Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Spatial and temporal variation of macro-, meso- and microplastic

abundance on a remote coral island of the Maldives, Indian Ocean
Hannes K. Imhof 1, Robert Sigl 1, Emilia Brauer, Sabine Feyl, Philipp Giesemann, Saskia Klink, Kathrin Leupolz,
Martin G.J. Löder, Lena A. Löschel, Jan Missun, Sarah Muszynski, Anja F.R.M. Ramsperger, Isabella Schrank,
Susan Speck, Sebastian Steibl, Benjamin Trotter, Isabel Winter, Christian Laforsch ⁎
Department of Animal Ecology I and BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Plastic debris is ubiquitous in the marine environment and the world's shores represent a major sink. However,
Received 29 November 2016 knowledge about plastic abundance in remote areas is scarce. Therefore, plastic abundance was investigated on a
Received in revised form 2 January 2017 small island of the Maldives. Plastic debris (N 1 mm) was sampled once in natural long-term accumulation zones
Accepted 4 January 2017
at the north shore and at the high tide drift line of the south shore on seven consecutive days to quantify daily
Available online 18 January 2017
plastic accumulation. Reliable identification of plastic debris was ensured by FTIR spectroscopy. Despite the re-
Keywords:
moteness of the island a considerable amount of plastic debris was present. At both sites a high variability in plas-
Microplastic tic abundance on a spatial and temporal scale was observed, which may be best explained by environmental
Plastic debris factors. In addition, our results show that snapshot sampling may deliver biased results and indicate that future
Island monitoring programs should consider spatial and temporal variation of plastic deposition.
Remote © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Indian Ocean

1. Introduction particles can contribute up to 27,606 items/m2 or 3.3% of the sediment

Plastic can be used for countless applications; it is durable, light-
weight and has low production costs. These properties favor plastic as
an everyday mass product, which can be seen in the exponential in-
crease in its production and use since the 1950s (PlasticsEurope,
2015). There are a multitude of pathways by which plastic intentionally
or unintentionally enters the environment (Bergmann et al., 2015;
GESAMP, 2015). Once introduced into the environment, plastic debris
probably persists for decades due to its chemical properties (Barnes et
al., 2009; Corcoran et al., 2009). The majority of plastic items in the en-
vironment are present as ‘microplastic’, either as fragments of larger
plastic litter, or ‘microplastic by design’ like microbeads or pre-produc-
tion pellets (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2015).
Once introduced, plastic litter finally accumulates in the surface
water of the world's oceans (van Sebille et al., 2015; Cózar et al.,
2014) and disperses throughout the oceans due to its durability, longev-
ity and the capacity for long-distance transport (Eriksen et al., 2014;
Ebbesmeyer and Ingraham, 1994). Many particles end up being washed
ashore (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2015), hence beaches are considered
to be a major sink for plastic debris (GESAMP, 2015). Microplastic
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: christian.laforsch@uni-bayreuth.de (C. Laforsch).
1
Shared first authorship.
by weight on heavily polluted beaches (Lee et al., 2013; Carson et al.,
2011).
The occurrence of plastic debris in the marine environment could
elicit severe impacts on organisms of different trophic levels, when
microplastic particles are ingested. In addition to direct mechanical ef-
fects, (e.g. gut impaction or food depletion, Wright et al., 2013), a variety
of indirect effects may arise. For example, harmful substances from
microplastic particles may leach into the digestive tract reducing surviv-
al, feeding, immunity or antioxidant capacity (Browne et al., 2013).
Likewise, environmental contaminants that adsorb to the surface of
the particles may elicit adverse effects (Rochman, 2015; Bakir et al.,
2012). However, a critical evaluation of the current literature by
Koelmans et al. (2016) reveals a limited importance of leaching
chemicals. Additionally, microplastic particles may act as a vector of po-
tentially harmful microorganisms and alien species (Kirstein et al.,
2016; Zettler et al., 2013).
Although, plastic contamination of shorelines has been record-
ed in large areas all over the globe, knowledge about the amount
of plastic debris in areas remote to human civilization is scarce
(Bergmann et al., 2015; GESAMP, 2015; van Sebille et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the understanding and interpretation of spatial and
temporal patterns of local and global scale is hampered by several
reasons which were outlined by extensive reviews of Browne et
al. (2015), Van Cauwenberghe et al. (2015), Löder and Gerdts
(2015) and Hidalgo-Ruz et al. (2012): Firstly, existing studies

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.010
0025-326X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347 341

exhibit a low comparability due to variation in the sampling design
(a.o.: sampling only the drift line, the upper or lower beach, the en-
tire beach, beach surface or deep sediment samples, accumulation
zones or random sites, number of samples per area or time). Sec-
ondly, the results of most studies are only a snapshot in time and
the natural variation of plastic abundance on a spatial and tempo-
ral scale is largely influenced by local characteristics that are
often unknown or ignored. Thirdly, many studies only rely on the
visual identification of plastic debris, which might be possible for
larger fragments, but this method is not reliable for particles of
the microplastic size.
To address these issues, the aim of the present study was to
quantify the contamination of the shoreline of a remote and small
coral island with macroplastic (N25 mm), mesoplastic (5–25 mm)
and large microplastic particles (1–5 mm) in a spatial and temporal
context. The island is located in the central Indian Ocean, a region
where plastic pollution has been investigated scarcely on the
water surface (van Sebille et al., 2015; Eriksen et al., 2014) and in
beach sediments (Browne et al., 2015; Barnes, 2004). Due to the re-
moteness of the island and because of being almost unpopulated,
we expected to find very low amounts of plastic debris, as plastic
abundance is usually correlated with population density, urbaniza-
tion and beach use (e.g. Browne et al., 2015). We quantified (I) the
‘long-term accumulation’ of plastic debris in natural aggregation
zones of organic material and marine debris on the north shore
and (II) the daily abundance of plastic debris deposited in the
drift line after high tide on seven consecutive days on the south
shore. For a reliable identification, all potential plastic particles
were analyzed using attenuated total reflection (ATR) FTIR
spectroscopy.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling location
The sampling was performed on Vavvaru Island (5°25′05″ N, 73°21′
16″ E), Lhaviyani Atoll, Republic of Maldives, a scarcely inhabited island
only used for research and environmental education with strongly lim-
ited on-island waste disposal. The island only houses a marine station,
which provides laboratories and logistics for scientists and educational
groups. Vavvaru is located in the south-west of the Lhaviyani atoll
with its western side oriented to the open sea (Fig. 1). It has a circumfer-
ence of about 1200 m and an area of ~31,000 m2. The longest distance
from north to south is ~ 270 m and ~ 450 m from east to west. The
south of the island is dominated by a wide lagoon (facing from south
to southeast) and the transition from land to sea is level with a long
sandy beach (Fig. 1). Thus, plastic debris may be gently washed ashore
but can also be washed away again. Therefore, a constant import and ex-
port is assumed. In contrast, the rest of the shoreline (spreading from
west to northeast, besides a small east-facing part of the coast; Fig. 1)
is steeper with a short intertidal zone and a wide reef flat facing the
open sea. This part is dominated by underbrush on sand barriers. Due
to the terrain profile, large areas of the northern part of the island, in-
cluding the underbrush, are completely flooded during high tide. The
water gathers in hollows and organic material and marine debris is
trapped in accumulation zones behind the natural sand barrier and
the underbrush (Fig. S1).
Two experiments were conducted taking into account the differing
morphology of the island.
(I) We quantified the long-term accumulation of plastic debris gath-
ered in natural accumulation zones behind the steep coastline. Six sites

Fig. 1. Map of Vavvaru and location of sampling sites. (A) Republic of Maldives with red box outlining the Lhaviyani atoll. (B) Satellite image of the Lhayiyani atoll. The red arrow marks
Vavvaru. (C) Perimeter of Vavvaru during the sampling period in 2015. The blue dots mark the sampling sites for the daily abundance of intertidal plastic debris on the south-facing shore
of Vavvaru (DA1–DA6) and the red triangles mark the sampled natural long-term accumulation zones of organic material and marine debris (LA1–LA6). (A) and (B) from ESRI
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye and NOAA.
342 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347
were determined on the shoreline in areas where floating organic mate-
rial and marine debris had aggregated (N = 6). Three sites (LA1, LA2,
LA3) were facing west to northwest and three sites were facing north-
east (LA4, LA5, LA6). At each site the existing accumulated material
within a grid of 1 m2 (1 × 1 m) was collected once, resulting in six sam-
ples, and analyzed for plastic particles as described later. The sampling
of the long-term accumulation sites was performed during three days
between the 22nd and 24th of June 2015.
In a second experiment (II) we assessed the daily abundance of plas-
tic particles at the high tide drift line of the south-facing shoreline. Sam-
pling was performed on seven consecutive days from the 21st to the
27th of June 2015 at six evenly allocated and geographically fixed sam-
pling sites along a shoreline of ~100 m (6 sample sites × 7 days resulted
in 42 samples). The maximum tidal range on the island is 1.1 m (Fig. S6).
At each sampling site a grid of 0.5 × 0.5 m (0.25 m2) was placed in the
high tide drift line (Fig. S1) and all accumulated material was collected
and analyzed for plastic particle contamination as described later. The
final position of the grid on each day was set at the intersection of the
drift line and a line from the water perpendicular to the shoreline. To
perform standardized sampling, every day the highest drift line was
marked during high tide and used for sampling. Sampling was per-
formed approximately 1 h after the afternoon high tide. Information
about the tidal cycles is available in the supplementary material (Fig.
S6). Wind data were recorded every day during the experiment at
8 a.m., 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. by the KorallionLab marine station on Vavvaru.
The wind direction during the sampling was relatively constant (W, SW,
S) and the wind speed varied considerably between 5 and 31 km/h
(Table S2). Depending on the tides, a weak current along the south
shore was observed.
2.2. Sampling procedure
For both experiments, the sampling grids were documented photo-
graphically (PowerShot G16, Canon, Japan) and geographically using
GPS (Garmin GPSmap62st, Switzerland). Afterwards, the upper surface
layer (approx. 1 cm) of the sampling area was collected using a stainless
steel shovel. This method allows including freshly buried debris but ex-
cludes particles from deeper layers which may have been washed
ashore in the past (Browne et al., 2015). The resulting sample was
sorted by size using stainless steel laboratory sieves with 5 mm and
1 mm mesh size (RETSCH GmbH, Germany). The sample fraction 1–
5 mm was transferred to the laboratory for further examination. All po-
tential plastic particles N5 mm were stored in zip lock bags until
analysis.
2.3. Sample analysis
In the laboratory, all samples were visually screened for potential
plastic particles. Stereo microscopes (Leica M50, Leica Microsystems
GmbH, Germany) were used for presorting the 1–5 mm fraction.
Due to a high load of homogenous round or conically shaped sand
grains with a white or slightly yellowish-brown color and organic mate-
rial in two long-term accumulation sites (LA2, LA3) an additional densi-
ty separation of the sieved fraction b5 mm using filtered seawater was
performed to separate sand grains and floating material. This enables
an easier differentiation between coral sand and potential plastic parti-
cles (reviewed in: Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012). The organic material was
rather easy to distinguish from potential plastic particles, as the major-
ity tend to be large, brown colored and often resembled plant remnants
(e.g. fragments of coconut husks, leaves, seeds, etc., Fig. S1). Separation
was performed using a measuring cylinder (500 ml volume, 48.5 mm
inner diameter) filled to 2/3 with pre-filtered seawater (dosing syringe
and an attached 0.2 μm syringe filter). The sample was poured in and
thoroughly mixed with a long stainless steel laboratory spoon. The
floating particles were skimmed off, dried and then visually inspected
for potential plastic particles as described above. All presorted large
microplastic particles (1–5 mm) were imaged using an image analyzing
system (Leica M50, Leica Microsystems GmbH, Germany equipped with
a DP26 camera, OLYMPUS, Japan and CellSens software, Olympus, Ger-
many). Larger particles (N2 cm) were photographed using a digital
camera (PowerShot G16, Canon, Japan). Afterwards the maximum
length of the particles was measured and they were categorized by ap-
pearance into: Fragments, foils, pellets, fibers, expanded polystyrene,
other foam and tar particles. Examples of particles from each category
are shown in Fig. S2. After imaging, each particle was stored individual-
ly, according to its size, in either 1.5 ml Eppendorf tubes (Eppendorf AG,
Hamburg, Germany), 10 ml Falcon Tubes (Corning Technologies India
Private Limited, Gurgaon, India) or zip lock bags until polymer
characterization.
2.4. Polymer identification
To identify plastic particles and their polymeric structure every sin-
gle potential plastic particle was inspected using a ‘Tensor 27’ ATR-FTIR
spectrometer (Bruker Optik GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany). It was
equipped with a silicon carbide Globar as M-IR source and an internal
deuterated L-alanine doped triglycine sulfate (DLaTGS) single detector
working at room temperature. The basic spectrometer was equipped
with a diamond ‘attenuated total reflectance’ (ATR) unit (Platinum-
ATR-unit, Bruker Optik GmbH) used for sample measurements. The sys-
tem was operated by OPUS 7.5 (Bruker Optik GmbH) during measure-
ments and analyses. IR spectra were recorded in the wavenumber
range 4000–400 cm−1 with a resolution of 8 cm−1 and 16 co-added
scans. The background measurement against air was conducted prior
to each sample measurement with the same settings. For identification,
spectra were compared to a polymer library generated by the Alfred
Wegener Institute, Helgoland, Germany (Löder et al., 2015). All plastic
polymer types, besides the soft black particles, could be clearly identi-
fied with ATR-FTIR. Based on their texture, color and the ATR-FTIR spec-
tra of a subsample of the soft black particles, which revealed a high
hydrocarbon content, we assume that they consisted of tar (e.g.
Debrot et al., 2013b). To discriminate them from plastic particles, they
were classified as ‘other polymers' and assigned to the shape category
‘tar’.
3. Results
3.1. Long-term accumulation of plastic debris (LA1–LA6)
6407 potential plastic particles were found during the long-term ac-
cumulation experiment (LA1–LA6). 96% of the particles were identified
as plastic debris. This resulted in an average abundance of 1029 ± 1134
plastic particles/m2 in the natural accumulation zones of organic mate-
rial and marine debris (mean ± standard deviation, Fig. 2 & Table S1).
98% of the particles larger than 5 mm were mesoplastic (5–25 mm)
and only 2% were macroplastic (N25 mm). Therefore, both were
grouped and will be considered as macro- and mesoplastic below.
The plastic abundance was highly variable between the six sites. At
LA2, LA5 and LA6 N 1000 particles/m2 were detected, whereas at LA1,
LA3 and LA4 fewer than 200 particles/m2 were found (Fig. 2). In sam-
pling sites with an overall low abundance of plastic items, a higher pro-
portion of macro- and mesoplastic (N5 mm) than large microplastic (1–
5 mm) was detected (LA1, LA3, LA4). In contrast, sites with a high plastic
abundance had a lower number of macro- and mesoplastic (LA2, LA5,
LA6, Fig. 2 & Table S1). The dominant polymer types were polyethylene,
polypropylene and polystyrene, but polyurethane, polyamide, polyvinyl
alcohol and polyvinyl chloride were also detected (Fig. 4). When consid-
ering the shape of plastic debris in the long-term accumulation sites, ex-
panded polystyrene of all sizes was most frequently detected (61%). The
second most common were fragments of foil remnants (20%) and larger
plastic products (15%). In contrast, raw pellets were less abundant (2%).
More detailed information about the polymer type and the shape of the
 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347 343

Fig. 2. Plastic accumulation per m2 sediment surface at the sampling areas LA1–LA6. Macro- and mesoplastic (N5 mm), large microplastic (1–5 mm) and the mean plastic abundance. Error
bars represent the standard deviation. *Indicates samples processed by density separation with seawater.

particles of each sampling site is available in Fig. S4. Whole plastic prod-
ucts were found in two sampling sites of the northern shore. These were
three beverage bottles and one shampoo bottle at site LA3, and one de-
odorant can with a plastic lid at site LA4. As this debris was intact and
large, these five pieces were not included in the analysis.
3.2. Daily abundance of intertidal plastic debris (DA1–DA6)
674 potential plastic particles were found over the seven consecu-
tive days. Of these, 56% were identified as plastic using ATR-FTIR. This
resulted in a daily mean abundance of 35.8 ± 42.5 plastic particles/m2
(mean ± standard deviation, Table S1 & Fig. S3). 94% of the particles
larger than 5 mm were mesoplastic (5–25 mm) and only 6% were
macroplastic (N 25 mm). Additionally, macroplastic was only detected
in 7 out of the 42 samples. Therefore, both size classes were grouped
and will be considered as macro- and mesoplastic below.
In general, plastic particle abundance was highly variable on a spatial
and temporal scale (Fig. 3, Fig. S3). Spatially, the abundance ranged from
0 particles/m2 (DA2, day 6 and 7) to 180 particles/m2 (DA4, day 4). Also,
the largest mean abundance of plastic particles was detected at sam-
pling site DA4 (69.7 ± 57.5 particles/m2, Fig. 3A), located in the middle
of the curved beach. On a temporal scale, the highest mean-abundance
was detected at the fourth sampling day with 73.3 ± 81.6 particles/m2
(Fig. 3B). The majority of the particles consisted of polyethylene or

Fig. 3. Plastic abundance per m2 sediment surface on the six sampling sites on the seven consecutive sampling days for macro- and mesoplastic (N5 mm), large microplastic (1–5 mm) and
the total amount of plastic particles found. (A) Mean daily plastic abundance over the six sampling sites (DA1–DA6). (B) Mean plastic abundance at each sample site over the 7 consecutive
days. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.
344 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347
polypropylene while only a few polystyrene (expanded polystyrene)
particles were detected (Fig. 3). Most particles were fragments of larger
plastic debris (52% of the particles) but raw pellets (17% of the particles)
were also present (Fig. 4). A high proportion (24–48%) of soft and black
tar particles (other polymers) were detected among potential plastic
particles in DA1–DA3, whereas, these were only found in lower
amounts in DA4–DA6 (3–20%, Fig. S5). Fibers were only detected in
some samples and contributed only to 1% of all particles found. Most fi-
bers were large or thick fibers found in the 1–5 mm size class and ap-
peared to originate from synthetic rope material. Smaller fibers were
often curled into a bundle and appeared to originate from synthetic fab-
ric. More detailed information on the polymer types and the shape of
the particles of each sampling site is available in the supplementary ma-
terial (Fig. S5)
4. Discussion
4.1. Abundance and origin of plastic debris
The daily mean abundance of plastic particles down to 1 mm on the
south shore of Vavvaru (35.8 ± 42.5 particle/m2) is smaller than on
highly contaminated urban beaches in Mumbai, India (10–180 parti-
cles/m2, plastic N 1 mm, Jayasiri et al., 2013) or on beaches of South
Korea near the Nakdong estuary (976 ± 405 particles/m2,
plastic N 2 mm, Heo et al., 2013). Still, such an abundance of plastic de-
bris at a small and remote coral island within a sparsely populated area
of the Indian Ocean is a worrying sign for the global distribution of plas-
tic debris. The plastic particles abundance might even be higher, if par-
ticles smaller 1 mm would have been included in the analysis, as particle
abundance was shown to increase strongly with smaller particle sizes
(Imhof et al., 2016; Enders et al., 2015). As Vavvaru is only used for re-
search and environmental education, we had anticipated a reduced
local influence on plastic debris abundance due to the generally positive
correlation of plastic abundance with the proximity to large human
populations (Browne et al., 2011; McDermid and McMullen, 2004;
Uneputty and Evans, 1997; Willoughby, 1986), urbanization (Ivar do
Sul et al., 2011; Ariza et al., 2008; Frost and Cullen, 1997) and recrea-
tional usage of beaches (Santos et al., 2009; Oigman-Pszczol and
Fig. 4. Percentages of each polymer type (left) and particle shape (right) found across all long-term accumulation sites (top) and the daily abundance sites (bottom) for macro- and
mesoplastic and large microplastic together. Graphs for individual sites are available in the supplementary material (Figs. S4 and S5). PE: polyethylene, PP: polypropylene, PS:
polystyrene, SAN/ABS: styrene acrylonitrile resin or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.
Creed, 2007; Santos et al., 2005). In contrast to Vavvaru, the beaches
in Mumbai and South Korea are popular tourist destinations, Mumbai
is a highly populated area and the investigated beaches in South Korea
receive hundreds of tons of natural and anthropogenic marine debris
during the summer rainy season and from aquaculture farms which
are located off-shore (Heo et al., 2013; Jayasiri et al., 2013). However,
the origin of the plastic debris found at the shoreline of Vavvaru cannot
be traced back to a specific location. Possible sources could be the near-
by islands, which are inhabited by residents, or tourist islands within
the atoll or the entire Maldives. Debris blown into the sea from ‘garbage
islands’ used for landfilling of waste from the inhabited islands may
contribute to the plastic debris abundance on Vavvaru (Ghina, 2003).
In addition, debris could have been imported by long-distance transport
from many coastal areas of the Indian Ocean (e.g. from India). An abun-
dance of 5650 pieces/km2 for 0.22–1.00 mm, 7610 pieces/km for 1.01–
4.75 mm, 1450 pieces/km2 for 4.76–200 mm and 19 pieces/km2 for
N200 mm was measured in the surface water of the southern Indian
Ocean gyre (Eriksen et al., 2014; Ryan, 2013). Therefore, the stranding
of plastic debris from such accumulation zones could have contributed
to the abundance detected in the present study. However, the Maldives
might not be in direct reach of the Indian Ocean gyre. In contrast, the
Hawaiian archipelago is directly influenced by the two Pacific gyres
(Agustin et al., 2015; Carson et al., 2013; Kubota, 1994). Thus, debris
input to Vavvaru via an ocean gyre may be limited. Nevertheless, plastic
particles were found everyday on the shoreline of Vavvaru and the high
amount of plastic debris in natural long-term accumulation zones
(1029 ± 1134 particles/m2) indicate a relatively high concentration of
floating plastic on the ocean surface in this atoll system. Hence, the re-
sults of the present study highlight the importance of drifting plastic de-
bris for the local abundance of plastic debris accumulating in remote
locations. Similar accumulations of plastic debris were found on the Ha-
waiian Archipelago (McDermid and McMullen, 2004), the Pulau Seribu
Archipelago (Uneputty and Evans, 1997), the Caribbean region and
Latin-America (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2007).
The shape and the condition of the plastic particles and the existence
of plastic pellets in the beach sediment samples also indicates that they
have been transported from distant locations. Most fragments showed
signs of deterioration and were strongly weathered (e.g. rounded
 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347
edges, ground surface, scratches, holes and bleached colors, Fig. S2)
which implies that they were already drifting for a long time
(GESAMP, 2015). The highly abundant foil and expanded polystyrene
fragments most probably originated from other Maldivian Islands.
Foils are used for packaging applications (e.g. food packaging), but are
also basic element of plastic band fabric used for bags or covers. Espe-
cially plastic band fabric bags filled with sand are frequently used to sta-
bilize beaches on tourist islands or for the transportation of sand and
other goods. Expanded polystyrene is similarly used as packing material
as well as for buoys and floats from fisheries or aquaculture farms and
may have been transported from nearby locations or the open ocean
(Kim et al., 2015; Heo et al., 2013; Hinojosa and Thiel, 2009; Fujieda
and Sasaki, 2005). However, not all plastic fragments may have originat-
ed from the ocean or the Maldivian atoll system. The abundance of
microplastic particles might have been additionally increased by on-
site fragmentation, especially in the natural long-term accumulation
sites. Two sampling sites of the north shore contained a high amount
of equally sized and shaped grey polyethylene foil fragments (255
pieces in LA5 and 818 pieces in LA6). Similarly, 63 blue polyethylene
fragments were detected in site N5. We do not expect that those were
equally drifted onto the shore of Vavvaru from the ocean, but assume
that these were fragmented on-site. Likewise, fragments of expanded
polystyrene, which were mainly found in the long-term accumulation
sites, might have disintegrated on the island by high wind accompany-
ing heavy rain (Kim et al., 2015; Jang et al., 2014a; Jang et al., 2014b; Lee
et al., 2013), or other mechanical forces including biota inhabiting the
island (e.g. foraging birds).
4.2. Spatial and temporal variation
The island morphology of Vavvaru may be a key driver for the vari-
able and patchy distribution of plastic debris on the shoreline as already
described in several studies (e.g. Debrot et al., 2013a; Bowman et al.,
1998; Dixon and Cooke, 1977).
At the long-term accumulation sites, particles did not directly accu-
mulate on the steep beach slope. They were, however, found in large
areas behind the sand barriers which were flooded during high tide.
Here, the vegetation on the sand barriers might prevent the export of
particles back to the sea. This combination of vegetation trapping ma-
rine debris and hollows which accumulate organic material and marine
debris cause an extreme patchy distribution. Such accumulations of
plastic debris in areas with complex beach morphology (e.g. Debrot et
al., 2013a; Bowman et al., 1998) or in the vegetation (e.g. Viehman et
al., 2011; Willoughby et al., 1997) were previously documented.
Hence, this area may represent a sink for plastic debris (Moreira et al.,
2015) explaining the highly increased plastic abundance compared to
the south shore.
Although the beach morphology favors the accumulation of particles
over a long period of time, we assume that plastic debris accumulated
over a period of months rather than years. The island's shape and size
(which is not influenced by anthropogenic structures e.g. artificial bar-
riers, sand filling) is subject to steady and strong changes. The northern
beach shifted 40–50 m in south east direction from June 2005 to April
2013, and ~ 15 m from April 2013 to January 2015 resulting in a drift
of 40–60 cm per month. The island dynamics are documented by the
scientific station located on Vavvaru and are publicly available on its
website (http://www.korallionlab.com/research-info/web-gis/). The
generally high turn-over rates do not allow for a year-long accumula-
tion of debris on the surface of the island.
In contrast, on the south shore, the local plastic abundance appeared
to be continuously influenced by environmental factors (reviewed in:
Browne et al., 2015). Although the sampling sites were located on a rel-
atively small beach (distance between DA1 and DA6: 100 m) with a ho-
mogeneous morphology, the variability among the sampling sites were
surprisingly high at a spatial and temporal scale. For example, an up to
~ 40 fold difference of the daily plastic abundance was found. Such a
345
strong variation in plastic debris distribution was already documented
(e.g. Kim et al., 2015; Moreira et al., 2015) whereas other studies
found a homogenous distribution (e.g. Dekiff et al., 2014).
In particular, the increased abundance of plastic particles on the cen-
tral sampling sites of the south-facing shore could be a result of deceler-
ated currents on the south facing beach, which might have facilitated
the sedimentation of particles (Vianello et al., 2013). Next to prevailing
water currents (e.g. Santos et al., 2009; Board, 1973) and prevailing
waves (e.g. Williams et al., 2003), tidal cycles might have directly influ-
enced the abundance of plastic debris and thereby caused the strong
spatial and temporal variation (e.g. Moreira et al., 2015; Carson et al.,
2013). In addition, wind speed and direction (e.g. Debrot et al., 2013b;
Browne et al., 2010; Debrot et al., 1999; Slocum et al., 1993) were
shown to influence the small-scale plastic debris abundance. However,
in this study no direct relationship between wind speed or wind direc-
tion and plastic abundance could be identified. To further rule out the
reasons for the relatively high temporal variation in plastic debris abun-
dance on Vavvaru, long-term observations would be necessary as tem-
poral variation could be related to short-term influences (such as
anthropogenic influences, Jayasiri et al., 2013) or different seasons
(e.g. Topçu et al., 2013; Araújo and Costa, 2007).
Not only the abundance of plastic particles but also the composition
of the plastic debris regarding their polymers and the particle shape was
spatially variable. Fragments and pellets were common on the daily ac-
cumulation sites. In contrast, the long-term accumulation sites were
generally more diverse in terms of plastic litter and dominated by ex-
panded polystyrene and small foil fragments. On-site fragmentation
and the relocation of plastic particles by wind may have influenced
the local plastic debris abundance of small and lightweight plastic in-
cluding expanded polystyrene, as well as some macro- and mesoplastics
which have a good windage (e.g. large surface area combined with low
weight, Heo et al., 2013; Browne et al., 2010). Hence, the prevailing
wind from the south-west might have transported plastic debris from
the southern shoreline to the upper shore or the interior of the island
where they were caught by the vegetation (DA1–4), or were drifted to
the ocean on the other side of the island (DA5 and DA6). A similar mech-
anism of separation and translocation by wind was already documented
(Jang et al., 2014a, 2014b; Heo et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013). However,
such transfer was not directly observed in this study. We note that the
wind speeds on multiple days during the sampling period would have
been strong enough to carry expanded polystyrene across the island
(Table S2), but the transport of particles by wind from the southern to
the northern sites was probably prevented by the vegetation in the inte-
rior of the island. Such a wind blockage would likewise decrease the
wind-speed on the northern shore. This would prevent an export of
plastic debris from the long-term accumulation sites into the ocean,
and explain the rather high abundance of particles in the sample sites
LA5 and LA6. Alternatively, high tide flood water could have released
plastic debris from the interior of the island and concentrated them on
north western beaches (LA5 and LA6) as the water level fell with the
tide.
4.3. Polymer identification and quantification
ATR-FTIR spectroscopy revealed that, across all sites, 61 ± 33% of all
particles presorted using visual analysis were indeed plastic. This result
highlights that analyses that rely solely on visual inspection of
microplastic particles should be avoided. However, the presorting in
this study was conducted on a conservative base such that questionable
particles were included rather than excluded from the sample. Never-
theless, our results fall within the range reported for other studies that
have compared visual sorting results with spectrometric identification
methods (20–75%, Lenz et al., 2015; Eriksen et al., 2013; Hidalgo-Ruz
et al., 2012).
The method of sieving sediment samples followed by a visual
presorting of the potential plastic particles, proved to be efficient for
346 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347
the quantification of macroplastic, mesoplastic and large microplastic
particles in beach sediment samples. Given that sand grains can be eas-
ily mistaken with plastic particles and a high load of homogenous round
or conically shaped sand grains with a white or slightly yellowish-
brown color and organic material in two samples (LA2 & LA3), the per-
formed density separation facilitates the optical sorting and the subse-
quent identification process by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Nevertheless,
this was a significant departure from the treatment of the other four
long-term accumulation samples (LA1, LA4, LA5, LA6), but without
this treatment it would not have been possible to sort the potential plas-
tic particles from the round or conical shaped sand grains. The density
separation was performed with seawater with a density of 1.02 g/ml
(Móret-Ferguson et al., 2010). This was high enough to separate poly-
ethylene, polypropylene and expanded polystyrene, the most abundant
polymers found in the other long-term accumulation sites (Fig. S4).
Polymers with densities above 1.02 g/ml were rare in all long-term ac-
cumulation samples (b5%). Therefore, we assume that the plastic debris
abundance found was not substantially reduced by the underestimation
of particles with densities above 1.02 g/ml. In addition, LA2 showed the
third highest plastic debris abundance (782 large microplastic particles/
m2, Table S1). However, we cannot exclude that plastic abundance was
slightly underestimated since in both samples polymers with high den-
sities were detected: Polyvinylchloride (1.16–1.58 g/ml), polyurethane
(1.2 g/ml) and polyvinyl alcohol (1.19–1.31 g/ml). Those might be ex-
tracted by the performed density separation with seawater due to a re-
duced density caused by fouling in the environment or they were
attached to larger floating organic debris and detached during further
sample processing.
5. Conclusion
This study aimed to examine the contamination of a remote coral is-
land with plastic litter. There was a considerable amount of plastic de-
bris present on the shoreline of Vavvaru, despite its remoteness and
limited number of inhabitants. The fact that the abundance of
macroplastic, mesoplastic and large microplastic particles seems to be
significantly less than those of more populous regions, strengthens the
well-established conclusion that their abundance correlates positively
with population density, and other intensive anthropogenic activities
(shipping, manufacture, etc.). Nevertheless, it highlights that remote lo-
cations are affected by the longevity and long-range global ocean trans-
port of marine plastic debris.
We note that it is important to discuss results in a spatial and tempo-
ral context as island morphology (which can be affected by wind and
ocean currents) influences plastic debris accumulation and deposition.
However, it must be considered that spatial and temporal variations
will complicate global comparisons.
The high daily variation observed on the shores of Vavvaru indicates
that single-day sampling of a small number of replicates does not reli-
ably quantify the abundance of plastic debris on beaches. Therefore, a
comprehensive experimental design is very important when
attempting to quantify plastic debris abundance. This includes several
replicates from multiple sampling events to gather scientifically sound
data. Visual inspection should be accompanied by spectrometric or
thermo-analytic methods for plastic identification, even for large
microplastic particles (1–5 mm).
Author contributions
H.I., R.S., E.B., S.F., P.G., S.K., K.L., L.L., J.M., S.M., A.R., S.S., S.S., I.W., C.L.,
designed the research, drafted and revised the manuscript, performed
the sampling, sorted the plastic particles, performed ATR-FTIR measure-
ments. M.L., I.S., B.T., L.L., performed ATR-FTIR measurements, identified
the spectra and revised the manuscript. H.I. identified the spectra and
analyzed the data. H.I. and R.S. coordinated the sampling and identifica-
tion process.
Acknowledgements
We thank Marion Preiss, Ursula Wilczek, Heghnar Martirosyan for
performing parts of the ATR-FTIR measurements. We also wish to thank
the staff of the KorallionLab for their support during our stay on
Vavvaru. Generous financial support for Hannes Imhof by the
‘Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes’, for Robert Sigl by the
‘Cusanuswerk’, for Benjamin Trotter by the ‘German Federal Environ-
mental Foundation (DBU)’ and for Sebastian Steibl by the ‘Max We-
ber-Programm’ is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.010.
References
Agustin, A.E., Merrifield, M.A., Potemra, J.T., Morishige, C., 2015. Temporal variability of
marine debris deposition at Tern Island in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 101 (1), 200–207.
Araújo, M.C., Costa, M., 2007. An analysis of the riverine contribution to the solid wastes
contamination of an isolated beach at the Brazilian northeast. Manag. Environ.
Qual. 18 (1), 6–12.
Ariza, E., Jiménez, J.A., Sardá, R., 2008. Seasonal evolution of beach waste and litter during
the bathing season on the Catalan coast. Waste Manag. 28 (12), 2604–2613.
Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2012. Competitive sorption of persistent organic
pollutants onto microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (12),
2782–2789.
Barnes, D.K.A., 2004. Natural and plastic flotsam stranding in the Indian Ocean. In:
Davenport, D., Davenport, J. (Eds.), The Effects of Human Transport on Ecosystems:
Cars and Planes, Boats and Trains. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, pp. 193–205.
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmenta-
tion of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364 (1526),
1985–1998.
Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., 2015. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer.
Board, P.A., 1973. The fate of rubbish in the Thames Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 4 (11),
165–166.
Bowman, D., Manor-Samsonov, N., Golik, A., 1998. Dynamics of litter pollution on Israeli
Mediterranean beaches: a budgetary, litter flux approach. J. Coast. Res. 14 (2),
418–432.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C., 2010. Spatial patterns of plastic debris along
estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 3404–3409.
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R.,
2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Envi-
ron. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9175–9179.
Browne, M.A., Niven, S.J., Galloway, T.S., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2013. Microplastic
moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and
biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 23 (23), 2388–2392.
Browne, M.A., Chapman, M.G., Thompson, R.C., Amaral Zettler, L.A., Jambeck, J., Mallos,
N.J., 2015. Spatial and temporal patterns of stranded intertidal marine debris: is
there a picture of gobal change? Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (12), 7082–7094.
Carson, H.S., Colbert, S.L., Kaylor, M.J., McDermid, K.J., 2011. Small plastic debris changes
water movement and heat transfer through beach sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62
(8), 1708–1713.
Carson, H.S., Lamson, M.R., Nakashima, D., Toloumu, D., Hafner, J., Maximenko, N.,
McDermid, K.J., 2013. Tracking the sources and sinks of local marine debris in Hawai'i.
Mar. Environ. Res. 84, 76–83.
Corcoran, P.L., Biesinger, M.C., Grifi, M., 2009. Plastics and beaches: a degrading relation-
ship. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (1), 80–84.
Cózar, A., et al., 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (28),
10239–10244.
Debrot, A.O., Tiel, A.B., Bradshaw, J.E., 1999. Beach debris in Curaçao. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38
(9), 795–801.
Debrot, A.O., Meesters, H., Bron, P., de León, R., 2013a. Marine debris in mangroves and on
the seabed: largely-neglected litter problems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 72 (1), 1.
Debrot, A.O., van Rijn, J., Bron, P.S., de León, R., 2013b. A baseline assessment of beach de-
bris and tar contamination in Bonaire, southeastern Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71
(1), 325–329.
Dekiff, J.H., Remy, D., Klasmeier, J., Fries, E., 2014. Occurrence and spatial distribution of
microplastics in sediments from Norderney. Environ. Pollut. 186, 248–256.
Dixon, T.R., Cooke, A.J., 1977. Discarded containers on a Kent beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 8 (5),
105–109.
Ebbesmeyer, C.C., Ingraham, W.J., 1994. Pacific toy spill fuels ocean current pathways re-
search. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 75 (37), 425–430.
Enders, K., Lenz, R., Stedmon, C.A., Nielsen, T.G., 2015. Abundance, size and polymer com-
position of marine microplastics ≥10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled
vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100 (1), 70–81.
Eriksen, M., et al., 2013. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian
Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (182), 177.
 H.K. Imhof et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 116 (2017) 340–347
Eriksen, M., et al., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic
pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One 9 (12), e111913.
Frost, A., Cullen, M., 1997. Marine debris on northern New South Wales beaches (Austra-
lia): sources and the role of beach usage. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34 (5), 348–352.
Fujieda, S., Sasaki, K., 2005. Stranded debris of foamed plastic on the coast of Eta Island
and Kurahashi Island in Hiroshima Bay. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 71 (5), 755–761.
GESAMP, 2015. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A
Global Assessment (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP
Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection).
Ghina, F., 2003. Sustainable development in small island developing states. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 5 (1), 139–165.
Heo, N., et al., 2013. Distribution of small plastic debris in cross-section and high strand-
line on Heungnam beach, South Korea. Ocean Science Journal 48 (2), 225–233.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R.C., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the marine
environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. En-
viron. Sci. Technol. 6 (46), 3060–3075.
Hinojosa, I.A., Thiel, M., 2009. Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels of
southern Chile. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (3), 341–350.
Imhof, H.K., Laforsch, C., Wiesheu, A.C., Schmid, J., Anger, P.M., Niessner, R., Ivleva, N.P.,
2016. Pigments and plastic in limnetic ecosystems: a qualitative and quantitative
study on microparticles of different size classes. Water Res. 98, 64–74.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine debris review for Latin America and the Wider
Caribbean Region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 54 (8), 1087–1104.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Matthiensen, A., Fillmann, G., 2011. Plastic pol-
lution at a sea turtle conservation area in NE Brazil: contrasting developed and unde-
veloped beaches. Estuar. Coasts 34 (4), 814–823.
Jang, S.W., Kim, D.H., Chung, Y.H., Yoon, H.-J., 2014a. Behavior characteristics of floating
debris spilled from the Nakdong River. Korean J. Remote Sens. 30 (1), 127–136.
Jang, Y.C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M.J., Shim, W.J., 2014b. Estimation of lost tourism revenue
in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 81 (1), 49–54.
Jayasiri, H.B., Purushothaman, C.S., Vennila, A., 2013. Quantitative analysis of plastic debris
on recreational beaches in Mumbai, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1–2), 107–112.
Kim, I.-S., Chae, D.-H., Kim, S.-K., Choi, S., Woo, S.-B., 2015. Factors influencing the spatial
variation of microplastics on high-tidal coastal beaches in Korea. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 69 (3), 299–309.
Kirstein, I.V., Kirmizi, S., Wichels, A., Garin-Fernandez, A., Erler, R., Löder, M., Gerdts, G.,
2016. Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on
microplastic particles. Mar. Environ. Res. 120, 1–8.
Koelmans, A.A., Bakir, A., Burton, G.A., Janssen, C.R., 2016. Microplastic as a vector for
chemicals in the aquatic environment: critical review and model-supported reinter-
pretation of empirical studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (7), 3315–3326.
Kubota, M., 1994. A mechanism for the accumulation of floating marine debris north of
Hawaii. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 24 (5), 1059–1064.
Lee, J., et al., 2013. Relationships among the abundances of plastic debris in different size
classes on beaches in South Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1–2), 349–354.
Lenz, R., Enders, K., Stedmon, C.A., Mackenzie, D.M.A., Nielsen, T.G., 2015. A critical assess-
ment of visual identification of marine microplastic using Raman spectroscopy for
analysis improvement. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100 (1), 82–91.
Löder, M.G.J., Gerdts, G., 2015. Methodology used for the detection and identification of
microplastics—a critical appraisal. In: Bergmann, Gutow, Klages (Eds.), Marine An-
thropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing, pp. 201–227.
Löder, M.G.J., Kuczera, M., Mintenig, S., Lorenz, C., Gerdts, G., 2015. Focal plane array de-
tector-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging for the analysis of
microplastics in environmental samples. Environ. Chem. 12 (5), 563–581.
347
McDermid, K.J., McMullen, T.L., 2004. Quantitative analysis of small-plastic debris on
beaches in the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48 (7–8), 790–794.
Moreira, F.T., Prantoni, A.L., Martini, B., de Abreu, M.A., Stoiev, S.B., Turra, A., 2015. Small-
scale temporal and spatial variability in the abundance of plastic pellets on sandy
beaches: methodological considerations for estimating the input of microplastics.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102 (1), 114–121.
Móret-Ferguson, S., Law, K.L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E.K., Peacock, E.E., Reddy, C.M.,
2010. The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western North Atlantic
Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (10), 1873–1878.
Oigman-Pszczol, S.S., Creed, J.C., 2007. Quantification and classification of marine litter on
beaches along Armação dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Coast. Res. 23 (2),
421–428.
PlasticsEurope, 2015. Plastics - The Facts 2015 - An Analysis of European Plastics Produc-
tion, Demand and Waste Data.
Rochman, C.M., 2015. The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated with
plastic debris in the marine environment. In: Bergmann, M., Lars, G., Klages, M. (Eds.),
Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–140.
Ryan, P.G., 2013. A simple technique for counting marine debris at sea reveals steep litter
gradients between the Straits of Malacca and the Bay of Bengal. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 69
(1–2), 128–136.
Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Barretto, F.P., 2005. Overseas garbage pollution on beaches of
northeast Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50 (7), 783–786.
Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Ivar do Sul, J.A., 2009. Marine debris contamination along un-
developed tropical beaches from northeast Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 148 (1–
4), 455–462.
Slocum, C.J., et al., 1993. Seasonal changes in persistent marine debris on Brigantine
beach, New Jersey, and possible effects on marine mammals and turtles. Bull. N.
J. Acad. Sci. 38 (2), 17–25.
Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B., 2013. Origin and abundance of
marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea Coast. Mar. Envi-
ron. Res. 85, 21–28.
Uneputty, P.A., Evans, S.M., 1997. Accumulation of beach litter on islands of the Pulau
Seribu Archipelago, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34 (8), 652–655.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., Janssen, C.R., 2015.
Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Mar. En-
viron. Res. 111, 5–17.
van Sebille, E., et al., 2015. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environ. Res.
Lett. 10 (12), 124006.
Vianello, A., Boldrin, A., Guerriero, P., Moschino, V., Rella, R., Sturaro, A., Da Ros, L., 2013.
Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy: first observations on oc-
currence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 130, 54–61.
Viehman, S., Vander Pluym, J.L., Schellinger, J., 2011. Characterization of marine debris in
North Carolina salt marshes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12), 2771–2779.
Williams, A.T., Tudor, D.T., Randerson, P., 2003. Beach litter sourcing in the Bristol Channel
and Wales, U.K. Water Air Soil Pollut. 143 (1), 387–408.
Willoughby, N.G., 1986. Man-made litter on the shores of the Thousand Island archipela-
go, Java. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 17 (5), 224–228.
Willoughby, N.G., Sangkoyo, H., Lakaseru, B.O., 1997. Beach litter: an increasing and
changing problem for Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34 (6), 469–478.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., 2013. The physical impacts of microplastics
on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178, 483–492.
Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A., 2013. Life in the “Plastisphere”: microbial
communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (13), 7137–7146.