Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Microplastics: Sources and distribution in surface waters and sediments

of Todos Santos Bay, Mexico
Nancy Ramírez-Álvarez a,⇑, Lorena Margarita Rios Mendoza b, José Vinicio Macías-Zamora a,
Lucero Oregel-Vázquez c, Arturo Alvarez-Aguilar a, Félix Augusto Hernández-Guzmán a,
José Luis Sánchez-Osorio d, Charles James Moore e, Hortencia Silva-Jiménez a, Luis Felipe Navarro-Olache a
a
Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas-UABC, Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada 3917, Colonia Playitas, Ensenada, B.C., C.P. 22860, México
b
University of Wisconsin Superior, Belknap St and Catlin Ave, P.O. Box 2000, Superior, WI 54880, USA
c
Facultad de Ciencias Marinas-UABC, Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada 3917, Colonia Playitas, Ensenada, B.C., C.P. 22860, México
d
Instituto de Servicios de Salud Pública del Estado de Baja California, Calle Cuarta 441, Plaza Prosan, local 102. Zona Centro, Ensenada, B.C., C.P. 22800, México
e
Algalita Marine Research and Education, U.S.A. 148 N. Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803, USA

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

Microplastics were analyzed for first .

time in surface water, sediments, and
WWTPs in TSB, Mexico.

Effluents from WWTPs were
identified as an important source of
MPs in TSB.

TSB is a very high dynamic system
that keep low concentrations of
macroplastics.

The main synthetic polymers were
PE, PP, nylon, PET, and cellophanes.

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

Article history: Microplastics (MPs) are ubiquitous and a threat to marine and freshwater environments. Effluent waters
Received 24 July 2019 from secondary wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) into Todos Santos Bay (TSB) were investigated as
Received in revised form 26 September sources of MPs. MPs were detected in all analyzed matrices and presented variable morphologies. MPs
2019
from surface water samples (n = 18) varied from 0.01 to 0.70 plastic particles/m3 (pp/m3). Fragments
Accepted 3 October 2019
Available online 3 November 2019
(47 ± 23%) and fibers (47 ± 23%) were the most abundant particles found in the surface water samples.
In sediment samples (n = 11), MPs varied from 85 to 2494 pp/0.1 m2. Sediment samples showed frag-
Editor: Damia Barcelo ments of 70 ± 19%, fibers 28 ± 18% in mean. The range of MP values from WWTP effluents (n = 24) was
81 to 1556 pp/m3, and fibers (65 ± 28%) were the most abundant MP particles. Several synthetic polymers
Keywords: (polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene-propylene, polyvinyl chloride, cellophane), and natural fibers
Marine debris (cotton and wood) were identified. The surface currents and the parameters that modulate them, are the
WWTPs main factors that dominate the distribution of MPs in surface waters. While in the sediments the
Sediments
Surface water

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nancy.ramirez@uabc.edu.mx (N. Ramírez-Álvarez), lriosmen@uwsuper.edu (L.M. Rios Mendoza), vmacias@uabc.edu.mx (J.V. Macías-Zamora), lucero.
oregel@uabc.edu.mx (L. Oregel-Vázquez), aalvarez56@uabc.edu.mx (A. Alvarez-Aguilar), augusto.hernandez@uabc.edu.mx (F.A. Hernández-Guzmán), josorio@isesaludbc.
com (J.L. Sánchez-Osorio), cmoore@algalita.org (C.J. Moore), silvah@uabc.edu.mx (H. Silva-Jiménez), lufena@uabc.edu.mx (L.F. Navarro-Olache).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134838
0048-9697/Ó 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838
Plastic debris parameters such as bathymetry and grain size distribution have more influence on their distribution in
Microfibers the marine environment, where the effluent waters from WWTPs only contributes MPs to the TSB.
1. Introduction
Plastics are known as an excellent commercial material that
provides many benefits to the society, but their poor waste man-
agement has converted plastic debris a persistent planetary con-
taminant (Barnes et al., 2009; Andrady, 2011). Worldwide plastic
production was estimated at about 348 million tons per year
(Plastics-The facts, 2018). Microplastic (MPs) are formed as a result
of gradual degradation/fragmentation of larger plastic particles
already present in the environment, photochemical degradation,
mechanical transformation, and biological degradation by microor-
ganisms (Browne et al., 2011; Andrady, 2011; Graca et al., 2017; de
Sá et al., 2018). MPs have several definitions based on their sizes.
MPs are widely defined as particles less than 5 mm in size, based
on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defini-
tion (Arthur et al., 2009: Andrady, 2011). The Group of Experts
on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection,
GESAMP (2015), categorized MPs based on their origin as primary
(preproduction pellets, microbeads, micro-sized powder, and drug
deliveries) and secondary (fragmentation of plastic items and
fibers from fabrics and ropes). MPs have been identified as an
important contaminant in marine and freshwater environments.
However, their adverse impacts in these environments are still
being uncovered, as well as their sources, fate, and transportation
(Graca et al., 2017; de Sá et al., 2018).
MPs have been detected globally and in world’s oceans from the
water column to the sediments. (Horton & Dixon, 2018; Windsor
et al, 2019; Moore, 2019). MPs may be ingested by organisms, caus-
ing negative impacts to their health (Wright et al., 2013; Wang et al.,
2019). Moreover, MPs can potentially adsorb and transport toxic
compounds, such as hydrophobic persistent organic pollutants
(POPs), including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine
pesticides (OCPs), and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and carry
bacteria and viruses (Mato et al., 2001; Rochman et al., 2013; Rios
Mendoza and Jones, 2015). Additionally, they can leak additives
used during their fabrication (Browne et al., 2013; Gallo et al., 2018).
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) effluents are one of the
main sources of MPs toward the marine environment (Mani
et al., 2015). Although large plastics are retained and removed dur-
ing wastewater treatment. Conventional WWTPs with primary,
secondary and tertiary treatment processes can eliminate between
97 and 99% of MPs present in the sewage effluents (Carr et al.,
2016; Murphy et al., 2016; Mintenig et al., 2017; Talvitie et al.,
2017b; Correia, 2018). MPs, although few, are not completely
removed. The high volume of effluents released every day leads
to considerable contamination into the marine environment
(Mason et al., 2016, Murphy et al., 2016; Talvitie et al., 2017a,
2017b; Ziajahromi et al., 2017). In the last decade, most of the
MP abundance studies have been conducted on beaches due to
their accessibility and costs (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2015). The
United States, Canada, and countries of the European Union have
identified environmental issues with MP debris, and for that rea-
son, they have developed policies focused on the use of plastics.
However, in Mexico, this issue is poorly understood at this time.
In Mexico, the research about plastic debris has not yet been
widely developed. There are studies that reported plastic debris
on sandy beaches, Silva-Iñiguez and Fischer (2003) reported plastic
debris as one of the items found in the marine litter (representing
19% of the total) on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Mexico,
Ó 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Retama et al. (2016) reported a high incidence of fibrous materials
of MPs in all samples collected on beaches of Huatulco, Oaxaca, and
Piñon-Colin et al. (2018) on 21 sandy beaches on the peninsula of
Baja California found a predominance of fibers (91% of the total
MP) in the sampled sites. While there are only two studies that
have measured MPs in sea waters of the Mexican Pacific: Fossi
et al. (2015) and Pelamatti et al. (2019). Fossi et al., reported high
concentrations of MPs in neuston samples in the feeding area of
whales in the Sea of Cortez (La Paz Bay), Mexico. Pelamatti et al.,
found a high incidence of MPs (79% of the total of plastic debris)
in more than half of the samples collected on surface water sam-
plings through a seasonal study carried out in southern part of
Banderas Bay, Mexico. Currently, there are no reported studies of
MPs from different environmental matrices on Mexican coasts.
We are using the TSB as a study case to find the distribution of
MPs in surface water, sediments, as well as quantify the contribu-
tion of MPs by the WWTP effluents in the TSB. This study is focused
on understanding the factors that dominate the distribution, con-
centration and identification of main sources of MPs to the bay.
An assessment of MPs pollution in the TSB is important to under-
stand the negative effect in organisms and allow us to propose
more effective solutions to reduce its presence in the environment
and therefore its impact on it.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
TSB is located 100 km south of the USA–Mexico border, on the
northwest coast of Baja California, Mexico. The bay has an area
of 330 km2 and a range of depths from 10 to 50 m for most of
the bay, while it reaches depth up to 400 m in the submarine can-
yon located between Punta Banda and Todos Santos Island. More-
over, it is bounded to the southeast by the Punta Banda estuary,
which has a sandbar with a single mouth connecting to the bay
(Fig. 1). Previous studies suggest that the general circulation in
TSB is primarily due to three factors; the California Current System,
wind stress, and tidal forcing (Flores-Vidal et al., 2015; Mateos &
Marinone, 2017).
The city of Ensenada is adjacent to the inner part of the bay, and
it has an estimated population of more than 400,000 inhabitants
(INEGI, 2014). The main economic activities in Ensenada include
manufacturing, tourism, fishing, aquaculture, and agriculture.
Additionally, TSB has been affected by the discharges of municipal
and industrial effluents, fishing activities, maritime traffic of smal-
ler and larger vessels, as well as the agricultural runoff located at
the east end of the bay.
In recent years, moderate to extreme drought conditions have
prevailed in the region, with average annual rainfall around
250 mm (INEGI, 2017). During rainfall events that occur in the win-
ter season (December to February), there is an urban runoff contri-
bution through the two main ephemeral streams that flow into the
bay, Ensenada and El Gallo Creeks, while the rest of the year, the
streams remain dry. Moreover, there is constant input of treated
effluents into TSB from three municipal WWTPs: El Gallo (WWTPG),
El Naranjo (WWTPN), and El Sauzal (WWTPS). Located in the city of
Ensenada, these effluents are considered the main source of fresh-
water to the bay. The WWTPs in Ensenada consist of secondary trea-
ted sewage, with activated sludge as the main biological treatment
 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838
Fig. 1. Sites sampled on TSB, Mexico. Surface water transects (black lines) for 2016, red line for 2017, sediments samples (circle) and WWTP effluents (triangle) are shown in
the map (WWTPS = El Sauzal, WWTPG = El Gallo, WWTPN = El Naranjo). Green areas = Aquaculture activities. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
process. It should be noted that effluents of treated waters dis-
charged into national waters are regulated by Mexican Official
Standards, particularly by the criteria established in NOM-001-
ECOL-1996. The standard does not include MPs as a contaminant.
In Ensenada, the municipal WWTPs carry out a total barrier
treatment to remove thick solids found in the sewage influents
before performing a secondary treatment with activated sludge
process. Currently, the installed treatment capacity for WWTPS,
WWTPG, and WWTPN are 120 L/s, 225–280 L/s, and 500 L/s,
respectively, and of which only WWTPN has an extended aeration
process (https://www.cespe.gob.mx/?id=infraestructura).
2.2. Collection of samples
2.2.1. Surface water samples
In August 2016 and 2017, 11 and 7 manta trawl samples were
collected from TSB surface waters aboard of the Oceanographic
Research Vessel Alguita. The transects were established based on
the surface current patterns obtained by the Coastal Regional
Oceanographic Observatory (OORCO) operated by the Autonomous
University of Baja California, which uses a system of three high-
frequency radars located within TSB. In this system, vectors of
intensity and direction of movement of surface water in an approx-
imate grid of 40  40 points, nominally separated by 600 m
between each, represent the currents. This grid is available in real
time and updated every 30 min through the website (http://oco-
mex.ens.uabc.mx). The current data allowed us to observe the
dynamic system of surface currents of TSB and determine areas
with low, medium, and high energy to define the sampling tran-
sects (Supplementary data). Samples from surface water were col-
lected in both, high and low energy areas. Samples collected on low
energy of surface currents areas were expected to have greater
concentration of plastic debris. The net was towed at the surface
outside of the effects of boat’s wake (approximately 30 m from
the stern of the vessel) for one hour at a nominal speed of 1 m/s
(2 knots). There were cases in which the transects were shorter,
mainly because the sampling area is small, as in the case of the
Sauzal ports (MVI) or in some transects that coincided with
another transect (MVII). In these cases, the sampling time was
reduced to 20–30 min. The sites of collection are shown in Fig. 1.
3
The manta trawl has dimensions of a rectangular opening of
0.9  0.15 m2 and a net of 3.5 m long, with a collecting bag of
30  10 cm2 and a mesh size of 333 lm. The collecting bag was
removed carefully at the end of each transects and washed with
seawater. The debris collected was subsequently stored in glass
jar and maintained at 4 °C until the analysis was conducted, which
was not longer than six months after the samples were collected.
To estimate the volume of filtered water, the manta trawl was
equipped with a General OceanicÒ flowmeter model 2030R Series.
The volume of water filtered was calculated using the following
formula:
Vf ¼ ðA  Nr  CrÞ=99999
Vf = Final volume (m3); A = Area of the mouth of the net; Nr = differ-
ences of flowmeter counts, final counts  initial counts; Cr = Stan-
dard speed rotor constant, 26873; 99999 = Maximum limit of
counts in the flowmeter.
2.2.2. Sediment samples
The collection of twelve benthic samples was carried out with a
Van Veen grab with a sampling area of 0.1 m2 in August 2016
(Fig. 1). The sampling method used in our study was based on
the previously described by Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project (SCCWRP) to collect samples for physical, chemi-
cal, and infaunal analysis (www.sccwrp.org). Briefly, only samples
with penetration depth of at least 5 cm and no evidence of distur-
bance (i.e., by washout) were accepted for processing (Stubbs et al.,
1987). All the sediment collected by the grab was emptied in plas-
tics containers previously labeled, kept at room temperature, and
stored in darkness until its analysis in laboratory. The samples
were analyzed in a timeframe not longer than six months after
their sampling. For the purpose of characterizing the different
MP sizes, the total sample collected was rinsed with filtered dis-
tilled water and passed through a series of stainless steel sieves
with different mesh sizes (1000, 500, 250, and 90 lm). Each frac-
tion collected was kept in aluminum containers previously pre-
cleaned by using a muffle furnace at 400 °C for 4 h (to eliminate
organic material residues). Finally, the samples were oven-dried
at 45 ± 5 °C for a week.
4 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838

2.2.3. WWTP effluent samples 3. Results

Two sampling events were carried out in May and August 2017.
In each sampling event, 500 L of effluent water was collected from
each WWTP at 4-hour intervals, starting at 7 a.m., 11 a.m., 3p.m.,
and ending at 7p.m. (labeled as T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively).
All WWTP effluent samples were obtained using a water pump.
In total, 24 WWTP effluent samples were collected. MPs were sep-
arated by cascade filtration using sieves at 1000, 500, 250, and
90 lm, respectively. All samples were stored in aluminum foil for
subsequent analysis in the laboratory.
2.3. Classification and quantification of MPs
The MPs were sorted by visual inspection using a trinocular
stereoscopy at 5x magnification (Unitron Z850 with Moticam 5.0
MP), glass Petri dishes, fine-point needles, and thin tips tweezers.
In order to sort the particles with major probability to be MPs,
all samples were sorted following the criteria proposed by
Horton et al. (2017). The particles were only identified as MPs if
they also met at least two of the following criteria: (1) unnaturally
colored compared to the majority of other particles in the sample
(e.g., bright blue, yellow, etc.) and appear to be a homogenous
material or texture, (2) unnaturally brightly colored coating on
another particle, (3) unnatural shape, e.g., perfectly spherical, (4)
fiber that remained intact with a firm touch with tweezers, (5)
shiny/glassy, and (6) flexible or can be compressed without being
brittle. Successively, the MPs were classified by color, sizes, and
shapes (fragments, pellets, fibers, films). The concentration of
MPs for the surface water samples and sediments were expressed
as the number of plastic particles/m3 (pp/m3), and as the number
of plastic particles/m2 (pp/0.1 m2), respectively. For WWTP effluent
samples, the concentration of MP was expressed as plastic parti-
cles/L (pp/L) or pp/m3. For estimate the concentration of MPs per
day (pp/day) discharged by the WWTPs, the effluent flow volume
displayed on the flowmeter of the treatment plant (L/s) for each
time of sampling was used.
3.1. Classification and sizes of MPs collected
Surface water samples presented 50% fragments and 47% fibers
on mean (Fig. 2a). Sediment samples showed fragments in a range
of 31–95% with a mean of 70 ± 19%; fibers were found in 5–63%
with a mean of 28 ± 18% (Fig. 2b). MPs were classified as fragments,
fibers, and others (films or microbeads). In the WWTP effluent
samples, fibers were the main MP particle found in both sampling
events. The first sampling event of WWTPG and WWTPN showed
67–97% and 62–94% of fibers, respectively (Fig. 3a). This tendency
was different for samples from WWTPS; fibers were only observed
in 18–72% (Fig. 3a). In the second sampling event, fibers were
found in WWTPG in a range of 69–83%, in WWTPN a range of
79–97%, and in WWTPS in a range of 45–87% (Fig. 3b).
For this study, only MPs greater than 250 lm were considered
for analysis of identification and concentration. However, MPs
(mainly fragments and fibers) were observed in the samples
obtained from the 90 lm sieve (Supplementary data). The sizes
of MPs that prevailed in the WWTPN and WWPG effluents were
500–250 lm. The WWTPS was different, but there was a similar
proportion of MPs of sizes from 1000 to 500 lm and from 500 to
250 lm (Supplementary data).
3.2. Concentration of MPs
3.2.1. Surface water samples
The distribution of MPs in surface waters in TSB is governed by
the pattern of prevailing currents in the area. The pattern of cur-

2.4. Identification of MPs

2.4.1. Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy

The MPs found in the samples of the three matrices were iden-
tified by synthetic polymer type using a Thermo Fisher Scientific
microscope Nicolet iNTM 10 FT-IR Spectrometer with attenuated
total reflectance (ATR) with germanium crystal. This instrument
is equipped with a liquid nitrogen-cooled mercury cadmium tel-
luride detector. The spectra were recorded as the average of 16
scans in the spectral range of 650–4000 cm1 at high resolution
of 4 cm1. In samples with more than 100 pieces, only 10% of the
MP pieces were analyzed by FT-IR. The synthetic polymer identifi-
cation was achieved by comparison of our reference spectra (virgin
pellets) and the commercial (Thermo Scientific) library spectra.
The lowest identification match was 80%.

2.5. Quality controls

To avoid contamination during the analysis of the samples, non-

plastic materials were used in the clothing of the staff (cotton lab
coats), as well as the use of glassware previously cleaned at
400 °C for 4 h. All the distilled water used during the processes
of the MP samples was filtered through a 32 lm metal sieve. Addi-
tionally, as a quality control during the analysis of the samples, a
glass Petri dish was placed on the work table to monitor the mate-
rial that could be incorporated into the samples by the environ-
ment and by the staff (blank procedure). In the analysis of this
control, an average of 10 microfibers (not analyzed) per week were Fig. 2. Classification of MPs found (in %) in surface water samples (a) and sediment
found, usually white or black. samples (b).
 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838 5

mentary data). We made a t-test in order to compare the mean

concentration of MP between both sampling campaign (2016 and
2017). The results of the analysis showed that there were no signif-
icant differences (t = 0.588; p > 0.05).
MPs were found in all manta trawl samples in sampling event
2016 (n = 11), and 2017 (n = 7). MP abundances were in the range
of 0.01 to 0.70 pp/m3 for both sampling events (Table 1). For oper-
ational purposes, manta trawl samples were classified in two
groups according the more coastal or oceanic influence. Thus, the
group 1 was conformed with those manta trawl samples close to
the coast, and group 2 with those manta samples with the more
oceanic influence (Table 1). We made a t-test to compare the mean
concentration of MP between both groups where we found that the
mean concentration of MP in group 1 were significatively higher
than those found in group 2 (t = 2.267; p > 0.05).
The samples M2 and M6 presented the highest accumulation of
MPs with 0.70 and 0.44 pp/m3, respectively, and samples MI (Ense-
nada Port) and MVI (Sauzal Port) presented a range of 0.63 and
0.43 pp/m3, respectively. It is worth mentioning that macroplastic
fragments were found only in the sampling sites close to shore-
lines. The range of concentrations of these macroplastics was
0.003 to 0.036 pp/m3 (Supplementary data). In Fig. 4a, we show
the highest concentrations of MPs in surface water and the sites
where macroplastics were found.

3.2.2. Sediment samples

Fig. 3. Classification of MPs found (in %) in WWTP effluent samples. a) First
sampling event, b) Second sampling event.
rents during the sampling days (August 2016 and 2017) showed a
dynamic circulation of surface water, where it is possible to
observe the entrance and exit of water masses in the bay (Supple-
The concentrations in sediment could be explained by the
bathymetry of the study area, which is also reflected in the grain
size distribution. The average depth of the study area is 50 m with
maximum depths of >300 m in the southwestern area of the bay,
which are characterized by silty-sandy sediments (Supplementary
data) Thus, two samples groups of MPs in sediment were made
considering the grain size of the samples. A t-test was made to
compare any difference between the mean concentrations of MPs
in sandy and silty sediments. The results of the analysis showed
that not significative differences between both groups
(t = 1.004; p > 0.05) was observed. MPs were found in all twelve
sediment samples from the TSB. The concentrations were in the
range of 85–2494 pp/0.1 m2, with a mean value of 472 ± 672
(Table 2). The highest concentration of MPs was observed in sam-
ples B11, B02, and B15 (Fig. 4b).

Table 1
Concentration of MPs calculated in surface water in TSB, from the sampling 2016 and 2017.

Manta Trawl Group MPs shape Total MPs Volume (m3) pp/m3
Fragments Fibers Microbeads Others
Sampling 2016
M1 1 39 56 0 5 100 415 0.24
M2 2 8 53 0 0 61 87 0.7
M3 1 12 36 0 0 48 306 0.16
M4 1 27 21 0 4 52 347 0.15
M5 2 14 9 0 1 24 309 0.08
M6 1 19 14 2 2 37 84 0.44
M8 2 13 29 1 4 47 309 0.15
M9 2 10 10 0 1 21 401 0.05
M10 2 3 0 0 0 3 326 0.01
M11 1 11 14 0 0 25 445 0.06
M12 2 21 2 0 0 23 417 0.06
Sampling 2017
MI 1 60 144 0 13 217 342.2 0.63
MII 2 16 15 1 7 39 201.9 0.19
MIII 1 8 4 1 1 14 385.9 0.04
MIV 2 3 6 0 0 9 476.8 0.02
MV 2 4 2 0 1 7 457.2 0.02
MVI 1 62 29 0 1 92 216.2 0.43
MVII 2 1 5 0 0 6 117.9 0.05

The bold letters represent the stations with the largest number of pieces for each sampling event. Group 1) Closer to the coast, Group 2) more oceanic influence.
6 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838

(f = 14.445; p < 0.05) than those found in WWTPS (193 ± 99) and
WWTPN (287 ± 103). For the second sampling collection (S2), the
mean abundance was not significatively different (f = 1.647;
p > 0.05) among the three WWTPs (509–889 pp/m3). In both sam-
pling events, the maximum number of MP particles found occurred
at 7 a.m. (T1) and 11 a.m. (T2) and 3p.m. (T3) (Fig. 5b). The concen-
trations of MPs were calculated using the pp/L times volume of
effluent per day (m3/day) (Table 3)

3.3. Identification of MPs

3.3.1. Surface water samples

The main synthetic polymers identified on fragments from sur-
face water samples were the following: polypropylene (PP), poly-
ethylene (PE), and the combination of PE-PP, polyethylene-
propylene-diene (PE-PDM), nylon, and T-elastomer. Semisynthetic
MPs such as cellophane were also identified. Most of the separated
material turned out to be plastic; however, natural materials such
as wool and cotton were also identified. In the case of MP fibers,
five different types of plastic were identified: PP and polyethylene
terephthalate, also known as polyester (PET), were the most fre-
quent, followed by PE, PE-PDM, and nylon (Supplementary data).
Fig. 6(a and b) shows the typical spectra observed for MP fibers
obtained from surface waters. Macroplastic fragments were ana-
lyzed, and the main synthetic polymers identified were PE and
PP (Supplementary data).

3.3.2. Sediment samples

Seven different types of synthetic polymers were found in sed-
iment samples. Alkyl resin was the plastic most frequently identi-
fied, followed by PE-PP, polyamide, PET, polyacrylamide (PAM),
PVC, and also, although much less frequently, semisynthetic mate-
rials such as cellophane, as well as others from natural origin, such
Fig. 4. Distribution of MPs found in surface water (a) and sediments (b) in TSB.
as wool and cotton.

3.2.3. WWTP effluent samples 3.3.3. WWTP effluents samples

The three WWTP effluents showed presence of MPs in all the
samples collected throughout the day and no macroplastic pieces
were found in the samples. The mean values of MPs in the WWTP
effluents were 0.49 ± 0.47 pp/L for both sampling campaigns. The
main results for WWTP effluents are presented in Table 3. We
made an AMOVA analysis to compare the mean concentration of
MPs between both sampling events and no significant differences
were found (F = 0.454, p > 0.05). Also, we made an AMOVA analysis
for each sampling event in order to evaluate differences among
mean concentrations in the WWTPs. For the first sampling (S1) col-
lection (Fig. 5a), the results showed that the mean abundance of
pp/m3 in WWTPG (1070 ± 327) was significatively higher
Fragments and fibers obtained from the three WWTP effluents
were analyzed for each time sampled. In the first sampling event,
the synthetic plastic polymers identified in fragments were the fol-
lowing: polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
polypropylene (PP), modacrylic, and polyethylene (PE). MP fibers
were identified as the following: polyacrylonitrile (PAN), PE, PP,
and PVA. Moreover, MP fibers were identified as semisynthetic
(cellophane) and natural fibers such as cellulose triacetate (CTA
or TAC) and paper (lignocellulosic fibers) (Supplementary data).
In the second sampling event, plastic fragments were identified
as PE, PP, and PET and cellophane. The main synthetic polymers
identified in fibers were polyester, PAN, and PE. However, unlike

Table 2
Concentration of MPs calculated in sediment samples from TSB.

Samples Group MP shapes Total MPs pp/0.1 m2

Fragments Fibers Microbeads Others
B01 1 193 46 0 23 262 262
B02 1 469 236 2 18 725 725
B03 1 91 9 0 0 100 100
B06 1 97 24 0 0 121 121
B07 1 210 162 0 0 372 372
B08 1 67 16 0 2 85 85
B10 2 137 125 0 0 262 262
B11 2 2300 192 0 2 2494 2494
B14 2 83 51 0 1 135 135
B15 2 216 436 40 4 696 696
B18 2 212 11 0 0 223 223
B19 2 113 72 1 6 192 192

The bold letters represent the stations with the largest number of pieces for each sampling event. Group 1) sandy sediments, and Group 2) silty sediments.
 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838 7

Table 3
Concentration of MPs found in the WWTP effluents discharged towards TSB.

WWTP Time MP Particles pp/m3 Flow (m3/day) pp/day

S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
WWTPG T1 341 242 967 605 15,474 10,541 1.50E + 07 6.38E + 06
T2 530 434 883 1085 10,074 15,107 8.90E + 06 1.64E + 07
T3 747 466 1556 1165 13,885 17,591 2.16E + 07 2.05E + 07
T4 375 281 872 702.5 9133 14,968 7.96E + 06 1.05E + 07
Mean 498 356 1070 889 12,141 14,552 1.30E + 07 1.30E + 07
±1 SD 185 111 327 277 3026 2933 6.30E + 06 6.20E + 06
WWTPN T1 209 353 435.42 882.5 23,155 23,760 1.01E + 07 2.10E + 07
T2 69 356 153.33 890 54,950 49,334 8.43E + 06 4.39E + 07
T3 83 137 207.5 342.5 52,531 41,472 1.09E + 07 1.42E + 07
T4 12 302 26.67 755 43,546 45,187 1.16E + 06 3.41E + 07
Mean 93 287 206 718 43,546 39,938 7.60E + 06 2.80E + 07
±1 SD 83 103 171 258 14,452 11,254 4.40E + 06 1.30E + 07
WWTPS T1 166 407 307 1017.5 3733 1571 1.15E + 06 1.60E + 06
T2 131 181 236 452.5 4995 4699 1.18E + 06 2.13E + 06
T3 41 120 82 300 3950 4295 3.24E + 05 1.29E + 06
T4 79 106 146 265 3968 3669 5.80E + 05 9.72E + 05
Mean 104 203 193 509 4161 355 8.10E + 05 1.50E + 06
±1 SD 55 140 99 349 566 1391 4.20E + 05 4.90E + 05

S1: First sampling, S2: Second sampling. T1 (7 a.m.), T2 (11 a.m.), T3 (3 p.m.), and T4 (7 p.m.) are sampling times.

Fig. 5. Concentration of pieces of MPs (pp/m3) found in WWTPN, WWTPG, and
WWTPS effluents. a) First sampling event, b) Second sampling event. Red line is
pp/day. T1(7 a.m.), T2 (11 a.m.), T3 (3p.m), and T4 (7p.m.) are sampling times. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
the first sampling event, an important contribution of cellophane
fibers was observed in WWTPG and WWTPS, as well as fibers of
natural origin such as cotton and wool (Supplementary data).
Fig. 6(c and d) shows examples of typical lFTIR–ATR spectra of
MP particles found in the WWTP effluents.
4. Discussion
The distribution of MPs in the marine environment in surface
water and in sediments is governed by different processes. The dis-
tribution of MPs in surface waters in TSB is governed by the pattern
of prevailing currents in the area. The patterns of currents during
the sampling days (August 2016 and 2017) suggest a surface water
cyclonic circulation inside the bay. At south region of the bay, the
water enters near Punta Banda (Supplementary data). M2, M6, MI,
and MVI samples (Fig. 4a) presented the highest concentration of
MPs. This cyclonic circulation has been also observed using high
frequency radars (Larrañaga-Fu, 2013; Navarro-Olache et al.,
2019) to measure surface velocities inside the bay. Data revealed
higher velocities at the open boundary and a mean summer circu-
lation in the same direction suggested by the microplastics distri-
bution (Fig. 4a). Samples were collected inside TSB and inside the
port. The accumulation of MPs within the port may be due to the
fact that ports are more protected from waves and currents. These
could restrict the circulation compared with the rest of the samples
in the bay. Locations M2 and M6 correspond with aquaculture
activities sites. These sites are generally located in ‘‘semi-
protected” areas or ‘‘calm zones.” A possible in situ contribution
of MPs can be attributed to the fragmentation of their farming lines
and parts used such as boxes, which are mostly made of plastic
material. Macroplastics were found in the coastal stations (M11,
M1, M3, M4, M5, and M6) and inside of both ports (MI and MVI)
(Fig. 4a, and Supplementary data). This suggests that the residence
time of macroplastics on TSB’s surface waters is relatively short. In
TSB, the residence time from a large group of synthetic buoys was
calculated around 10 days during most of the year but in autumn
increase to 16 days (Cervantes Audelo, 2013), with surface veloci-
ties lower than 10 cm/s. A possible sources of surface macroplas-
tics could be associated with activities of the community in the
coastal zone and the diurnal breeze transport inside the bay. The
mean concentration of MP in the present study (0.19 ± 0.21 pp/
m3) is high when compared to the abundance of MP found in Ban-
deras Bay, Mexico (75% of the reported average value
0.013 ± 0.028 pp/m3 in the dry season and 0.044 ± 0.064 pp/m3 in
the hurricane season) (Pelamatti et al., 2019). This difference
may be due to the fact that around BTS there is a greater human
pressure than that found in the south of Banderas Bay, where about
10,000 inhabitants live (IIEG, 2018).
MPs from surface water samples were identified as synthetic
polymers with high density. One possible explanation is the higher
surface volume/mass ratio that makes small fibers easier to float in
the water column. High-density PET can be trapped in algae or
other materials that are suspended in the water column, making
it possible to be found in surface waters. Moreover, this could be
attributed to the difference in the specific density of plastic parti-
cles that can change considerably depending on the type of poly-
mer and the manufacturing process (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; de
Sá et al., 2018).
8 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838
Fig. 6. mFTIR-ATR Spectra of MPs found in surface water from the samples of Port of Ensenada (a), Port of El Sauzal (b), and MPs found in WWTPS (c), and WWTPG (d).
It is also possible that the intense circulation and the outflow of
water masses observed are one of the reasons why macroplastics
were not present in the stations farthest from the coast. Strong cur-
rents could facilitate the expulsion of macroplastics and MPs out-
side the bay (Supplementary data). Surface water inside TSB
circulates with a dominant anticlockwise sense (cyclonic) during
most of the year. This circulation is formed by dominant NW-W
winds and the flow along the open boundary controlled by the Cal-
ifornia Current System (CCS) (Navarro-Olache et al., 2017; Flores-
Vidal et al., 2018). With this circulation, it is thought that particles
and debris could remain for longer periods of time within the bay.
TSB anticlockwise circulation is only broken and overturned during
Santana winds (Navarro-Olache et al., 2019). Santana winds are
brief events, occurring in the study area from October to March.
They are characterized by strong offshore winds (NE to E) that
drive large volumes of surface water off TSB with velocity magni-
tude that could reach 0.5 m/s. Santana events work as an irregular
but recurrent self-cleaning process (Navarro-Olache et al., 2019).
Our observations show that water enters through the southern
regions of the bay and leaves through the northern region, follow-
ing a typical cyclonic circulation in summer. Collection sites where
the greatest amounts of MPs were found are associated with ‘‘calm
zones” within TSB. On the other hand, in more distant stations,
macroplastic concentrations were scarce or limited which could
be linked with the cyclonic surface circulations and dominant
NW winds favoring the accumulation of macroplastics and MPs
in the coast or its expulsion toward the CCS (Supplementary data).
In sediments, bathymetry could explain the distribution of MP.
The largest accumulations of MPs were observed in the sediment
samples B11, B15, B02, B01, B07, and B10. These sites are found
in depths greater than 100 m and are characterized by silty-
sandy sediments (Supplementary data). However, no differences
were found between the concentrations of MPs in the finest grain
sediment samples from those in the less fine grain samples. There
was no clear trend between sediment grain size and microplastic
deposition in sediments, which coincides with what was reported
with Alomar et al. (2016). In addition, the proximity of potential
sources of MPs, such as those related to aquaculture activities
could contribute to increase its concentration in the bay. Stations
B01, B02 and B11 are close to the tuna farming enclosures and
mussel cultures, could also favor the eventual deposition of MPs
in the sediments mainly due to the high amount of epifauna organ-
isms growing over the mollusk shellfish. High amounts of organic
matter in the water column could act as a medium for precipita-
tion/transport of MPs to the sediment. Station B07 seems particu-
larly to have been influenced by the activities performed at the
port of El Sauzal. Most of reports of MP particles studied in sedi-
ments show the dominance (more than 80%) of microfibers
(Graca et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2017; Naji et al., 2017). In this
study, fragments were the main MPs identified in the sediment
samples (70 ± 19%).
Our results indicate that WWTP effluents are an important
source of MPs similar to other reports of WWTPs from other coun-
tries. Talvitie et al. (2017a) indicate that WWTPs can act not only as
barriers but also as entry routes for MPs into the aquatic environ-
ment. Conventional WWTPs with primary and secondary treat-
ment processes can eliminate up to 99% of MPs present in the
sewage effluents (Carr et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2016; Talvitie
et al., 2017b). However, these plants are still an important source
of MPs given the large volume of effluents that are discharged
(Mason et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2016; Mintenig et al., 2017;
Talvitie et al., 2017b; Ziajahromi et al., 2017). In this study, the
three WWTP effluents showed the presence of MPs in all the sam-
ples collected throughout the day. The mean values of MPs in the
WWTP effluents (0.49 ± 0.47 pp/L) are higher than those reported
by Mason et al. (2016) for eight different WWTP effluents from Cal-
ifornia, USA (0.05 ± 0.024 pp/L). This could be related to the type
and/or efficiency of treatments that WWTPs follow, because the
facilities are not designed to retain MPs (Trisorio et al., 2015).
The outputs of WWTPs in California (7.0E + 06 ± 5.1E + 06 pp/day)
would be comparable to the WWTPs in the first sampling event
in our work (7.2E + 06 ± 6.7E + 06 pp/day) or even an order of
 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838
magnitude less than estimated in the second sampling event in our
study (1.4E + 07 ± 6.7E + 06 pp/day, Table 1). However, it is impor-
tant to mention that our results were from one-time collection, and
to have a better evaluation of these sources, it is necessary to mon-
itor over a longer period of time.
The most abundant MPs in the WWTPs analyzed were fibers,
which coincide with reports by several authors attributed to laun-
dering of synthetic garments (Browne et al., 2011; Trisorio et al.,
2015). Browne et al. (2011) reported that a piece of clothing can
release up to 1900 fibers per wash. We propose that the highest
percentage of fibers found in the WWTPN and WWTPG effluents
are related to the discharges from domestic sewage and the textile
industry established southeast of the city and close to these plants.
Other potential sources of MPs are streams, although the study
area is characterized by being an area of low rainfall and the
streams are ephemeral due to a long and intense period of drought
that has prevailed in the region (INEGI, 2014; Hernández-Guzmán
et al., 2017). In spite of this, streams during rainfalls can introduce
plastics and other debris to the ocean; consequently, it would be a
less important source in comparison to the effluents of the WWTPs
that have constant discharges. Another possible source of MPs
could be the beaches where the coastal transport (tide and wind)
moves the plastic debris generated by the activities of the local
community and tourism. Piñon-Colin et al. (2018) reported an
average concentration of 205–269 pp/kg d.w. on two beaches in
Ensenada. Though, in a prospective study carried out on Ensenada
beach, macroplastic and MPs were found both in the intertidal
zone and in the berm of the beach (unpublished results), it should
be noted that it is difficult to assess which of the plastic debris is
directly originated in situ and which could be attributed to coastal
transport, since part of the cleaning of the beach is carried out by a
road sweeper truck that daily runs along the beach, which can pro-
mote the fragmentation and dispersion of plastic debris along the
beach. Finally, it is possible that there is a contribution from wind
transport to TSB, where there is greater agricultural development
and in areas further away from population settlements that could
contribute to the accumulation plastic debris to the environment.
In this area, the ‘‘Santa Ana winds” are typical, and they are char-
acterized by dry wind coming from the northeast that occurs
mainly in autumn and winter (Castro et al., 2003), which could
facilitate transport of plastic debris to the coastline. Conceptually,
we can say that the MPs can enter through the effluents of the
treatment plants that discharge in TSB as well as by the activities
of the community in areas adjacent to the coastal zone, which
could mainly provide macroplastics. In addition, it is possible that
wind transport acts as a source of plastic material from agricultural
areas and settlements adjacent to the coastal zone. As reported in
other parts of the world (Browne et al., 2011; Hidalgo-Ruz et al.,
2012), MPs have been found in all the stations sampled in this
study.
5. Conclusion
This work investigated the abundance, sources and distribution
of the MPs in the TSB, Mexico. This is the first integral study to
assess MPs from surface waters, sediments and the three munici-
pal WWTP effluents that discharge in the TSB. The current results
are a baseline for monitoring MP contamination in TSB.
In summary, MPs were found in all the compartments studied,
from surface waters and sediments of TSB to WWTP effluents in a
range of concentrations of MPs between 0.01 and 0.70 pp/m3 and
from 85 to 2494 pp/0.1 m2 for surface water and sediment sam-
ples, respectively. Fragments and fibers were the most abundant
MPs detected in surface waters, and their distribution and accumu-
lation appear to be dominated by the pattern of currents and there
9
is some evidence that suggest that aquaculture activities may con-
tribute MPs to TSB.
The distribution and accumulation of MPs in sediments seem to
be dominated by the bathymetry and by the dynamics of the bay,
as well as by the development of fishing and port activities that
favor the accumulation of MPs in the sediments. The local WWTPs
are an important source of MPs to TSB. MPs were detected in all
WWTP effluents with variations in concentrations during the dis-
charge throughout the day. Finally, the main synthetic polymers
found in MPs samples were PE and PP for fragments and nylon,
PET, and cellophane for fibers.
However, more information is needed to understand the spatial
distribution of plastic debris throughout the bay. An important part
of the study of MPs is to evaluate their distribution in the marine
environment and their interaction with organisms, since most of
the MPs found were less than 500 mm, which could facilitate their
bioavailability. Thus, it is also important to determine MPs concen-
trations in the water column, since it is known that the subsurface
current pattern is different from that of greater depth.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank to PRODEP-SEP (NPTC-2016;
grant number 10166) and also acknowledge the Universidad Autó-
noma de Baja California (UABC), as well as University of
Wisconsin-Superior and Algalita Marine Research and Education
for their support to this research and to all the undergraduate stu-
dents involved in the collection and analysis of the samples. We
would also like to thank the reviewers that have help improve
the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134838.
References
Alomar, C., Estarellas, F., Deudero, S., 2016. Microplastics in the Mediterranean Sea:
deposition in coastal shallow sediments, spatial variation and preferential grain
size. Mar. Environ. Res. 115, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.
2016.01.005.
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62,
1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., 2009. Proceedings of the International Research
Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris,
2009. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30, p49.
Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1985–1998. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.
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. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9175–9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es201811s.
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, 2388–2392. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012.
Carr, S.A., Liu, J., Tesoro, A.G., 2016. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in
wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 91, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2016.01.002.
Castro, R., Parés-Sierra, A., Marinone, S.G., 2003. Evolución y extensión de los
vientos Santa Ana de febrero de 2002 en el océano, frente a California y la
Península de Baja California. Ciencias Marinas. 29(3), 275-281. <http://
www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-
38802003000300002&lng=es&nrm=iso>.
Cervantes Audelo I.G., 2013. Análisis de circulación y dispersión en la Bahía de
Todos Santos, Baja California. MSc Thesis Universidad del Mar, Oaxaca, México.
10 N. Ramírez-Álvarez et al. / Science of the Total Environment 703 (2020) 134838
61p. <http://rdurazo.ens.uabc.mx/estudiantes/tesis/Tesis%20Irving%20Audelo.
pdf>.
Correia, Prata J., 2018. Microplastics in wastewater: state of the knowledge on
sources, fate and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 129 (1), 262–265. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.046.
de Sá, L.C., Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, F., Lopes Rocha, T., Futter, M.N., 2018. Studies of the
effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: what do we know and where
should we focus our efforts in the future? Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1029–1039.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207.
Flores-Vidal, X., Durazo, R., Castro, R., Navarro, L.F., Dominguez, F., Gil, E., 2015. Fine-
scale tidal and sub-tidal variability of an upwelling-influenced bay as measured
by the Mexican High Frequency Radar Observing System. In: Coastal Ocean
Observing Systems: Advances and Syntheses (ISBN: 9780128020227), Elsevier.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-802022-7.00012-2.
Flores-Vidal, X., González-Montes, S., Zertuche-Chanes, R., Rodríguez-Padilla, I.,
Marti, C.L., Imberger, J., Mejía-Trejo, A., Durazo-Arvizu, R., Navarro-Olache, L.F.,
2018. Three-dimensional exchange flows in a semi-enclosed bay: numerical
simulations and high frequency radar observations. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci.
210, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.05.027.
Fossi, M.C., Marsili, L., Baini, M., Giannetti, M., Coppola, D., Guerranti, C., Caliani, I.,
Minutoli, R., Lauriano, G., Finoia, M.G., Rubegni, F., Panigada, S., Bérubé, M.,
Urbán Ramírez, J., Panti, C., 2015. Fin whales and microplastics: the
Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Cortez scenarios. Environ. Pollut. 209, 68–
78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.022.
Gallo, F., Fossi, C., Weber, R., Santillo, D., Sousa, J., Imogen, I., Nadal, A., Romano, D.,
2018. Marine litter plastics and microplastics and their toxic chemicals
components: the need for urgent preventive measures. Environ. Sci. Eur. 30
(13), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0139-z.
GESAMP, 2015. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine
environment: a global assessment. In: Kershaw, P.J. (Ed.), IMO/FAO/UNESCO-
IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, Rep. Stud. GESAMP. 90, 96.
Graca, B., Szewc, K., Zakrzewska, D., Dołe˛ga, A., Szczerbowska-Boruchowska, M.,
2017. Sources and fate of microplastics in marine and beach sediments of the
Southern Baltic Sea—a preliminary study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (8), 7650–
7661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8419-5.
Hernández-Guzmán, F.A., Macías-Zamora, J., Ramírez-Álvarez, N., Álvarez Aguilar,
A., Quezada Hernández, C., Fonseca, A.P., 2017. Treated wastewater effluents as
a source of pyrethroids and fipronil at Todos Santos Bay, Mexico: Its impact on
sediments and organisms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36 (11), 3057–3064. https://
doi.org/10.1002/etc.3875.
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. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es2031505.
Horton, A.A., Dixon, S.J., 2018. Microplastics: an introduction to environmental
transport processes e1268 Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Water 5 (2). https://doi.org/
10.1002/wat2.1268.
Horton, A.A., Svendsen, C., Williams, R.J., et al., 2017. Large microplastic particles in
sediments of tributaries of the River Thames, UK – abundance, sources and
methods for effective quantification. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114, 218–226. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.004.
IIEG (Instituto de Información Estadística y Geográfica), 2018. Cabo corrientes
Diagnóstico del municipio mayo 2018. <https://iieg.gob.mx/contenido/
Municipios/Cabocorrientes.pdf>.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía), 2014. Anuario estadístico y
geográfico de Baja California. 403. <http://internet.contenidos.inegi.org.
mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/
anuario_14/702825064846.pdf>.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía), 2017. Anuario estadístico y
geográfico de Baja California 2017. 425. <https://www.datatur.sectur.gob.mx/
ITxEF_Docs/BCN_ANUARIO_PDF.pdf>.
Larrañaga-Fu M., 2013. Variabilidad de la circulación superficial en la Bahía de
Todos Santos, Baja California, México. BSc Thesis. Universidad Autónoma de
Baja California, pp. 67. <http://rdurazo.ens.uabc.mx/estudiantes/tesis/Tesis%
20Marco%20Larranaga.pdf>.
Mani, T., Hauk, A., Walter, U., Burkhardt-Holm, P., 2015. Microplastics profile along
the Rhine river. Sci. Rep. 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17988. Article number
17988.
Martin, J., Lusher, A., Thompson, R.C., Morley, A., 2017. The deposition and
accumulation of microplastics in marine sediments and bottom water from
the Irish continental shelf. Sci. Rep. 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
11079-2. article number 10772.
Mason, S.A., Garneau, D., Sutton, R., Chu, Y., Ehmann, K., Barnes, J., Fink, P.,
Papazissimos, D., Rogers, D., 2016. Microplastic pollution is widely detected in
US municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environ. Pollut. 218, 1045–
1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.056.
Mateos, E., Marinone, S.G., 2017. Current variability by wave propagation in Todos
Santos Bay Baja California, Mexico. Ciencias Marinas 43 (3), 191–201. https://
doi.org/10.7773/cm.v43i3.2775.
Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., Ohtake, C., Kaminuma, T., 2001. Plastic
resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine
environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2), 318–324. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es0010498.
Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, I., Loder, M.G., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2017. Identification
of microplastic in effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane
array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Res. 108, 365–
372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015.
Moore, C.J., 2019. Invasion of the biosphere by synthetic polymers: what our
current knowledge may mean for our future. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 38 (5), 161–164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-019-1424-4.
Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., Quinn, B., 2016. Wastewater treatment works
(WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50, 5800–5808. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416.
Naji, A., Esmaili, Z., Mason, S.A., Sherri, A., Mason, A., Vethaak, D., 2017. The
occurrence of microplastic contamination in littoral sediments of the Persian
Gulf, Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (25), 20459–22468. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-017-9587-z.
Navarro-Olache, L.F., Flores-Vidal, X., Rodriguez-Padilla, I., Castro-Valdez, R.,
Hernández-Walls, R., Durazo-Arvizu, R., Mejía-Trejo, A., 2017. Circulación
superficial de la bahía de Todos Santos, B.C., condiciones de vientos Santa
Ana. (2009-2015) medias por escaterómetros. In: Navarro Olache, L.F., Monrreal
Gómez, A. Peynador Sánchez (Eds.), UNAM. Libro Conmemorativo de
Oceanología Compendio, pp. 185–194.
Navarro-Olache LF, Durazo R, Hernández-Walls R, Castro Rubén, Mejía-Trejo A,
Flores-Vidal X., 2019. Influence of Santa Ana winds over the surface circulation
of Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, México. (accepted document 52719)
Revista Atmosfera, UNAM.
Pelamatti, T., Fonseca-Ponce, I.A., Rios-Mendoza, L.M., Stewart, J.D., Marín-Enríquez,
E., Marmolejo-Rodriguez, A.J., Hoyos-Padilla, E.M., Galván-Magaña, F., Rogelio
González-Armas, R., 2019. Seasonal variation in the abundance of marine plastic
debris in Banderas Bay, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 145, 604–610. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.062.
Piñon-Colin, T.J., Rodriguez-Jimenez, R., Pastrana-Corral, M.A., Rogel Hernandez, E.,
Wakida, F.T., 2018. Microplastics on sandy beaches of the Baja California
Peninsula, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131 (Part A), 63–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.055.
Plastics –The Facts 2018. An Analysis of European plastics production, demand and
waste data. (Plastics Europe: Association of Plastic Manufacturers). <https://
www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/619-plastics-facts-2018>.
Retama, L., Jonathan, M.P., Shruti, V.C., Velumani, S., Sarkar, S.K., Roy, P.D., Rodríguez
Espinosa, P.M., 2016. Microplastics in tourist beaches of Huatulco Bay, Pacific
coast of southern Mexico. Mar. Poll. Bull. 134 (1–2), 530–535. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.053.
Rios Mendoza, L.M., Jones, P.R., 2015. Characterisation of microplastics and toxic
chemicals extracted from microplastic samples from the North Pacific Gyre.
Environ. Chem. 12, 611–617. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14236.
Rochman, C.M., Browne, M.A., Halpern, B.S., Hentschel, B.T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti,
H.K., Rios-Mendoza, L.M., Takada, H., Teh, S., Thompson, R.C., 2013. Classify
plastic debris as hazardous. Nature 494, 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/
494169a.
Silva-Iñiguez, L., Fischer, D.W., 2003. Quantification and classification of marine
litter on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 46 (1), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00216-3.
Stubbs, H. H., Diehl, D.W., Hershelman, G.P., 1987. A Van Veen grab sampling
method. S. Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj., Long Beach, CA. Tech. Rep. 204.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setälä, O., 2017a. Solutions to microplastic
pollution – removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res. 123, 401–407. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.005.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Setälä, O., Heinonen, M., Koistinen, A., 2017b. How well is
microlitter purified from wastewater? - a detailed study on the stepwise
removal of microlitter in a tertiary level wastewater treatment plant. Water
Res. 109, 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.046.
Trisorio, C., Ritzkowski, M., Adwiraah, H., 2015. The influence of waste management
on the problem of marine littering on the example of the Danube. Technical
University of Hamburg-Harburg Institute of Environmental Technology and
Energy Economics, 34p. <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol_Trisorio/
publication/283320926_The_influence_of_waste_management_on_the_problem_
of_marine_littering_on_the_example_of_the_Danube/links/563337b708ae911f
cd4a60ab.pdf>.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., Janssen, C.R., 2015.
Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Mar.
Environ. Res. 111, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.007.
Wang, W., Gao, H., Jin, S., Li, R., Na, G., 2019. The ecotoxicological effects of
microplastics on aquatic food web, from primary producer to human: a review.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 173, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoenv.2019.01.113.
Windsor, F.M., Durance, I., Horton, A.A., Thompson, R.C., Tyler, C.R., Ormerod, S.J.,
2019. A catchment-scale perspective of plastic pollution. Global Change Biol. 25
(4), 1207–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14572.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Rintoul, L., Leusch, F.D.L., 2017. Wastewater treatment
plants as a pathway for microplastics: development of a new approach to
sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water Res. 12, 93–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watr.