.) of the species [24, 25].

The gill tissue of bivalves constitutes a key interface for the uptake of dissolved metal ions from water followed by the mantle tissue, and the uptake of metals bound to particulate material is achieved via the digestive tract, in particular, via the digestive gland [23]. Generally, in bivalves, maximum concentrations of metals have been reported in the digestive gland and/or gill tissue followed by mantle and muscle tissue [26, 27]. The bioaccumulation of trace metals in bivalve tissues is dependent on different metabolic processes occurring within specific cell types in target tissues. Metallothioneins (MTs), the low-molecular-weight proteins present in organisms including bivalves are involved in the intracellular regulation of metals such as Cu, Zn, and Cd [28]. Epithelial cells of gill and mantle can synthesize MT and sequester metals into the lysosomes for further transport in circulating hemocytes [29].


4. Bivalves as sentinel organisms

Sentinel organisms accumulate contaminants in their tissues without any harmful effects and can be measured in a sensitive manner the amount of contaminants that are biologically available [30]. Several comprehensive reviews have been published on the use of bivalve molluscs as sentinel organisms and as biomonitors of metal pollution [5, 12, 20, 3135]. These reviews and studies provide an in-depth discussion on metal bioaccumulation and metal bioavailability, highlighting the historical usage of bivalves in environmental studies.

Most of the bivalves such as clams, mussels, and oysters, fulfill the criteria required for a typical sentinel organisms and being successfully used as spatial and temporal trend indicators of contaminants in monitoring program from several parts of the world [3, 7, 12, 1416, 3639]. The tissue concentrations of various toxic trace metals in wild mussel species from various regions worldwide are summarized in Table 1. The tissue concentrations ranged from low to high values depending upon the environmental status of the study area.

Country Mussel Species Ag Al As Cd Cr Co Cu Fe Hg Ni Pb Zn Ti Se V Sr Ba Mn Ref.
San Francisco Bay, USA Mytilus edulis mg/kg dry wt 6.9 4.05 92 4.6 [97, 98]
Claisebrook Cove, Western Australia Xenostrobus sp. mg/kg wet wt 12–61 0.46–0.75 0.21–0.27 0.05–0.17 0.06–0.16 1.7–2.2 <0.01 0.22–85 0.08–0.52 6–9.6 0.34–0.57 3.3–28 [99]
South Island New Zealand Perna canaliculatus mg/kg dry wt 5.35–27.48 0.14–1.67 2.19–18.25 0.08–5.83 0.13–1.53 45.31–147.18 [100]
Offshore South China Sea Bathymodiolus platifrons mg/kg dry wt 2.6–25.13 2.16–6.73 5.89–10.03 0.78–4.35 0.81–1.72 0.1–0.45 5.53–42.31 14.28–56.07 0.42–1.25 4.41–4.8 33.76–79.04 17.98–45.78 2.69–4.06 4.5–8.01 [101]
East coast of China Perna viridis mg/kg dry wt 0.01–0.14 12.64–20.95 0.48–5.31 1.51–10.93 1.45–28.55 96.62–1002 1.3–4.78 0.44–2.93 66.05–231 [102]
East Adriatic Sea, Croatia Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 4–30 1–2.9 3.7–11.1 53.4–719 0.8–5 2–7 59.1–273 2–13 [103]
Adriatic Sea (Montenegro coasts) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 4.6–17.2 128–603 132–345 7.3–85.0 [104]
Tyrrhenian Sea (Gulf of Gaeta) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 5.5–11.5 123–180 [105]
Marmara Sea (NW coasts) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 6.7–9.5 120–415 208–320 4.5–11.7 [106]
Aegean Sea Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 3.5–5.3 48.6–49.9 17.8–28.5 2.6–4.7 [107]
N Atlantic (Spanish Gallician coasts) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 3.9–9.7 159–351 [108]
Island of Gossa (W coast of Norway) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 1.3–1.8 11.0–11.7 13.3–15.2 [109]
Spain Cantabrian Coast Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry weight 14.6–31.5 0.4–2.3 2.6–5.7 0.4–69.3 9.1–34.8 1.5–15.4 1.1–13.3 202.7–300.8 5.8–8.7 1.7–7.1 5.6–55.3 [110]
N Aegean Sea (Strait of Canakkale) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 0.7–12.9 24.3–82.0 43.8–133.5 0.4–4.8 [111]
Trinidad Perna viridis mg/kg wet weight 0.01–0.61 0.06–0.2 1.02–1.98 0.03–0.07 0.3–0.75 11.3–40.37 [112]
Venezuela Perna viridis mg/kg wet weight 0.02–0.05 0.12–0.16 1.42–3.43 0.02–0.08 0.22–1.3 8.75–16.38 [112]
Italy Tyrrhenian coastal areas Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry weight 0.33–0.49 0.46–1.31 5.51–11.5 1.67–2.49 123–180 [105]
Black Sea (Turkish coasts) Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry wt 11.7–23.3 312–396 46.9–73.0 [113]
Turkey Eastern Aegean Sea Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry weight 0.24–0.49 0.32–7.27 2.44–5.49 0.11–0.15 0.84–2.41 75.9–201 [114]
Italy Venice Lagoon Mytilus galloprovincialis mg/kg dry weight 1.16–6.59 0.16–2.75 3.55–10.8 1.08–4.27 135–400 [115]
Brazil Mytella guyanensis mg/kg dry weight 778–2458 1.44–23.1 Bdl–1.42 Bdl–3.13 Bdl–611 6.03–102 Bdl–1820 Bdl–0.35 Bdl–19.4 50.8–141 Bdl–49.6 Bdl–6.93 35.5–95.8 Bdl–88.7 30.7–3520 [116]
India Perna viridis mg/kg wet weight 0.24–3.49 Bdl–0.46 Bdl–1.84 Bdl–235.6 Bdl–2.89 Bdl–1.95 Bdl–17.36 1.91–8.77 [15]

Table 1.

Selected trace metal concentrations in the soft tissue of wild mussel species from various regions worldwide.

4.1. Mussel watch programs

Mussels and other marine bivalves are widely used as sentinel organisms in “mussel watch” programs for indicating levels of pollutants in the coastal marine environment due to their ability to bioaccumulate organic or toxic elements [40]. Under mussel watch program, environmental contaminants (trace metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides, etc.) accumulated in the soft tissue of natural, cultured, or deployed bivalves (clams, mussels, and oysters) collected from a set of defined geographical locations over a time-span of several years are systematically and repeatedly measured for assessing and comparing the coastal water quality [5, 4042]. A prominent example is the US Mussel Watch Program originally started in 1976 [3, 43] and established as the Mussel Watch component of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Status and Trends (NST) program during 1986–2012 [44, 45, 46]. In spite of the criticisms and limitations [47], the US mussel watch results made valuable contributions to our understanding of trace metal contamination and its biogeochemistry in coastal ecosystems [5].

Later, the contaminant monitoring programs similar to mussel watch were implemented throughout the world either for monitoring long-term spatial and temporal pollution trends covering large marine region containing multiple monitoring stations and several anthropogenic contamination sources [3638, 4851] or for monitoring and solving local pollution problems covering a small geographical areas [7, 8, 15, 32, 5258].

The mussel watch program initiated in USA has led to the formation of the International Mussel Watch (IMW) Projects [5]. It was initiated by the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the US NOAA. Table 2 summarizes the details of the international mussel watch program conducted from different geographical locations. Recently, the advantages and limitations of the mussel watch concept were discussed 40 years after its inception [5].

Project phase and year Study areas Bivalve species List of contaminants References
IMW Phase I (Initial Implementation): 1991–1993 South America, Central America, Mexico and Caribbean Blue mussels (Mytilus sp.) 134 stations
Oysters (Crassostrea sp.)–18 stations
Other bivalves–24 stations
Total Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total Chlordane (CHLs), and total HCHs [5, 117]
IMW Phase II
Asia Pacific Region (Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and India) Blue mussel,
(M. edulis), and the green mussel (Perna viridis).
Total PCBs, dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane and its metabolites (DDTs), CHLs, hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCHs) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans (PCDDs/Fs), coplanar PCBs (Co-PCBs), Butyltins (BTs) and some heavy metals [38, 118121]
IMW Pilot Study—Black Sea. 1996–1997 Six Black Sea Countries (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine). Blue mussels (M. galloprovincialis)- 5–13 sites PAHs, PCBs, DDTs [122]
Western Mediterranean Basin and the International Mediterranean Commission (CISEM)
Mussel Watch program. 2002–2006
The coasts of the Western Mediterranean Basin (Spain, France, Italy, North Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco) Caged mussels (Mytilus sp.) deployed at 122 sites Heavy metals, chlorinated pesticides and PCBs and PAHs [123125]

Table 2.

Details of the International Mussel Watch (IMW) program conducted from various parts of the globe [5].


5. Biomarkers of exposure in bivalves

Chemical analyses of bivalve tissue samples measure the contaminants present but do not necessarily reveal potential biological effects on bivalves. Therefore, biomarkers were developed to assess the health status of the marine organisms, especially bivalves. Biomarkers are the early warning signals about the health status of bivalves exposed to toxic contaminants, because a toxic effect or response will be apparent at the molecular or cellular level before it is noticeable at higher biological levels. The concept of biomarker is borrowed from medical science, which describes a measurable indicator such as blood cholesterol profile connected to relevant clinical endpoints like atherosclerosis and heart attack. The biochemical biomarkers (acetylcholinesterase inhibition for exposure to neurotoxic compounds, cytochrome P450 for detoxification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and the different methods to detect genotoxicity), which are used in marine environmental monitoring are still used in humans [5961].

During the last decade, several biomarkers sensitive to contaminant exposure and/or impact have been developed as tools for use in marine environmental monitoring and impact assessment [7, 8, 62]. During the same time, various monitoring agencies began to focus on locating the source of contamination and fates as well as the impact as contaminants are usually discharged into the coastal waters, especially estuaries, where effects have been most significantly detected. The European Union’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) also stressed the requirement of monitoring programs to assess the achievement of good chemical and ecological status for all water bodies by 2015 [63]. In the past 30–40 years, numerous biomarkers have been developed on bivalve mollusks, especially mussels (see Table 3) with the objective to apply them for environmental biomonitoring. Biomarkers based on responses at physiological level, cellular/tissue level, and molecular level of bivalve molluscs are developed and recommended as tools for studying the effects of contaminants on field and laboratory exposed bivalves, especially mussels [6, 6466]. Research into the development and application of accurate biomarker-based monitoring tools for the environmental contaminants has been intensified in several developed countries, and they are using several biomarkers based in marine bivalves to monitor the environmental quality of coastal and estuarine waters [20].

Group Biomarker name Description References
Bivalve Physiology Body Condition Index (BCI) Assessment of tissue weight in comparison with shell cavity volume or shell length [7, 59, 126]
Stress on stress response (SOS) Assessment of survival rate during aerial exposure [71]
Scope for growth (SFG) Measurement of physiological energy balance [59, 76]
Metal-binding cysteine-rich proteins Metallothioneins (MTs) Measurement of metal binding proteins in tissue samples. Compensatory mechanism during exposure to heavy metals (Cd, Fe, Hg, Zn, As) [28]
Cellular Responses Lysosomal membrane stability (LMS); lipofuscin and neutral lipids accumulation Assessment of the condition of lysosomes and the related cell injury [7, 8, 61]
DNA integrity markers Micronuclei Assessment of toxic impact on chromosomes [91, 92, 127]
DNA adducts DNA damage assessment [91, 92, 128]
Comet assay Single cell DNA damage assessment [91, 92, 128]

Table 3.

List of biomarkers routinely used for monitoring the coastal waters quality using marine bivalves.

5.1. Physiological biomarkers

The biological indicators of health in bivalves such as Body Condition Index (BCI), stress on stress response (SOS), and scope for growth (SCF) have been recommended as broad markers of stress caused by either environmental changes or contaminants [59, 64, 6770]. The stress on stress response is a simple test, which measures the mortality rate (time to kill 50% of the sample) of bivalves when exposed to air [70, 71]. The SOS test examines whether stress caused by environmental changes or contaminants have altered the capacity of bivalves to survive under adverse conditions such as aerial exposure. The body condition index (ratio between soft tissue dry/wet weights to its overall size) is a general indicator of favorable growth conditions as well as the overall biological status. The body condition index is routinely used in aquaculture and environmental monitoring studies to assess the health condition of mussels [7, 25, 72].

The growth, reproduction, and survival of bivalves depend on the availability of sufficient energy reserve in their body. Exposure to contaminants negatively affects the energy balance of bivalves due to the high-energy demand for maintaining homeostasis at the expense of growth, storage, defense, and reproduction [73]. Fitness of an individual organism can be measured in terms of Scope for Growth (SfG), which is the measurement of physiological energy balance and it ranges from optimal (positive values) to stressed conditions (negative values) when the organism is exposed to contaminants or unfavorable environmental conditions [74, 75]. The SFG has been widely used in field monitoring studies [76, 77]. The SFG and the growth rates of mussels were drastically reduced when mussels from uncontaminated sites were transplanted along known pollution gradients or placed in the most contaminated areas [78, 79].

5.2. Cellular biomarkers

The digestive gland cells in bivalves play a key role in digestive and absorptive processes and also in the detoxification and excretion of contaminants [80]. The lysosomal system in the digestive cells was identified as the main target site for the toxic effects of most of the environmental contaminants including trace metals [81]. Lysosomal responses to cell injury due to contaminant exposure or stress caused by environmental changes fall into three categories: (1) changes in lysosomal contents, (2) changes in fusion events, and (3) changes in membrane permeability [81].

Changes in lysosomal membrane permeability of bivalves can be measured using the lysosomal membrane stability (LMS) test [8284]. The LMS test can be conducted by using two different methodologies: (i) a cytochemical method using cryostat sections of digestive gland tissue and (ii) an in vivo cytochemical method using hemolymph cells. Biomarkers such as LMS, accumulation of lipofuscin and neutral lipids in bivalves were successfully used for coastal pollution monitoring studies [7, 8, 69, 70, 8284]. Subsequently, different regional conventions have recommended the use of LMS as a general stress biomarker of chemical pollution within the framework of the pollution biomonitoring programs [67, 68, 85]. The proposed integrated assessment approach of contaminants and their effects in the NE Atlantic Baltic Sea Action Plan and in the Mediterranean Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) have included the LMS in mussels as one of the core biomarkers [8688].

It has been demonstrated that metallothioneins (inducible low molecular, sulfhydryl proteins) levels in the digestive cells of bivalves will be induced after exposure to trace metals such as Cd, Cu, and Zn [89]. The induction of metallothioneins (MT) in bivalves has been proposed as biomarkers of trace metal stress, and it has been recommended to use in coastal pollution monitoring studies [67, 68, 85, 90].

5.3. Biomarkers of genotoxicity

A wide variety of chemical contaminants capable of directly or indirectly damaging the DNA of marine organisms are being discharged into the marine environment. These genotoxic chemicals are capable of inducing some changes in the molecular and cellular levels of marine bivalves [91, 92]. Two well-known tests, micronucleus assay and comet assay, are being widely used to assess the genotoxic effects of environmental contaminants on marine bivalves [91, 92]. The micronucleus assay is used to detect the structural and numerical chromosomal changes while the comet assay (single-cell gel electrophoresis) is used to detect DNA strand breaks in marine bivalves.


6. Coastal pollution monitoring using biomarkers a case study

The biomarkers in marine bivalves based on sub-lethal effects of contaminants are ecologically relevant and can be used to give subtle signals of response to contaminants before damage becomes irreversible. The water quality in European coastal sites was classified ranging from class 1 (clean areas) to class 5 (highly polluted areas), based on global biomarker index for Baltic mussels [93]. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) since 2008 emphasized on the importance of assessing key biological responses for evaluating the health of organisms and linking the observed changes to potential contaminant effects [94].

The studies conducted prior to 1990s from Puget Sound, Washington, reported high concentrations of toxic metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and PCBs in sediments and toxicant-induced, adverse effects in benthic fish samples collected from the urban associated sites [95]. As an example of how biomarker-based indices can be integrated into environmental monitoring of Puget Sound, biomonitoring study using mussels was conducted in 1992 [7]. Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) were collected from their natural beds from nine sites in Puget Sound (Figure 2). Sites included the minimally contaminated reference areas of Oak Bay, Coupeville, and Double Bluff, in central and north Puget Sound, and Saltwater Park of south Puget Sound. Urban sites that were sampled for mussels included Eagle Harbor, Seacrest and Four Mile Rock in Elliott Bay, City Waterway in Commencement Bay, and Sinclair Inlet.

Figure 2.

Map showing the mussel sampling sites in Puget Sound, Washington [7].

Relatively high tissue concentrations of contaminants including toxic trace metals were observed in mussels tissue samples from the urban-associated sites compared to the minimally contaminated (reference) sites (Figure 3). Mussels from contaminated sites showed low LMS, enhanced lipofuscin deposition, and increased accumulation of lysosomal and cytoplasmic unsaturated neutral lipids (Figure 3). Mussels from the contaminated sites were smaller in size together with lower somatic tissue weight relative to shell length [7]. Highly significant correlations were observed between tissue concentrations of selected toxic elements (measures of anthropogenic exposure) and LMS [7]. The study showed that biomarkers in mussels have the potential to be used as sensitive, accurate, and rapid techniques for assessing the biological impact of environmental contaminants in the coastal waters. The study results were in agreement with the previous study results, which showed an association between metabolites of aromatic compounds in bile and the occurrence of hepatic lesions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from Puget Sound [96].

Figure 3.

Relationship between lysosomal membrane stability (LMS) and tissue concentration of heavy metals (mercury and lead) of mussels from urban-associated and reference sites in Puget Sound [7].


7. Conclusion

Commercially and ecologically important marine bivalves (clams, mussels, and oysters) are widely used for monitoring levels of trace metals in the marine environment from several parts of the world. Trace metal monitoring using bivalves has several advantages compared to using seawater or sediment samples for the same purpose. Bivalves such as mussels are having global distribution from the polar to the tropical region and being successfully used for temporal and spatial trend monitoring of trace metals in the coastal waters across the globe. Recently several biomarkers, the biological responses of bivalves to contaminants including trace metals, are being developed and tested to assess the coastal water quality. The biomarkers of stress in bivalves give early warning signal about the presence of toxic trace metals in the marine environment.



We thank the Center for Environment and Water, Research Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, for providing research facilities. We acknowledge the research funding (# T.K. 11-0629) of the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST). We also thank our colleagues and students who helped us to prepare this manuscript.


  1. 1. Lee RF, Sauerhaber R, Benson AA. Petroleum hydrocarbons. Uptake and discharge by the marine mussel Mytilus edulis. Science. 1972;177:344-346
  2. 2. Butler PA. Residues in fish, wildlife, and estuaries. Organochlorine residues in estuarine mollusks, 1965-72—National Pesticide Monitoring Program. Pesticides Monitoring Journal. 1973;6:238-246
  3. 3. Goldberg ED, Bowen VT, Farrington JW, Harvey G, Martin JH, Parker PL, Risebrough RW, Robertson W, Schneider W, Gamble E. The mussel watch. Environmental Conservation. 1978;5:101-125
  4. 4. Rainbow PS. Heavy metal levels in marine invertebrates. In: Furness RW, Rainbow PS, editors. Heavy metals in marine environment. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 1990. pp. 67-79
  5. 5. Farrington JW, Tripp BW, Tanabe S, Subramanian A, Sericano JL, Wade TL, Knap AH. Edward D. Goldberg's proposal of “the mussel watch”: Reflections after 40 years. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016;110:501-510
  6. 6. Moore MN, Depledge MH, Readman JW, Leonard P. An integrated biomarker based strategy for ecotoxicological evaluation of risk in environmental management. Mutation Research. 2004;552:247-268
  7. 7. Krishnakumar PK, Casillas E, Varanasi U. Effects of environmental contaminants on the health of Mytilus edulis from Puget Sound, Washington, USA. I. Cytochemical measures of lysosomal responses in the digestive cells using automatic image analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1994;106:249-261
  8. 8. Krishnakumar PK, Casillas E, Varanasi U. Effects of environmental contaminants on the health of Mytilus edulis from Puget Sound, Washington, USA. II. Cytochemical detection of subcellular changes in the digestive cells. Marine Biology. 1995;124:251-259
  9. 9. Dare PJ. Settlement, growth, and production of the mussel, Mytilus edulis L., in Morecambe Bay, England. Fishery Investigations Series II. 1976;28(1):1-25
  10. 10. Jørgensen CB. Bivalve Filter Feeding: Hydrodynamics, Bioenergetics, Physiology and Ecology. Fredensborg, Denmark: Olsen & Olsen; 1990
  11. 11. Famme P, Riisgård H, Jørgensen C. On direct measurement of pumping rates in the mussel Mytilus edulis. Marine Biology. 1986;92:323-327
  12. 12. Boening DW. An evaluation of bivalves as biomonitors of heavy metals pollution in marine waters. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1999;55:459-470
  13. 13. Kimbrough KL, Johnson WE, Lauenstein GG, Christensen JD, Apeti DA. An Assessment of two Decades of Contaminant Monitoring in the nation's Coastal Zone. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 74. Silver Spring, Maryland, USA: NOAA; 2008. p. 105.>)
  14. 14. O'Conner TP. Mussel Watch: Recent Trends in Coastal Environmental Quality. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administartion; 1992. p. 46
  15. 15. Sasikumar G, Krishnakumar PK, Bhat GS. Monitoring trace metal contaminants in green mussel, Perna viridis from the coastal waters of Karnataka, Southwest Coast of India. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2006;51:206-214
  16. 16. O’Connor TP, Lauenstein GG. Trends in chemical concentrations in mussels and oysters collected along the US coast: Update to 2003. Marine Environmental Research. 2006;62:261-285
  17. 17. Casas S, Gonzalez JL, Andral B, Cossa D. Relation between metal concentration in water and metal content in marine mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis): Impact of physiology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2008;27:1543-1552
  18. 18. WHO/FAO/IAEA. Trace Elements in Human Nutrition and Health. Switzerland: Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996
  19. 19. Chang LW, Magos L, Suzuki T, editors. Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton. FL, USA: CRC Press; 1996
  20. 20. Beyer J, Green NW, Brooks S, Allan IJ, Ruus A, Gomes T, Bråte ILN, Schøyen M. Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis spp.) as sentinel organisms in coastal pollution monitoring: A review. Marine Environmental Research. 2017;130:338-365
  21. 21. Luoma SN, Rainbow PS. Why is metal bioaccumulation so variable? Biodynamics as a unifying concept. Environmental Science & Technology. 2005;39:1921-1931
  22. 22. Solaun O, Rodríguez JG, Borja A, Gonzalez M, SaizSalinas JI. Biomonitoring of metals under the water framework directive: Detecting temporal trends and abrupt changes, in relation to the removal of pollution sources. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2013;67:26-35
  23. 23. Rainbow PS. Trace metal concentrations in aquatic invertebrates: Why and so what? Environmental Pollution. 2002;120:497-507
  24. 24. Saavedra Y, Gonzalez A, Fernandez P, Blanco J. The effect of size on trace metal concentrations in raft cultivated mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis). Science of the Total Environment. 2004;318:115-124
  25. 25. Mubiana VK, Vercauteren K, Blust R. The influence of body size, condition index and tidal exposure on the variability in metal bioaccumulation in Mytilus edulis. Environmental Pollution. 2006;144:272-279
  26. 26. Krishnakumar PK, Asokan PK, Pillai VK. Physiological and cellular responses to copper and mercury in the green mussel Perna viridis. Aquatic Toxicology. 1990;18:163-174
  27. 27. Yap CK, Ismail A, Edward FB, Tan SG, Siraj SS. Use of different soft tissues of Perna viridis as biomonitors of bioavailability and contamination by heavy metals (cd, cu, Fe, Pb, Ni, and Zn) in semi-enclosed intertidal water, the Johore Straits. Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry. 2006;88(1-4):683-695
  28. 28. Viarengo A. Heavy metals in marine invertebrates: Mechanisms of regulation and toxicity at the cellular level. CRC Critical Reviews in Aquatic Sciences. 1989;1:295-317
  29. 29. Marigomez I, Soto M, Cajaraville MP, Angulo E, Giamberini L. Cellular and subcellular distribution of metals in molluscs. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2002;56:358-392
  30. 30. Beeby A. What do sentinels stand for? Environmental Pollution. 2001;112:285-298
  31. 31. Philips DJH. The use of biological indicator organisms to monitor trace metal pollution in marine and estuarine environments–A review. Environmental Pollution. 1977;13:281-317
  32. 32. Phillips DJH. Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators: Their Use to Monitor Trace Metal and Orgnanochlorine Pollution. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science; 1980. Rainbow 2002
  33. 33. Zhou Q, Zhang J, Fu J, Shi J, Jiang G. Biomonitoring: An appealing tool assessment of metal pollution in the aquatic ecosystem. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2008;606:135-150
  34. 34. Gupta SK, Singh J. Evaluation of mollusc as sensitive indicator of heavy metal pollution in aquatic system: A review. Institute of Integrative Omics and Applied Biotechnology Journal. 2011;2:49-57
  35. 35. Waykar B, Deshmukh G. Evaluation of bivalves as bioindicators of metal pollution in freshwater. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2012;88:48-53
  36. 36. Melwani AR, Gregorio D, Jin Y, Stephenson M, Ichikawa G, Siegel E, Crane D, Lauenstein G, Davis JA. Mussel watch update: Long-term trends in selected contaminants from coastal California, 1977-2010. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2014;81:291-302
  37. 37. Claisse D. Chemical contamination of French coasts: The results of a ten years mussel watch. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1989;20:523-528
  38. 38. Ramu K, Kajiwara N, Sudaryanto A, Isobe T, Takahashi S, Subramanian A, Ueno D, Zheng GJ, Lam PKS, Takada H, Zakaria MP, Viet PH, Prudente M, Tana TS, Tanabe S. Asian mussel watch program: Contamination status of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and organochlorines in coastal waters of Asian countries. Environmental Science & Technology. 2007;41:4580-4586
  39. 39. Zuykov M, Pelletier E, Harper DAT. Bivalve mollusks in metal pollution studies: From bioaccumulation to biomonitoring. Chemosphere. 2013;93:201-208
  40. 40. Goldberg E. The mussel watch–a first step in global marine monitoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1975;6:111
  41. 41. Goldberg ED. The mussel watch concept. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1986;7:91-103
  42. 42. Goldberg E. The International MUSSEL WATCH–Report of a Workshop Sponsored by the Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources and the National Research Council. Washington D.C: National Academy of Sciences; 1980. p. 269. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-80896. International Standard Book Number 0-309-03040-4
  43. 43. Farrington JW, Goldberg ED, Risebrough RW, Martin JH, Bowen VT. U.S. “Mussel Watch” 1976-1978. An overview of the trace metal, DDE, PCB, hydrocarbon and artificial radionuclide data. Environmental Science and Technology. 1983;17:490-496
  44. 44. Wade TL, Atlas EL, Brooks JM, Kennicutt MC II, Fox RG, Sericano JL, Garcia-Romero B, DeFreitas D. NOAA Gulf of Mexico status and trends program: Trace organic distribution in sediments and oysters. Estuaries. 1988;11:171-179
  45. 45. O'Connor TP. Mussel watch results from 1986 to 1996. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1998;37:14-19
  46. 46. Launestei GG, Daskalakis KD. U.S. long-term coastal contaminant temporal trends determined from mollusk monitoring programs 1965-1993. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1998;37:6-13
  47. 47. White H. Mussel madness: Use and misuse of biological monitors of marine pollution. In: White H, editor. Concepts in Marine Pollution Measurements. A Maryland Sea Grant Publication. College Park, MD, USA: University of Maryland; 1984. pp. 325-337 (743 pp.)
  48. 48. Cantillo AY. Comparison of results of mussel watch programs of the United States and France with worldwide mussel watch studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1998;36:712-717
  49. 49. Pan K, Wang WX. Trace metal contamination in estuarine and coastal environments in China. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;421:3-16
  50. 50. Sparks C, Odendaal J, Snyman R. An analysis of historical Mussel Watch Programme data from the west coast of the cape peninsula, cape town. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2014;87:374-380
  51. 51. Green NW, Schøyen M, Øxnevad S, Ruus A, Allan I, Hjermann D, Severinsen G, Høgåsen T, Beylich B, Håvardstun J, Lund E, Tveiten L, Bæk K. Contaminants in Coastal Waters of Norway–2015. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Environment Agency Miljødirektoratet & Norwegian Institute for Water Research; 2016. p. 209
  52. 52. Phelps DK, Galloway WB. A report on the coastal environmental assessment stations (CEAS) program. Rapports et procés-verbaux des réunions - Conseil international pour l'exploration de la mer. 1980;179:76-81
  53. 53. Anderlini VC, Al-Harmi L, De Lappe BW, Risebrough RW, Walker W III, Simoneit BRT, Newton AS. Distribution of hydrocarbons in the oyster, Pinctada margaratifera, along the coast of Kuwait. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1981;12:57-62
  54. 54. Martin M. State mussel watch: Toxic surveillance in California. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1985;16:140-146
  55. 55. Ramesh A, Tanabe S, Subramanian A, Mohan D, Venugopalan VK, Tatsukawa R. Persistent organochlorine residues in green mussels from coastal waters of South India. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1990;21:587-590
  56. 56. Kan-Atireklap S, Yen TH, Tanabe S, Subramanian A. Butyltin compounds and organochlorine residues in green mussel (Perna viridis L.) from India. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1998;67:409-424. Kimbrough et al., 2008
  57. 57. Tsutsumi S, Yamaguchi Y, Nishida I, Aliyama K, Zakaria M, Takada H. Alkylbenzenes in mussels from south and south Asian coasts as a molecular tool to assess sewage impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2002;45:325-331
  58. 58. Rouane-Hacene O, Boutiba Z, Belhaouari B, Guibbolini-Sabatier ME, Francour P, Risso-de Faverney C. Seasonal assessment of biological indices, bioaccumulation and bioavailability of heavy metals in mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis from Algerian west coast, applied to environmental monitoring. Oceanologia. 2015;57:362-374
  59. 59. Bayne BL, Moore MN, Widdows J, Livingstone DR, Salkeld PN. Measurement of the responses of individuals to environmental stress and pollution: Studies with bivalve molluscs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science. 1979;286:563-581
  60. 60. Bayne BL, Brown DA, Burns K, Dixon DR, Ivanovici A, Livingstone DR, Lowe DM, Moore MN, Stebbing ARD, Widdows J, editors. The Effects of Stress and Pollution on Marine Animals. New York: Praeger Press; 1985
  61. 61. Moore MN. Cytochemical responses of the lysosomal system and NADPH-ferrihemoprotein reductase in molluscan digestive cells to environmental and experimental exposure to xenobiotics. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1988;46:81-89
  62. 62. Livingstone DR, Chipman JK, Lowe DM, Minier C, Pipe RK. Development of biomarkers to detect the effects of organic pollution on aquatic invertebrates: Recent molecular, genotoxic, cellular and immunological studies on the common mussel (Mytilus edulis). International Journal of Environment and Pollution. 2000;13:56-91
  63. 63. Sanchez W, Porcher JM. Fish biomarkers for environmental monitoring within the water framework directive of the European Union. Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2009;28:150-158
  64. 64. Viarengo A, Lowe D, Bolognesi C, Fabbri E, Koehler A. The use of biomarkers in biomonitoring: A 2-tier approach assessing the level of pollutant induced stress syndrome in sentinel organisms. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology-Part C. 2007;146:281-300
  65. 65. ICES. Report of the Joint ICES/OSPAR Study Group on Integrated Monitoring of Contaminants and Bio–Logical Effects (SGIMC) ICES Document CM 2009/ACOM:30 Ref. OSPAR; 2009
  66. 66. Lyons BP, Thain JE, Stentiford GD, Hylland K, Davies IM, Vethaak AD. Using biological effects tools to define good environmental status under the European Union marine strategy framework directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2010;60:1647-1651
  67. 67. UNEP/RAMOGE. Manual on the Biomarkers Recommended for the MED POL Biomonitoring Programme. Athens: UNEP; 1999. pp. 1-92
  68. 68. UNEP/MAP. Fact Sheets on Marine Pollution Indicators. Meeting of the MED POL National Coordinators. Barcelona, Spain, 24e27 May 2005. WGUNEP(DEC)/MED/WG.264/Inf.14. UNEP, Athens: 2005
  69. 69. Vethaak AD, Davies IM, Thain JE, Gubbins MJ, Martínez-Gomez C, Robinson CD, Moffat CF, Burgeot T, Maes T, Wosniok W, Giltrap M, Lang T, Hylland K. Integrated indicator framework and methodology for monitoring and assessment of hazardous substances and their effects in the marine environment. Marine Environmental Research. 2017;124:11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.09.010
  70. 70. Martínez-Gomez C, Robinson CD, Burgeot T, Gubbins M, Halldorsson HP, Albentosa M, Bignell JP, Hylland K, Vethaak D. Biomarkers of general stress in mussels as common indicators for marine biomonitoring programmes in Europe: The ICON experience. Marine Environmental Research. 2017;124:70-80
  71. 71. Viarengo A, Canesi L, Pertica M, Mancinelli G, Accomando R, Smaal AC, Orunesu M. Stress on stress response: A simple monitoring tool in the assessment of a general stress syndrome in mussels. Marine Environmental Research. 1995;39:245-248
  72. 72. Benali I, Boutiba Z, Merabet A, Chèvre N. Integrated use of biomarkers and condition indices in mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) for monitoring pollution and development of biomarker index to assess the potential toxic of coastal sites. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2015;95:385-394
  73. 73. Smolders R, Bervoets L, De Coen W, Blust R. Cellular energy allocation in zebra mussels exposed along a pollution gradient: Linking cellular effects to higher levels of biological organization. Environmental Pollution. 2004;129:99-112
  74. 74. Widdows J, Donkin P. Chapter 8: Mussels and environmental contaminants: Bioaccumulation and physiological aspects. In: Gosling E, editor. The Mussel Mytilus. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press; 1992. pp. 383-424
  75. 75. Widdows J, Donkin P, Staff FJ, Matthiessen P, Law RJ, Allen YT, Thain JE, Allchin CR, Jones BR. Measurement of stress effects (scope for growth) and contaminant levels in mussels (Mytilus edulis) collected from the Irish Sea. Marine Environmental Research. 2002;53(4):327-356
  76. 76. Widdows J, Johnson D. Physiological energetics of Mytilus edulis: Scope for growth. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1988;46:113-121
  77. 77. Widdows J, Burns KA, Menon NR, Page DS, Soria S. Measurement of physiological energetics (scope for growth) and chemical contaminants in mussel (Arca zebra) transplanted along a contamination gradient in Bermuda. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1990;138:99-117
  78. 78. Martin M, Ichikawa G, Goetzl J, de los Reyes M, Stephenson MD. Relationships between physiological stress and trace toxic substances in the bay mussel, Mytilus edulis, from San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Environmental Research. 1984;11:91-110
  79. 79. Salazar MH, Salazar SM. Assessing site-specific effects of TBT contamination with mussel growth-rates. Marine Environmental Research. 1991;32:131-150
  80. 80. Livingstone DR. Organic xenobiotic metabolism in marine invertebrates. In: Gilles R, editor. Advances in Comparative and Environmental Physiology. Vol. 7. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1991. p. 45 185
  81. 81. Moore MN. Environmental distress signals: Cellular reactions to marine pollution. In: Graumann W, Drukker J, editors. Histo- and Cytochemistry as a Tool in Environmental Toxicology. Progress in Histochemistry and Cytochemistry. Vol. 23. 1991. pp. 2-19
  82. 82. Moore MN. Lysosomal cytochemistry in marine environmental monitoring. Histochemical Journal. 1990;22:187-191
  83. 83. Moore MN. Biocomplexity: The post-genome challenge in ecotoxicology. Aquatic Toxicology. 2002;59:1-15
  84. 84. Moore MN, Allen JI, McVeigh A, Shaw J. Lysosomal and autophagic reactions as predictive indicators of environmental impact in aquatic animals. Autophagy. 2006;2:217-220
  85. 85. OSPAR. JAMP Guidelines for General Biological Effects Monitoring (OSPAR Agreement 1997-7). OSPAR Commission, Monitoring guidelines. Ref. No: 1997-7; 1997. 20 pp
  86. 86. Davies IM, Vethaak AD. Integrated marine environmental monitoring of chemicals and their effects. ICES Cooperative Research Report. 2012;315:277
  87. 87. HELCOM. Development of a set of core indicators: Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project. PART B: Descriptions of the indicators. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 129 B; 2012
  88. 88. UNEP/MAP. Report of the Correspondence Group on Monitoring, Pollution and Litter (CORMON). Monitoring Guidance on Ecological Objective 9: contaminants. UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.394/5 and 394/7. Athens (Greece), 8-9 May 2014
  89. 89. Viarengo A, Palmero S, Zanicchi G, Capelli R, Vaissiere R, Orunesu M. Role of metallotbioneins in cu and cd accumulation and elimination in tbe gill and digestive gland cells of Mytilus gaUoprovincialisam. Marine Environmental Research. 1985;16:23-36
  90. 90. Viarengo A, Burlando B, Dondero F, Marro A, Fabbri R. Metallothionein as a tool in biomonitoring programmes. Biomarkers. 1999;4:455-466
  91. 91. Jha AN. Genotoxicological studies in aquatic organisms: An overview. Mutation Research. 2004;552:1-17
  92. 92. Bolognesi C, Cirillo S. Genotoxicity biomarkers in aquatic bioindicators. Current Zoology. 2014;60:273-284
  93. 93. Narbonne JF, Daubeze M, Clerandeau C, Garrigues P. Scale of classification based on biochemical markers in mussels: Application to pollution monitoring in European coasts. Biomarkers. 1999;4:415-424
  94. 94. Law R, Hanke G, Angelidis M, Batty J, Bignert A, Dachs J, Davies I, Denga A, Duffek B, Herut H, Hylland K, Lepom P, Leonards P, Mehtonen J, Piha M, Roose P, Tronczynski J, Velikova V, Vethaak D. Marine Strategy Framework Directive–Task Group 8 Report Contaminants and Pollution Effects. EUR 24335 EN–Joint Research Centre Scientific and Technical Reports. Vol. 161 pp. Scientific and Technical Research series, ISSN 978-92-79-15648-9. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2010. DOI: 10.2788/85887
  95. 95. Malins DC, McCain BC, Brown DW, Chan S, Myers MS, Landahl JT, Prohaska PG, Friedman AJ, Rhodes LD, Burrows DG, Gronlund WD, Hodgins H. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases of bottom-dwelling fish in Puget Sound, Washington. Environmental Science & Technology. 1984;18:705-713
  96. 96. Krahn MM, Rhodes LD, Myers MS, Moore LK, MacLeod WD, Malins DC. Association between metabolites of aromatic compounds in bile and the occurence of hepatic lesions in English sole (Parophry vetulus) from Puget Sound, Washington. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 1986;15:61-67
  97. 97. Wang W-X, Fisher NS, Luoma SN. Kinetic determinations of trace element bioaccumulation in the mussel, Mytilus edulis. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1996;140:91-113
  98. 98. Wang W-X, Griscom SB, Fisher NS. Bioavailability of Cr (III) and Cr (VI) to marine mussels from solute and particulate pathways. Environmental Science & Technology. 1997;31:603-611
  99. 99. Nice HE, Fisher SJ. Ecotoxicological and Bioaccumulation Investigations of the Swan Estuary in the Vicinity of Claisebrook, Water Science Technical Series, Report no. 28, Western Australia: Department of Water; 2011
  100. 100. Chandurvelan R, ID Marsden, CN Glover, Gawb S. Assessment of a Mussel as a Metal Bioindicator of Coastal Contamination: Relationships between Metal Bioaccumulation and Multiple Biomarker Responses; 2015
  101. 101. Wang X, Li C, Zhoud L. Metal concentrations in the mussel Bathymodiolus platifrons from a cold in the South China Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part I. 2017;129(2017):80-88
  102. 102. Fung CN, Lam JCW, Zheng GJ, Connell DW, Monirith I, Tanabe S, Richardson BJ, Lam PKS. Mussel-based monitoring of trace metal and organic contaminants along the east coast of China using Perna viridis and Mytilus edulis. Environmental Pollution. 2004;127(2):203-216
  103. 103. Orescanin V, Lovrencic I, Mikelic L, Barisic D, Matasin Z, Lulic S, Pezelj D. Biomonitoring of heavy metals and arsenic on the east coast of the middle Adriatic Sea using Mytilus galloprovincialis. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B. 2006;245:495-500
  104. 104. Joksimovic D, Tomic I, Stankovic AR, et al. Trace metal concentrations in Mediterranean blue mussel and surface sediments and evaluation of the mussels quality and possible risks of high human consumption. Food Chemistry. 2011;127:632-637
  105. 105. Conti ME, Cecchetti G. A biomonitoring study: Trace metals in algae and molluscs Tyrrhenian coastal areas. Environmental Research. 2003;93:99-112
  106. 106. Topcuoglu S, Kirba-soglu C, Yilmaz YZ. Heavy metal levels in biota and sediments in the northern coast of the Marmara Sea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2004;96(1-3):183-189
  107. 107. Kucuksezgin F, Kayatekin BM, Uluturhan E, et al. Preliminary investigation of sensitive biomarkers of trace metal pollution in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from Izmir Bay (Turkey). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2008;141:339-345
  108. 108. Besada V, Andrade JM, Schultze F, et al. Monitoring of heavy metals in wild mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from the Spanish North-Atlantic coast. Continental Shelf Research. 2011;31:457-465
  109. 109. Brooks S, Harman C, Soto M, et al. Integrated coastal monitoring of a gas processing plant using native and caged mussels. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;426:375-386
  110. 110. Bartolome´ L, Navarro P, Raposo JC, Arana G, Zuloaga O, Etxebarria N, Soto M. Occurrence and distribution of metals in mussels from the cantabrian coast. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2010;59:235-243
  111. 111. Yigit M, Celikkol B, Yilmaz S, Bulut M, Ozalp B, Dwyer RL, Maita M, Kizilkaya B, Yigit Ü, Ergün S, Gürses K, Buyukates Y. Bioaccumulation of trace metals in Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from a fish farm with copper-alloy mesh pens and potential risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2017:10.1080/10807039.2017.1387476
  112. 112. Astudillo LRD, Yen IC, Agard J, Bekele I, Hubbard R. Heavy metals in green mussel (Perna viridis) andoysters (Crassostrea sp.) from Trinidad and Venezuela. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2002;42(2002):410-415
  113. 113. Bakan G, €Ozko¸c HB. An ecological risk assessment of the impact of heavy metals in surface sediments on biota from the mid-Black Sea coast of Turkey. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 2007;64(1):45-57
  114. 114. Bilgin M, Uluturhan-Suzer U. Assessment of trace metal concentrations and human health risk in clam (Tapes decussatus) and mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from the Homa Lagoon (Eastern Aegean Sea). Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017;24:4174-4184
  115. 115. Nesto N, Romano S, Moschino V, Mauri M, Da Ros L. Bioaccumulation and biomarker responses of trace metals and micro-organic pollutants in mussels and fish from the lagoon of Venice, Italy. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2007;55(10):469-484
  116. 116. de Souza MM, Windmoller CC, Hatje V. Shellfish from Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil: Treat or threat? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2011;62(10):2254-2263
  117. 117. Sericano JL, Wade TL, Jackson TJ, Brooks JM, Tripp BW, Farrington JW, Mee L, Readman JW, Villeneuve J-P, Goldberg ED. Trace organic contamination in the Americas: An overview of the US national status and trends and the interna-tional mussel watch programmes. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1995;31:214-225
  118. 118. Tanabe S. International mussel watch in Asia-Pacific phase. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1994;28(9):518
  119. 119. Tanabe S. Asia-Pacific mussel watch progress report. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2000;40:651
  120. 120. Sudaryanto A, Takahashi S, Monirith I, Ismail A, Muchatar M, Zheng J, Richardson BR, Subramanian A, Prudente M, Hue ND, Tanabe S. Asia-Pacific mussel watch: Monitoring of butyltin contamination in coastal waters of Asian developing countries. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2002;21:2119-2130
  121. 121. Monirith I, Ueno D, Takahashi S, Nakata H, Sudaryanto A, Subramanian A, Karuppiah S, Ismail A, Muchtar M, Zheng J, Richardson BJ, Prudente M, Hue ND, Tana TS, Tkalin AV, Tanabe S. Asia-Pacific mussel watch: Monitoring contamination of persistent organochlorine compounds in coastal waters of Asian countries. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2003;46:281-300
  122. 122. Moore MN, Lowe DM, Wade T, Wedderburn RJ, Depledge MH, Balashov G, Büyükgüngör H, Özkoc H, Daurova Y, Denga Y, Kostylev E, Mihnea P, Ciocanu C, Moncheva S, Tabagari S. International Mussel Watch (UNESCO/IOC) in the Black Sea: A Pilot Study for Biological Effects and Contaminant Residues. Environ- Mental Degradation of the Black Sea: Challenges and Remedies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. pp. 273-289
  123. 123. Scarpato A, Romanelli G, Galgani F, Andral B, Amici M, Giordano P, Caixach J, Calvo M, Campillo JA, Albadalejo JB, Cento A, BenBrahim S, Sammari C, Deudro S, Boulahdid M, Giovanardi F. Western Mediterranean coastal waters—Moni-toring PCBs and pesticides accumulation in Mytilus galloprovincialis by active mussel watching: The Mytilos project. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 2010;12(4):924-935
  124. 124. Andral B, Galgani F, Tomasino C, Bouchoucha M, Blottiere C, Scarpato A, Benedicto J, Deudro S, Calvo M, Centa A, Benbrahim S, Boulahdid M, Sammi C. Chemical contamination baseline in the western Mediterranean Sea based on transplanted mussels. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2011;61:216-271
  125. 125. Galgani F, Martinez-Gomiz C, Giovaranardi F, Romaneli G, Caixach J, Cento A, Scarpato A, BebRahim S, Massaoudi S, Deudro S, Bouladhid M, Benedicto J, Andral B. Assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in mussels (Mytilus gallprovincialis) from the western basin of the Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2011;172(1-4):301-317
  126. 126. Sasikumar G, Krishnakumar PK. Aquaculture planning for suspended bivalve farming systems: The integration of physiological response of green mussel with environmental variability in site selection. Ecological Indicators. 2011;11:734-740
  127. 127. Jha AN, Dogra Y, Turner A, Millward GE. Impact of low doses of tritium on the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis: Genotoxic effects and tissue-specific bioconcentration. Mutation Research. 2005;586:47-57
  128. 128. Banni M, Sforzini S, Arlt VM, Barranger A, Dallas LJ, Oliveri C, Aminot Y, Pacchioni B, Millino C, Lanfranchi G, Readman JW, Moore MN, Viarengo A, Jha AN. Assessing the impact of Benzo[a]pyrene on marine mussels: Application of a novel targeted low density microarray complementing classical biomarker responses. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178460. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178460

Written By

Periyadan K. Krishnakumar, Mohammad A. Qurban and Geetha Sasikumar

Submitted: October 17th, 2017 Reviewed: April 3rd, 2018 Published: September 5th, 2018