Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Microplastics pollution on Colombian Central Caribbean beaches

Nelson Rangel-Buitrago a, b, *, Harry Arroyo-Olarte c, d, Jorge Trilleras c, d,
Victoria Andrea Arana c, d, Egna Mantilla-Barbosa c, d, Adriana Gracia C. b,
Anubis Velez Mendoza b, William J. Neal e, Allan T. Williams f, Anton Micallef g
a
Programa de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia, Atlántico, Colombia
b
Programa de Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia, Atlántico, Colombia
c
Programa de Maestría en Ciencias Ambientales, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia, Atlántico, Colombia
d
Programa de Quimica, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia, Atlántico, Colombia
e
Department of Geology, Grand Valley State University, The Seymour K. & Esther R. Padnos Hall of Science 213A, Allendale, MI, USA
f
Faculty of Architecture, Computing and Engineering, University of Wales: Trinity Saint David (Swansea), Mount Pleasant, Swansea SA1 6ED, Wales, United Kingdom
g
Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics, Institute of Earth Systems, University of Malta, Malta

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The growing literature on microplastics (MPs) in coastal and marine environs reflects the seriousness of this
Microplastics pollutant category. Diverse litter studies on Colombia's Central Caribbean Coast have not presented detailed
Microplastics Pollution Index (MPPI) study of MPs' typology, magnitude or distribution. This baseline study presents for first time the MPs problem on
Coefficient of Microplastic Impact (CMPI)
23 beaches in 75 km coastal reach between Punta Roca and Galerazamba, on the central Colombian Caribbean
Environmental Status Index (ESI)
Coast. The Microplastics Pollution Index (MPPI) and Coefficient of Microplastic Impact (CMPI) were developed
Caribbean
Colombia and applied along with the Environmental Status Index (ESI) and their integration through sector analysis, and
mapping using Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering and Multidimensional Scaling, and Principal Components
Analysis. Microplastics abundances (densities) ranged from 2457 to 557 MPs/kg, similar to other global beaches
and bays. The MPs Index for the 23 beaches classified 8 beaches as “Moderate,” 10 beaches as “High” and 5 as
“Very High.” Microplastic fibers were the dominant typology at 83% of the combined beaches total (ranging from
Moderate to Very High for individual beaches).

All beaches, of both sand and gravel, are among the rapidly changing
coastal ecosystems of planet Earth (Alongi, 1998; Pilkey et al., 2011).
Beaches occupy about one-third of global coastlines (Davis and Fitz­
gerald, 2004; Masselink et al., 2014), and are formed by waves, currents,
and tides moving/depositing sediment from varied sources (e.g., eroded
from dunes, cliffs, rivers, offshore reefs, and bars); there is if no sedi­
ment, there are no beaches (Dean and Dalrymple, 2002). Beaches are
deposits formed from loose particles (unconsolidated sediments), and
these particles (i.e., sand, pebbles, cobbles) are typically made from rock
fragments, mineral grains, and biological sources (e.g., shells, algae,
fragmented skeletal material).
Unfortunately, debris from human manufactured materials has also
become a major constituent in the sediment of many beaches over the
decades since the industrial revolution, including glass, bricks, and
various types of refuse (Williams and Rangel-Buitrago, 2019). In recent
decades, microplastics (MPs) have become a common, and often
dominant, constituent of beach sediments, to the point that these ma­
terials are now the focus of many coastal litter studies.
Since plastic's creation by Leo Baekeland in 1907, this material has
become the third most-widely manufactured product in the world after
steel and cement (Coe and Rogers, 1997; Williams and Rangel-Buitrago,
2019; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2021). Plastic pollution in coastal and
marine environments is widely recognized (Bergmann et al., 2015;
Stachowitsch, 2019; UN, 2019), because of excessive fabrication and
use, as well as the human bad habit of littering, and poor management
practices in terms of controlling the plastic stream from manufacture to
ending as solid waste (Williams and Rangel-Buitrago, 2019; Rangel-
Buitrago et al., 2020).
Once plastic materials arrive at a beach they may remain there for
hundreds and thousands of years (Coe and Rogers, 1997; Geyer et al.,
2017). During this time, plastics become fragmented due to the me­
chanical and photochemical processes resulting in MPs' formation

* Corresponding author at: Programa de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia, Atlántico, Colombia.
E-mail address: nelsonrangel@mail.uniatlantico.edu.co (N. Rangel-Buitrago).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112685
Received 28 April 2021; Received in revised form 23 June 2021; Accepted 27 June 2021
Available online 2 July 2021
0025-326X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al.
(Williams and Simmons, 1996).
Microplastics are defined as plastic particles with a size of 1 μm to 5
mm, and are the product of different plastic polymers such as: Poly­
ethylene terephthalate (PET); high-density polyethylene (HDPE); poly-
vinyl chloride (PVC), which can also vary as rigid PVC, flexible PVC,
poly-vinyl acetate (PVAc); low-density polyethylene (LDPE); poly­
propylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) among others (Thompson et al.,
2004; Cole et al., 2011; GESAMP, 2015; Frias and Nash, 2019). These
polymers are found in a wide variety of shapes and structures being
classified principally as fragments, pellets, filaments, films, foam plastic,
granules, and styrofoam (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2018).
Microplastics distribution, magnitudes, and negative collateral ef­
fects have been documented in all coastal and marine environments.
These environments include, deep-sea (Bergmann et al., 2017; Tekman
et al., 2020), continental shelf (Zobkov and Esiukova, 2017; Wang et al.,
2020), water column (Woodall et al., 2014; Zobkov et al., 2019), polar
areas (Lusher et al., 2015; Obbard, 2018), beaches (Nguyen et al., 2020;
Chen and Chen, 2020), dunes (Abayomi et al., 2017; Costello and Ebert,
2020), mangroves (Barboza and Gimenez, 2015; Deng et al., 2021), la­
goons (Sruthy and Ramasamy, 2017; Abidi et al., 2018), estuaries
(Atwood et al., 2019; Firdaus et al., 2020), fjords (Black et al., 2018;
Haave et al., 2019) among others. Microplastics are now so ubiquitous in
the coastal marine environment that their excessive magnitudes and
wide distribution have been suggested as one of the Plasticene age in­
dicators (Stager, 2011; Corcoran et al., 2014).
Fig. 1. The central Caribbean Coast of Colombia with the locations of surveyed beaches.
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685
Microplastics are a significant threat to fragile ecosystems such as
beaches (Harris, 2020). Their presence entails significant pressures to
individuals, populations, and communities that utilize such areas as
habitat (Gracia et al., 2018). Microplastics have been detected in nearly
all organisms in the beach ecosystem along with all trophic levels such as
meiofauna (e.g., annelids such Saccocirrus pussicus - Gusmão et al.,
2016), macrofauna (e.g., Pacific mole crabs such Emerita analoga - Horn
et al., 2019), and megafauna (e.g., black-headed gull Chroicocephalus
ridibundus – Masiá et al., 2019).
Diverse studies developed along the central Caribbean Coast of
Colombia present the litter issue for this area (Rangel-Buitrago et al.,
2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021). However, there is no published detailed
study of MPs' magnitudes and distribution in this country's coastal area
to date. This baseline presents for the first time the MPs' problem along
23 beaches on the central Caribbean Coast of Colombia, defining mag­
nitudes, shapes, impacts, and possible sources.
An overview of sampled beaches is given in Fig. 1. The study area is
located in the central part of the Colombian Caribbean Coast and in­
cludes the entire Atlantico Department shoreline and the Bolivar De­
partment's northernmost coastal reach (Fig. 1).
The study area includes six coastal municipalities (Barranquilla,
Puerto Colombia, Tubará, Juan de Acosta, Piojo, and Santa Catalina)
inhabited by 1,514,356 people, representing 5% of Colombia's total
population. Specifically, the information presented in this paper was
collected on 23 beaches distributed along a 75 km coastal strip located
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

between Punta Roca in the Atlantico Department and Galerazamba in that range from “Very Low Presence” to “Very High Presence” of MPs
the Bolivar Department (Table 1 and Fig. 1). (Table 2).
On each of the 23 beaches surveyed, a sampling area of 100 m2 was To evaluate the impact of all microplastic shapes, the Coefficient of
defined. These sampling areas were located between the low-tide and Microplastic Impact (CMPI) was used as an indicator. This coefficient
high-tide marks, covering the beaches' central part. At each sampling is the existing relationship between the total amount of a specific MPs'
location, four quadrants (1 m2 each one) were placed and separated at 0 shape (i.e., pellets, fibers) and the total amount of MPs found in a
m (beginning), 25 m, 50 m and 100 m (end) along the high-tide mark of sampling unit. The CMPI of each beach was calculated using the
the tidal zone. A sand sample was collected in each quadrant by scraping formula:
the first 5 cm of sediment with a bottom grab. Approximately 4 kg of ′
Specific MPs Shape
sediment with one sample for each quadrant was collected and stored. CMPI =
Microplastic separations were developed following the NOAA Pro­ Total MPs′
tocol (Masura et al., 2015) utilizing sodium chloride (5 mol/L; density According to this methodology, different categories of microplastic
1.2 g/ml) as the flotation media. As a first step, air-induced overflow was impact can be obtained ranging from minimum at CMPI = 0.0001–0.1;
used to pre-extract sediments by fluidization with a saturated NaCl so­ average when CMPI = 0.11–0.5; maximum if CMPI = 0.51–0.8 and
lution. In a second step, the principle of lower-density microplastics' extreme if CMPI = 0.81–1.
flotation was employed in a saturated NaCI solution (Nuelle et al., 2014; The third index calculated was the Environmental Status Index
Bridson et al., 2020). Finally, all collected samples were filtered by a (ESI – Schulz et al., 2013; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2019, 2020). The ESI is
gridded mixed cellulose ester filter paper, using a vacuum. an indicator that defines the beaches quality in terms of indirect and
Samples were dried and all MPs retained over the filter were counted direct impacts to the health of beach organisms generated by MPs with a
under a dissecting microscope. Then the particles were classified by scale ranging from 1 to 4 (where 1 = Good, 2 = Mediocre, 3 = Unsat­
shape (fibers, pellets, fragments, and foams). Results were presented as isfactory, 4 = Bad). The ESI implies the use of a weighted value for each
“number of microplastics” and associated “densities.” Densities were MPs shape (i.e., fiber, pellets, etc.) found following two criteria:
calculated as the number of microplastics collected per sediment dry
weight and were presented as MPs/kg. • Weight: 1 if the microplastic typology causes indirect damage, but
Microplastics' impacts were assessed using three environmental in­ with no direct risk potential.
dexes. The first index used (and present for the first time in this work) is • Weight: 1.5 if the microplastic typology causes a direct impact.
the Microplastics Pollution Index (MPPI). This index determines the
presence of MPs in an environment by calculating the existing relation Following this value assignment, a weight table was created through
between MPs amount and surveyed area. In essence, this index defines the Jenks optimization method for the identified microplastic typologies
the abstract state of being free from MPs, and the tendency of achieving found in the study area (Table 3). Hence, all values have been processed
and maintaining that state. This index can be calculated considering the according to the formula:
total amount of MPs or distinguishing between shapes. The MPs' Index of ∑n
i=1 wi*xi
each beach was calculated using the formula: ESI = ∑ n
∑ i=1 wi
Mps
MPPI =
Surveyed Area where ESI is the final score (or weighted average value of the environ­
mental status) as a result of the weighted average of all the single
where MPs' is the number of “MPs per kg per m2”, considering the weights (wi) of all MPs shapes found on a specific beach, multiplied for
existing relationship between the number of MPs' and the total area of the class (xi) assigned to the beach based on the presence and abundance
the quadrants. The MPPI allows assessing a beach in five different classes of that specific shape. According to the classification system, each of the
23 beaches was evaluated based on classes of the environmental status
(1, 2, 3, and 4 corresponding to good, mediocre, unsatisfactory, and bad,
Table 1 respectively) that are assigned according to the total number of MPs
Location and general characteristics of beaches located on the central Caribbean found along the sampling unit.
Coast of Colombia. Beach typology was determined according to that described The MPPI and ESI were integrated through sector analysis. A dy­
by Williams and Micallef (2009).
namic table was constructed for each beach, with MPPI in rows (5) and
Code Beach name Type Exposure ESI columns (4). Using the percentile technique (Langford, 2006), the
A1 Punta Roca Rural Exposed table was divided into three areas:
A2 Salgar Village Exposed
A3 Pradomar - Resort Resort Exposed
A4 Pradomar - Urban Urban Exposed
A5 Puerto Colombia - North Urban Exposed
A6 Puerto Colombia - Urban Urban Exposed
A7 Puerto Velero - Exposed Remote Exposed
Table 2
A8 Puerto Velero - Resort Resort Sheltered
A9 Puerto Pelero - Punta Velero Village Sheltered Microplastics Pollution Index (MPPI). This index determines the presence of MPs
A10 Puerto Velero - Mirador Village Sheltered in an environment by calculating the existing relation between MPs amount and
A11 Caño Dulce Village Sheltered surveyed area.
A13 Playa Mendoza Resort Sheltered
Microplastics Pollution Type Description
A16 Palmarito Village Sheltered
Index (MPPI)
A17 Playa Linda Remote Sheltered
A18 Santa Veronica Cajacoopi Resort Exposed 0 to 2 Very Low Abundance/ No MPs are seen
A19 Santa Veronica Urban Sheltered Absence
A20 Salinas del Rey Village Sheltered 2 to 5 Low Abundance Some MPs are in the sample
A21 Loma de Piedra Remote Sheltered 5 to 15 Moderate Abundance A considerable number of
A22 Aguamarina Resort Sheltered MPs seen
A23 Bocatocinos Rural Exposed 15 to 25 High Abundance A lot of MPs are in the
A24 Punta Astilleros Rural Sheltered sample
A25 Salinas de Galerazamba Remote Exposed More 25 Very High Abundance Most of the sample is
A26 Galerazamba Village Sheltered composed by MPs

3
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Table 3
Microplastics shapes and corresponding weights obtained by means the Jenks
optimization method in the study area.
Shape Classification (xi – number of items) Weight
Wi
Good Mediocre Unsatisfactory Bad

Fibers Less than 45 to 60 61 to 78 More than 1

44 79
Pellets Less than 2 to 3 4 to 7 More than 1
1 8
Fragments Less than 5 to 11 12 to 26 More than 1
4 27
Foam Less than 3 to 7 8 to 15 More than 1
2 16

• The green area which is comprised of one cell and shows beaches
with very low MPs presence with good environmental status where
protection measures are necessary.
• The orange area represents beaches with a low to moderate MPs
presence that have a mediocre environmental status where cleaning
actions are necessary.
• The red area which describes areas that have high to very high MPs
presence with unsatisfactory and bad environmental status where
urgent intervention and even restoration measures are necessary.

Lastly, Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) and Multidi­

mensional Scaling (MDS) analysis were developed to generate a map of
the 23 surveyed beaches from a proximity matrix based on MPs mag­
nitudes and the calculated environmental variables. Both analyses were
performed using Ward's method with Squared Euclidean distance. A
dendrogram graph was used to illustrate hierarchical relations.
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was also performed using
beaches as “cases” and MPs shapes as “variables.” The PCA analyzes the
correlations between MPs shapes and detects if the changes in these
typologies on some beaches are dissimilar from those on other beaches.
F1 and F2 (which account for most of the variance in the data) were
presented as scatter plots (beaches) and vector plots (MPs typologies).
Patterns of distribution of sites on the PC axes were interpreted con­
cerning the corresponding typology vectors' orientation and additional
information such as beach location and beach management. All statis­
tical analyses were performed using XLSTAT software.
In each of the 23 beaches surveyed MPs´were tabulated Fig. 2. The
average was 1109 MPs/kg, but this value changed between beaches
(Table 4 and Figs. 2 and 3). Highest MPs abundances were observed on
A25 Salinas de Galerazamba, an exposed remote beach located in the
southernmost part of the study area with a density of 2457 MPs/kg
(Table 4 and Figs. 2 and 3). Conversely, the lowest MPs densities were
found at A17 Playa Linda a sheltered remote beach located in the central
part of the study area with a density 557 MPs/kg (Table 4 and Figs. 2 and
3).
The determined Microplastics densities were similar to values
determined by Guerranti et al. (2017) along northern Tyrrhenian bea­
ches (1069 MPs/kg), Matsuguma et al. (2017) in sediments collected in
Tokyo Bay, Japan (1800 MPs/kg), Lots et al. (2017) in European beaches
(1512 MPs/kg), Nguyen et al. (2020) on tropical beaches at Da Nang,
Vietnam (2097 MPs/kg) and Bissen and Chawchai (2020) in beaches
located in the eastern Gulf of Thailand (1660 MPs/kg).
The twenty-three beaches surveyed were categorized using each of
the three environmental indexes (MPPI, CMPI and ESI, Fig. 3 and
Table 5). The MPPI developed in each of the 23 beaches surveyed
showed eight beaches (35%) with a “Moderate” MPs presence, ten
beaches (43%) with a “High” presence, and five beaches (22%) classified
with a “Very High” presence of MPs. There are no beaches within the
study area within the “Very Low” and “Low” categories. Taking the
whole surveyed area into account, the studied beaches had an MPPI
general value of 19, which ranks it as an area with a “High” MPs
presence.
Fig. 2. Microplastics densities.
Four microplastic shapes (fibers, pellets, fragments, and foam) were
found in the study area (Figs. 4–5 and Table 4). Among these shapes,
microplastic fibers being observed on all beaches accounting 83% of the
total. Fibers averaged 866 MPs/kg, but this value changed along the
study area (Figs. 2 and 5, Table 4). The highest abundance (regarding
density) was observed on the north part A2 Salgar (1557 MPs/kg), while
the lowest abundance was observed at the central part in A18 Santa
Veronica-Cajacopi (500 MPs/kg). The general fibers pollution index for
the whole area was 15 (high presence). This same analysis highlighted
eight beaches (35%) with “Moderate” fibers presence, ten beaches
(43%) with a “High” presence, and five beaches (5%) classified with a
“Very High” presence. There are no beaches within the “Very Low” and
“Low” categories in terms of fibers presence. Similarly, the general co­
efficient of fibers impact was 0.78 (Maximum) while by beach, one
beach (4%) can be considered with an “Average” impact, five beaches
(22%) have a “Maximum” impact, and 17 beaches (74%) can be clas­
sified with an “Extreme” impact. Along the study area, there are no
beaches with a “Minimum” fiber impact.
Fragments were found in 21 of the 23 beaches surveyed, reaching 9%
of the microplastics total. The fragments' average was 191 MPs/kg.
However, this value varied between beaches (Figs. 2 and 5, Table 4). The
highest fragment abundances were observed in A25 Salinas de Galer­
azamba (814 MPs/kg), a remote, exposed beach located in the south­
ernmost part of the study area, while the lowest abundances were
observed in A8 Puerto Velero Resort and A23 Bocatocinos (14 MPs/kg).
The general fragments pollution index for the whole area was 2 (Low
fragments presence). By beach, the fragment pollution index highlights
16 beaches (70%) with “Very Low” presence, five beaches (22%) with a

4
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Table 4
Microplastics densities along the Central Caribbean Coast of Colombia beaches.
Code Beach name MPs/kg

Fibers Fragments Foam Pellets Total

A1 Punta Roca 1014 57 29 29 1129

A2 Salgar 1557 100 14 43 1714
A3 Pradomar - Resort 700 157 71 71 1000
A4 Pradomar - Urban 543 143 71 14 771
A5 Puerto Colombia - 1114 43 0 14 1171
North
A6 Puerto Colombia - 857 371 200 29 1457
Urban
A7 Puerto Velero - 943 43 86 14 1086
Exposed
A8 Puerto Velero - Resort 1029 14 29 0 1071
A9 Puerto Pelero - Punta 743 214 100 0 1057
Velero
A10 Puerto Velero - 629 29 0 0 657
Mirador
A11 Caño Dulce 786 100 0 0 886
A13 Playa Mendoza 800 43 71 14 929
A16 Palmarito 1414 43 214 0 1671
A17 Playa Linda 557 0 0 0 557
A18 Santa Veronica 500 57 0 0 557
Cajacoopi
A19 Santa Veronica 557 29 14 14 614
A20 Salinas del Rey 600 0 14 100 714
A21 Loma de Piedra 686 29 0 43 757
A22 Aguamarina 1286 243 371 486 2386
A23 Bocatocinos 714 14 29 29 786
A24 Punta Astilleros 1043 143 0 57 1243
A25 Salinas de 1086 814 486 71 2457
Galerazamba
A26 Galerazamba 771 43 14 14 843

“Low” presence, and two beaches (9%) classified with a “Moderate”

presence. There are no beaches within “High” and “Very High” cate­
gories in terms of fragments presence along the study area. The general
coefficient of fragments impact was 0.1 (Average) while by beach, 14
beaches (61%) can be considered with a “Minimum” fragments impact
and nine beaches (39%) have an “Average” impact. There are no beaches
with a “maximum” and “extreme” impact.
In 16 of the 23 beaches surveyed, foam was observed, reaching 5% of
all microplastics found. The foam average was 79 MPs/kg, but this value
changed between beaches (Figs. 2 and 5, Table 4). The highest foam
abundances were observed on A25 Salinas de Galerazamba (486 MPs/
kg), while the lowest abundances were observed at A2 Salgar, A19 Santa
Veronica, A20 Salinas del Rey, and A26 Galerazamba (14 MPs/kg). The
general foam pollution index for the whole area was 1 (Very Low foam
presence), while by beach, results show 19 beaches (83%) with “Very
Low” presence, and four beaches (17%) classified with a “Low” pres­
ence. The general Coefficient of foam Impact was 0.071 (Minimum),
while by beach, eight beaches (35%) can be considered with a “Mini­
mum” foam impact, and 15 beaches (65%) have an “Average” impact.
The pellet's average was 45 MPs/kg, and this microplastic shape was
Fig. 3. Geographical distribution of MPs densities (MPs/kg), Microplastic
found on 16 of the 23 surveyed beaches (3% of total). The highest
Pollution Index (MPPI) and Environmental Status Index (ESI).
abundances (regarding density) were observed on A22 Aguamarina
(486 MPs/kg), while the lowest pellets abundance was observed at A4
Pradomar, A5 Puerto Colombia, A7 Puerto Velero - Exposed, A13 Playa Argentinean continental shelf (Ronda et al., 2019), Haichow bay, China
Mendoza, A19 Santa Veronica, and A26 Galerazamba (14 MPs/kg - (Wu et al., 2020); Virginia and North Carolina beaches, USA (Dodson
Figs. 2 and 5, Table 4). Pellet's pollution index for the whole area was 1 et al., 2020) and the northern Tyrrhenian Sea (Mistri et al., 2020) where
(Low). This analysis by beach showed 22 beaches (96%) with a “Very more than 80% of microplastics shapes found were fibers. In short,
Low” presence and just one beach (4%) with a “Moderate” pellet's microfibers are one of the most abundant litter shapes found within
presence. The coefficient of pellets impact was 0.041 (Minimum) while world coastal and marine ecosystems (Jambeck et al., 2015; Piehl et al.,
by beach, 21 beaches (91%) can be considered with a “Minimum” 2019; Williams and Rangel-Buitrago, 2019).
impact, and two beaches (9%) can be classified with an “Average” In terms of the ESI, five beaches (22%) are under “Good” environ­
impact. mental conditions, 16 (70%) have “Mediocre” environmental condi­
Shape percentages, densities, and impacts determined agree with tions, and two beaches (9%) are considered as under the “Bad”
findings obtained in urban beaches of Cartagena, Colombia (Acosta and environmental status (Fig. 3, Table 5) Beaches belonging to the “un­
Olivero-Verbel, 2015), Algarve beaches, Portugal (Frias et al., 2016), satisfactory” environmental status were not found within the study area.

5
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Table 5 The combination of MPPI and ESI, using sector analysis (Fig. 6),
Beach classification into one of the categories belonging to the Microplastics shows that the study area presents significant MPs magnitudes that
Pollution Index (MPPI) and Environmental Status Index (ESI). negatively influence beach environmental quality. No beaches are in the
Code Beach name MPPI MPPI type ESI Group green zone of Fig. 6, and conversely, 8 (35%) and 15 (65%) beaches are
A1 Punta Roca 20 High Mediocre C
positioned inside the orange and red areas, respectively. The above
A2 Salgar 30 Very High Mediocre C highlights that these beaches are currently affected seriously by MPs
A3 Pradomar - Resort 18 High Mediocre B which demand urgent interventions (cleaning and restoration) to
A4 Pradomar - Urban 14 Moderate Mediocre A improve their environmental quality.
A5 Puerto Colombia - North 21 High Mediocre C
Together, the densities and environmental indexes used can give an
A6 Puerto Colombia - Urban 26 Very High Mediocre C
A7 Puerto Velero - Exposed 19 High Mediocre C overall panorama of how similar or dissimilar the Central Caribbean
A8 Puerto Velero - Resort 19 High Mediocre C Colombian beaches are in terms of MPs pollution. This panorama can be
A9 Puerto Pelero - Punta Velero 19 High Mediocre B obtained by extracting the natural groupings and visualizing the simi­
A10 Puerto Velero - Mirador 12 Moderate Good A larity between beaches using Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering
A11 Caño Dulce 16 High Mediocre B
A13 Playa Mendoza 16 High Mediocre B
(AHC) and Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). Both statistical analyses
A16 Palmarito 29 Very High Mediocre C show that according to MPs abundances and environmental variables,
A17 Playa linda 10 Moderate Good A the twenty-three beaches surveyed can be divided into three groups
A18 Santa Veronica Cajacoopi 10 Moderate Good A (Fig. 7):
A19 Santa Veronica 11 Moderate Good A
A20 Salinas del Rey 13 Moderate Mediocre A
A21 Loma de Piedra 13 Moderate Mediocre A • Group A: This group comprises eight beaches that encompass 21% of
A22 Aguamarina 42 Very High Bad C all MPs found along the study area with an average density of 677
A23 Bocatocinos 14 Moderate Mediocre A MPs/kg. Inside this group, fibers accounting for 89% (Avg: 598 MPs/
A24 Punta Astilleros 22 High Mediocre C kg), fragments the 5% (Avg: 38 MPs/kg), foam 2% (Avg: 16 MPs/kg)
A25 Salinas de Galerazamba 43 Very High Bad C
and pellets 3% (25 MPs/kg). In terms of the MPs pollution index, all
A26 Galerazamba 15 High Good B
beaches can be classified with a “Moderate” MPs presence. The
environmental status shows four beaches with “Good” status and
four with a “Mediocre” status.

Fig. 4. Examples of Microplastics found along the central Caribbean Coast of Colombia. A–F) Fibers, G–K) fragments, L–P) foam and Q–U) pellets.

6
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Fig. 5. Geographical distribution of Microplastic Pollution Index (MPPI) and Coefficient of Microplastic Impact (CMPI) by shape.

7
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Fig. 6. Sector Analysis Approach: Integration of Microplastic Pollution Index (MPPI) with Environmental Status Index (ESI). This approach confirms that the study
area has numerous MPs magnitudes which currently are negatively influencing environmental quality of beaches.

Fig. 7. Groups by similarity levels between beaches and MP shapes presented by use of Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) and Principal Components
Analysis (PCA). These analyses allow separation into three groups of beaches. The PCA scatterplot shows factors F1 and F2 as responsible for almost 81% of the
total variance.

8
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al.
• Group B: This group involves five beaches that encompass 18% of all
MPs found with an average density of 943 MPs/kg. Fibers in this
group accounting the 81% (Avg: 760 MPs/kg), fragments the 11%
(Avg: 111 MPs/kg), foam 5% (Avg: 51 MPs/kg) and pellets 2% (20
MPs/kg). Beaches inside this group can be considered with a “High”
MPs presence, and in terms of environmental status, four beaches can
be considered with a “Mediocre” status, and one is “Good”.
• Group C: This group includes ten beaches that encompass 61% of all
MPs found along the study area with an average density of 1539
MPs/kg. Fibers account for 78% (Avg: 1134 MPs/kg), fragments for
10% (Avg: 187 MPs/kg), foam 8% (Avg: 143 MPs/kg) and pellets 4%
(74 MPs/kg). In terms of the MPS pollution index, all beaches can be
classified with a “Moderate” MPs presence. Beaches inside this group
can be considered with “High” (5) and “Very High” (5) MPs presence.
In terms of environmental status, eight beaches can be considered as
“Mediocre,” and two are “Bad.”
Having defined these three groups of beaches, measuring this envi­
ronmental data in terms of its principal components is helpful. The PCA
scatterplot shows factors F1 and F2 as responsible for almost 81% of the
total variance (Fig. 7). Also, there is a clear trend along the first
component (F1) from beaches with the lowest MPs densities to the left
(Group A) to those beaches with the highest densities located on the
center-right part of the X-axis (Groups B and C).
The PCA vector plot highlights MPs shapes that reach distinct loca­
tions on the principal axes, and hence these determine the correspond­
ing axis positions for the beaches (Fig. 7). In the same way, the high
degree of pollution related to MPs presence along the central Caribbean
Coast of Colombia is also confirmed. In that sense, the clusters formed
after the application of AHC, MDS, and PCA make a distinction between:
• Beaches in tolerable conditions with a “Moderate” MPs presence -
Group A (e.g., A4 - Pradomar urban).
• Beaches in bad conditions with a “High” MPs presence - Group B (e.
g., A26 - Galerazamba).
• Beaches in extremely bad conditions due to “high” and “very high”
MPs densities- Group C (e.g., A24 - Punta Astilleros).
Having identified MPs' magnitudes and environmental impacts along
the study area, two critical questions must be solved: How MPs' were
formed? How did they enter into the beach environment?
According to NOAA (2015), Zeng (2018) and Franklin et al. (2021)
there are two ways in which MPs can be formed and enter (sources/
origins) the beach environment:
As primary MPs: manufactured raw-plastic material directly
released into the environment that enters the beach via runoff from
land (Williams and Rangel-Buitrago, 2019). Examples of primary
MPs are plastic pellets, personal care products containing microbe­
ads, paint, washing wastewater, sewage sludge, plastic running
tracks in schools, artificial turf, rubber road in cities, and vehicle tire
wear (Arthur et al., 2009; Andrady, 2011; Williams and Rangel-
Buitrago, 2019).
As secondary MPs: originated from larger plastic items (meso and
macro plastics) which, after entering a beach, undergo fragmenta­
tion due to mechanical, chemical, and biological processes (Williams
et al., 2005; Thompson, 2015; Harris, 2020). Examples of secondary
MPs are municipal litter such as plastic bags and bottles, fishing-
related items, farming film, and other large-size plastic litter.
Microplastic magnitudes observed in this work highlight an elevated
and continuous input of plastics in all its sizes (macro, meso, and
microplastics), and suggest a combination of sources along the study
area.
Observed shapes (fibers, fragments, foam, and pellets), suggest both
primary and secondary origins for the MPs found along the study area.
9
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685
Primary MPs are originating inside three drainage basins and then end
up along the coastline (Magdalena, Mallorquin, and Caribe). These three
basins act as pathways that collect and transport various MPs toward
study-area beaches. The most important of these basins is the Magdalena
River basin, the most extensive river system in Colombia, with a
catchment area covering 259,618 km2 occupying the 25% of the
Colombian territory. This basin encompasses 724 municipalities
concentrating 32,086,273 inhabitants, 63% of the total population of
Colombia (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018). This basin ejects 2097 tons/
year of MPs into the Caribbean Sea (Lebreton et al., 2017; Schmidt et al.,
2017). The other two basins are the “Caribe” and “Mallorquin” basins
which drain an area of 1365 km2 constricted to the central Caribbean of
Colombia's coastal zone. Both coastal basins encompass 11 of the 23
municipalities of the entire department, concentrating 36 small rivers
that flow directly to the sea, and where 1,563,400 inhabitants currently
live (60% of the department total). According to Ocean Clean-up data
(2020) the 36 small rivers of these two small basins contribute 13 tons/
year of MPs into the Caribbean Sea waters.
In the entire country, human settlements located close to, or in, river
basins and other water bodies have minimal basic sanitation and
wastewater treatment. Basically, MPs are not removed, so a high
pollutant load is directly discharged into rivers and then the sea (Rangel-
Buitrago et al., 2017). In the same way, litter (mainly plastic) is dumped
into rivers, burned, buried, thrown into open dumps, or is disposed of in
landfills, and even in ecosystems like mangroves (Garcés-Ordóñez et al.,
2019) and dunes (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018).
This plastic input to beaches from rivers is magnified by extreme
rainfall events and increase the risk of plastic floods of different sizes
(Fig. 8). For example, in April 2021, heavy rains in the city of Barran­
quilla moved more than 2500 tons of plastic items along urban basins for
five days; just one rainfall event (10 April) transported at least 540 tons
of plastic materials.
Secondary MPs originate after degradation and fragmentation of
plastic items (i.e., caps/lids, lolly sticks, drinks - bottles, containers and
drums, cups, among others) that reach beaches through activities car­
ried out along river basins, or directly within beach areas. Plastic
degradation and fragmentation are due to physical, biological, and
chemical processes such as light irradiation, mechanical grinding, or
bioerosion (Williams and Simmons, 1996; Cole et al., 2011). Some ac­
tivities that contribute to secondary MPs generation are:
Dumping activities: Dumping activities along the study area are
based on tossing, tipping, or depositing plastic items on/or nearby
streets and in river basins to then end up accumulating along bea­
ches. The dominant dumped items in the study area include plastic/
polystyrene pieces 0–2.5 cm, shopping bags, plastic ends, toys, and
party poppers, combs/hairbrushes, and plastic containers (bottles,
food trays, and drums).
Activities developed on beaches: Plastic items (mainly single-use
plastics) are carried, used, and then discarded at the same beach
by users during/after their beach-use activities. Main plastic items
related to activities developed on beaches include caps/lids, lolly
sticks, bottles, containers and drums, cups, cutlery/trays/straws,
shoes/sandals.
Medical and sanitary activities: Medical and sanitary plastic items
include those that are not being collected in leak-proof or sufficiently
strong containers to prevent breakage during handling. Plastics
related to these activities found along the study area mainly include
pharmaceutical products, medicine bottles, and used dextrose pipes/
syringes.
Smoking-related activities: Plastics related to these activities
include cigarette lighters carried, used, and then discarded at the
same beach by smokers.
Ocean and waterway activities: Nets, ropes, packaging materials,
and raw plastics that are accidentally or intentionally discarded
during fishing activities.
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685

Fig. 8. Examples of how plastics reach surveyed beaches. a) Dumped into rivers (Note the volume of solid waste blocked by the cross-channel refuse barrier, b)
buried and exposed after an extreme wave event and c) disposed of in ecosystems such as dunes.

Microplastics are floating in the surface microlayer (Cozar et al.,
2014) and are suspended in the water column (Kukulka et al., 2012,
2009; Isobe et al., 2017; Enders et al., 2015). They act as passive tracers
and are transported in the same direction of river flow (Adomat and
Grischek, 2021), longshore and ocean currents, as well as wind and
waves (Zhang et al., 2017).
No matter the origin, longshore-current transport influences the MPs
transport along the study area (Fig. 9). Along the 23 beaches surveyed,
MPs transport is related to NE, ENE, and E diffracted wavefronts
(sporadically from N and NNW). Those wave directions give rise to an
SW-oriented longshore current that moves MPs from NE/E to SW/W.
In ocean waters, MPs are transported by two dominant currents
(Fig. 9): i) The Caribbean Current which is a warm ocean current that
moves significant amounts of water, and flows west-northwestward
through the Caribbean from the east along the coast of South America
and into the Gulf of Mexico (Wust, 1963; Morrison and Nowlin, 1982)

Fig. 9. Left: Main MPs circulation pathways under average wave conditions. Right: Main oceanic current and coastal circulation patterns responsible of MPs
transport along Caribbean of Colombia Ocean waters.

10
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al.
and ii) the Panama-Colombia Gyre (PCG) which is a cyclonic current
that flows counter-clockwise to the Caribbean Current (Schott and
Molinari, 1996; Mooers and Maul, 1998).
Wind also influences MPs' transport processes due to its ability to
move items from beaches to backshore and dune systems. Winds along
the study area have mean velocity values of 12.5 km/h and mainly come
from the NE, NNE, and NW. Higher wind velocities reach 49 km/h and
are associated with winds blowing from the NE during December–April.
For the rest of the year, winds blow from the E with a low velocity, with
values that fall below 5 m/s (Anfuso et al., 2015; Rangel-Buitrago et al.,
2018). Large amounts of all sizes of plastics have been buried by dune
deposition, and are regularly re-exposed due to wave erosion of dune
faces to add to the total plastics on the beaches (Fig. 8b).
Excessive growth of MPs into the coastal-marine environment results
from unsustainable use of plastics, and poor or lack of litter management
practices by a society addicted to this product. Plastics and subsequent
MPs generation have become one of the most significant environmental
crises of our times (Finkl, 2013; Pilkey and Cooper, 2014; Williams and
Rangel-Buitrago, 2019; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2020).
Litter management in general is a very thorny issue, as there is no
clearly defined universal blueprint even for macro-litter. Everyone
agrees that litter should be cut off at the source, but this approach is very
problematic, especially with respect to MPs with their ubiquitous global
distribution by water and air. The latter is a relatively recent finding and
Brahney et al. (2021) showed that atmospheric transport is causing
micro-plastics to build up in unexpected regions, with high concentra­
tions found in national parks and rural regions far away from cities and
oceans. The jet stream allows micro-plastics to accumulate in extremely
remote regions. As plastic production is increasing at a rate of roughly
4% per year, a better understanding of the source of micro-plastics, their
transport mechanisms, and the potential risk to health are research areas
that must be highly prioritized. The scale of the issue has become, as
Sherlock Holmes would comment, ‘a three-pipe problem’ (Conan-Doyle,
1892). Planet earth was estimated in 2014 (Eriksen et al., 2014) to be
contaminated with trillions of plastic pieces weighing over 250 million
tons, much of this material in beaches and the marine environment.
Under current scenarios, the MPs issue is far from being reduced
because self-serving market decisions encourage the increase in pro­
duction and consumption of plastics. In 2015, 99 million metric tons
(Mt) of mismanaged plastic waste were produced globally. In a business-
as-usual scenario, this figure could triple to 155–265 Mt/year by 2060
(Lebreton and Andrady, 2019).
In Colombia (as worldwide), the excessive plastic production and
consumption and the related MPs generation have brought about a se­
vere environmental problem that is now out of control, and the resulting
adverse effects are occurring at multiple levels and scales. Each
Colombian has an average plastic consumption of 25 kg per year and
plastics use and consumption ramped from 1075 tons/day (392,482
tons/year) in 2010 (Jambeck et al., 2015) to 3424 tons/day (1,250,000
tons/year) in 2019 (DANE, 2019); an annual growth rate of 24.2%. Of
this plastic consumption, 56% (1917 tons/day) corresponds with single-
use plastics, higher than the world average of 46% (UNEP, 2020).
Current management strategies have attempted to mitigate the
negative impacts of plastic pollution. However, these strategies are not
enough to counteract the increasing quantities of plastic that enter the
coastal and marine environment each second.
To tackle the MPs problem, it is necessary to stop or at least reduce
plastic inputs into the environment. According to Prata et al. (2020),
Williams and Rangel-Buitrago (2019), and Rangel-Buitrago et al.
(2020), an approach to reach this goal must cover the entire plastic life
cycle (extraction, design, production, use, disposal, recovery, recycling).
This approach must engage all economic sectors as well as the public,
but is in its infancy. Given the evident environmental problems related
to MPs presence and magnitudes. Current MPs management within the
study area is far from being optimal, on a global basis, only 10% of
plastic waste generated is recycled with the remainder following a linear
11
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685
economy model, involving disposal or incineration (Thunman et al.,
2019). General actions such as: Knowledge, Eco-design, Regulation,
Reduction, Removal/Collection, Sorting, Treatment, Mitigation,
Extended Producer Responsibility, Controls at origins/sources, and
Behavior Change must be addressed to stop or at least minimize the
current MPs production for the study area.
These actions must be combined to be successful because no one
management strategy fits all. Better environmental quality can be
reached if the people in the central Caribbean Colombian Coast do their
job within the plastics lifecycle through an integrated litter management
system, reducing collateral impacts, and following the hierarchy of litter
management using the five R's: reduce, reuse, repair, recycle, and
recover. Necessity calls for a shift in mindsets and behavior toward
eliminating or reducing our “plastic dependence”. Thus, a decline in
(micro)plastic production and consumption will be for our good as well
as for the good of the environment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nelson Rangel-Buitrago: Conceptualization, Methodology, Vali­
dation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Harry Arroyo-Olarte: Methodology, Validation, Formal anal­
ysis. Jorge Trilleras: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis. Vic­
toria Andrea Arana: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis. Egna
Mantilla-Barbosa: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis. C.
Adriana Gracia: Conceptualization, Validation, Formal analysis,
Writing – review & editing. Anubis Velez Mendoza: Methodology.
William J. Neal: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. Allan T. Williams: Conceptualization, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Anton Micallef: Conceptu­
alization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
This work is a contribution from research groups “Geología, Geo­
física y Procesos Marino-Costeros”, “Investigación Ciencias, Educación y
Tecnología-CETIC” and “Investigación en Compuestos Heterocíclicos”,
Universidad del Atlántico, “Department of Geology”, Grand Valley State
University (USA), “Coastal and Marine Research Group,” the University
of Wales Trinity Saint David (Wales) and “Euro-Mediterranean Centre
on Insular Coastal Dynamics- Institute of Earth Systems” University of
Malta (Malta).
References
Abayomi, O., Range, P., Al-Ghouti, M., Obbard, J., Almeer, S., Ben-Hamadou, R., 2017.
Microplastics in coastal environments of the Arabian Gulf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124 (1),
181–188.
Abidi, M., Amor, R.B., Gueddari, M., 2018. Assessment of the trophic status of the South
Lagoon of Tunis (Tunisia, Mediterranean Sea): geochemical and statistical
approaches. J. Chem., 9859546
Acosta, I., Olivero-Verbel, J., 2015. Microplastic resin pellets on an urban tropical beach
in Colombia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187 (7), 435.
Adomat, Y., Grischek, T., 2021. Sampling and processing methods of microplastics in
river sediments - a review. Sci. Total Environ. 758, 143691.
Alongi, D., 1998. Coastal Ecosystem Processes. CRC Press, London.
Andrady, A., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (8),
1596–1605.
Anfuso, G., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Correa, I., 2015. Evolution of sandspits along the
Caribbean Coast of Colombia: natural and human influences. In: Randazzo, G.,
Jackson, D., Cooper, J.A. (Eds.), Sand and Gravel Spits. Springer, New York,
pp. 1–21.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., 2009. Proceedings of the International Research
Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Sept
9–11, 2008, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R30.
Atwood, E.C., Falcieri, F.M., Piehl, S., Bochow, M., Matthies, M., Franke, J., Carniel, S.,
Sclavo, M., Laforsch, C., Siegert, F., 2019. Coastal accumulation of microplastic
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al.
particles emitted from the Po River, Northern Italy: comparing remote sensing and
hydrodynamic modelling within situ sample collections. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138,
561–574.
Barboza, L., Gimenez, C., 2015. Microplastics in the marine environment: current trends
and future perspectives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 97 (1–2), 5–12.
Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., 2015. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer
International Publishing, Berlin.
Bergmann, M., Wirzberger, V., Krumpen, T., Lorenz, C., Primpke, S., Tekman, M., 2017.
Microplastics in Arctic deep-sea sediments from the Hausgarten observatory.
Pangaea 51 (19), 11000–11010.
Bissen, R., Chawchai, S., 2020. Microplastics on beaches along the eastern Gulf of
Thailand – a preliminary study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 111345.
Black, R.W., Barnes, A., Elliot, C., Lanksbury, J., 2018. Nearshore Sediment Monitoring
for the Stormwater Action Monitoring (SAM) Program, Puget Sound, Western
Washington Scientific Investigations Report, vol. 2018. USGS, Reston, VA, p. 66.
Brahney, J., Mahowald, N., Prank, M., 2021. Constraining the atmospheric limb of the
plastic cycle. PNAS 118 (16), e2020719118.
Bridson, J., Patel, M., Lewis, A., Gaw, S., Parker, K., 2020. Microplastic contamination in
Auckland(New Zealand) beach sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, 110867.
Chen, M., Chen, T., 2020. Spatial and seasonal distribution of microplastics on sandy
beaches along the coast of the Hengchun Peninsula, Taiwan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151,
110861.
Coe, J., Rogers, D.B., 1997. Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer,
New York (432pp).
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, Y., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants
in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12), 2588–2597.
Conan-Doyle, A., 1892. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Red headed League.
George Neames (305 pp.).
Corcoran, P., Moore, C., Jazvac, K., 2014. An anthropogenic marker horizon in the future
rock record. GSA Today 24 (6), G198A.
Costello, J., Ebert, J., 2020. Microplastic pollutants in the coastal dunes of Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46 (2), 1754–1760.
Cozar, A., Echevarria, F., Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoen, X., Ubeda, B., Palma, A., 2014.
Plastic debris in the open ocean. PNAS 111 (28), 10239–10244.
DANE, 2019. Departamento Nacional de Estadística. Boletín Técnico. Cuenta Ambiental
y Económica de Residuos sólidos. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/files
/investigaciones/pib/ambientales/cuentas_ambientales/cuentas residuos/Bt-
Cuenta-residuos-2016p.pdf.
Davis, R., Fitzgerald, D., 2004. Beaches and Coasts. Blackwell Science, London.
Dean, R.G., Dalrymple, R.A., 2002. Coastal Processes With Engineering Applications.
Cambridge University Press, London.
Deng, H., He, J., Feng, D., Zhao, Y., Sun, W., Yu, H., Ge, C., 2021. Microplastics pollution
in mangrove ecosystems: a critical review of current knowledge and future
directions. Sci. Total Environ. 753, 142041.
Dodson, G.Z., Shotorban, A.K., Hatcher, P.G., Waggoner, D.C., Ghosal, S., Noffke, N.,
2020. Microplastic fragment and fiber contamination of beach sediments from
selected sites in Virginia and North Carolina, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, 110869.
Enders, K., Lenz, R., Stedmon, C., Nielsen, T., 2015. Abundance, size and polymer
composition of marine microplastics ≥10μm in the Atlantic Ocean and their
modelled vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100 (1), 70–81.
Eriksen, M., Thiel, M., Lebreton, L., 2014. Nature of plastic marine pollution in the
subtropical gyres. In: Takada, H., Karapanagioti, H. (Eds.), Hazardous Chemicals
Associated With Plastics in the Marine Environment. The Handbook of
Environmental Chemistry, vol 78. Springer, Cham.
Finkl, C., 2013. Costal Hazards. Springer, New York (372pp).
Firdaus, M., Trihadiningrum, Y., Lestari, P., 2020. Microplastic pollution in the sediment
of Jagir Estuary, Surabaya City, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110790.
Franklin, S., Franklin, J., Rey, S., 2021. Microplastic pollution on island beaches, Oahu,
Hawai’i. PLoS One 16 (2), e0247224.
Frias, J., Nash, R., 2019. Microplastics: finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 138, 145–147.
Frias, J., Gago, J., Otero, V., Sobral, P., 2016. Microplastics in coastal sediments from
Southern Portuguese shelf waters. Mar. Environ. Res. 114, 24–30.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Castillo, V., Granados, A., Blando, L., Espoinosa, L., 2019. Marine
litter and microplastic pollution on mangrove soils of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa
Marta, Colombian Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 145, 455–462.
GESAMP, 2015. Sources, Fate and Effects of Plastics and Micro-plastics in the Marine
Environment. Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection, Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 90.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Lavender, K., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Law Sci. Adv., e1700782
Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Flórez, P., 2018. Beach litter and woody debris
colonizers on the Atlantico Department Caribbean coastline, Colombia. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 128, 185–196.
Guerranti, C., Cannas, S., Scopetani, C., Fastelli, P., Cincinelli, A., Renzi, M., 2017. Plastic
litter in aquatic environments of Maremma Regional Park (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy):
contribution by the Ombrone river and levels in marine sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
117 (1–2), 366–370.
Gusmão, F., Domenico, M.D., Amaral, A.C.Z., Martínez, A., Gonzalez, B.C., Worsaae, K.,
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Cunha Lana, P., 2016. In situ ingestion of microfibres by meiofauna
from sandy beaches. Environ. Pollut. 216, 584–590.
Haave, M., Lorenz, C., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2019. Different stories told by small and
large microplastics in sediment - first report of microplastic concentrations in an
urban recipient in Norway. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 501–513.
Harris, P., 2020. The fate of microplastic in marine sedimentary environments: a review
and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 158, 111398.
12
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Honorato-Zimmer, D., Gatta-Rosemary, M., Nuñez, P., Hinojosa, I.,
Thiel, M., 2018. Spatio-temporal variation of anthropogenic marine debris on
Chilean Beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 126, 516–524.
Horn, D., Miller, M., Anderson, S., Stelele, 2019. Microplastics are ubiquitous on
California beaches and enter the coastal food web through consumption by Pacific
mole crabs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 139, 231–237.
Isobe, A., Matsumoto, K., Uchida, K., Tokai, T., 2017. Microplastics in the Southern
Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (1), 623–626.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., 2015.
Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223), 768–771.
Kukulka, T., Plueddemann, A.J., Trowbridge, J.H., Sullivan, P.P., 2009. Significance of
Langmuir circulation in upper ocean mixing: comparison of observations and
simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L10603.
Kukulka, T., Proskurowski, G., Morét-Ferguson, S., Meyer, D.W., Law, K.L., 2012. The
effect of wind mixing on the vertical distribution of buoyant plastic debris. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 39, L07601.
Langford, E., 2006. Quartiles in elementary statistics. J. Stat. Educ. 14 (3), 1–6.
Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and
disposal. Nat. Commun. 5, 6.
Lebreton, L., Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J., 2017. River plastic
emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 15611.
Lots, F., Behrens, P., Vijver, M., Horton, A., Bosker, T., 2017. A large-scale investigation
of microplastic contamination: abundance and characteristics of microplastics in
European beach sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123 (1–2), 219–226.
Lusher, A., Tirelli, V., O’Connor, I., Officer, R., 2015. Microplastics in Arctic polar waters:
the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Nat.
Commun. 5, 14947.
Masiá, P., Ardura, A., Garcia-Vazquez, E., 2019. Microplastics in special protected areas
for migratory birds in the Bay of Biscay. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 993–1001.
Masselink, G., Hughes, M., Knight, J., 2014. Introduction to Coastal Processes and
Geomorphology. Routledge, London.
Masura, J., Baker, J., Foster, G., Arthur, C., 2015. Laboratory methods for the analysis of
microplastics in the marine environment: recommendations for quantifying
synthetic particles in waters and sediments. In: NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-
OR&R-48.
Matsuguma, Y., Takada, H., Kumata, H., Kanke, H., Sakurai, S., 2017. Microplastics in
sediment cores from Asia and Africa as indicators of temporal trends in plastic
pollution. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 73, 230–239.
Mistri, M., Scoponi, M., Granata, T., Moruzzi, L., Massara Munari, C., 2020. Types,
occurrence and distribution of microplastics in sediments from the northern
Tyrrhenian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 153, 111016.
Mooers, C.N.K., Maul, G.A., 1998. Intra-Americas Sea Circulation, in the Sea. John Wiley,
New York.
Morrison, J.M., Nowlin, W.D., 1982. General distributions of water masses within the
Eastern Caribbean Sea during the winter of 1972 and fall of 1973. J. Geophys. Res.
87, 4207–4229.
Nguyen, Q., Nguyen, H., Strady, E., Nguyen, T., Dang, M., Vo, M., 2020. Characteristics
of microplastics in shoreline sediments from a tropical and urbanized beach (Da
Nang, Vietnam). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 161, 111768.
NOAA, 2015. What are the microplastics? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts
/microplastics.html.
Nuelle, M.-T., Dekiff, J.H., Remy, D., Fries, E., 2014. A new analytical approach for
monitoring microplastics in marine sediments. Environ. Pollut. 184, 161–169.
Obbard, R., 2018. Microplastics in polar regions: the role of long-range transport. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 1, 24–29.
Piehl, S., Mitterwallner, V., Atwood, E., Bochow, M., Laforsh, C., 2019. Abundance and
distribution of large microplastics (1–5 mm) within beach sediments at the Po River
Delta, northeast Italy. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110515.
Pilkey, O.H., Cooper, A.G., 2014. The Last Beach. Duke University Press, Durham.
Pilkey, O., Neal, W.J., Kelley, J., Cooper, A., 2011. The World’s Beaches: A Global Guide
to the Science of the Shoreline. University of California Press, Berkley.
Prata, J.C., Da Costa, J.P., Lopes, I., Duarte, A.C., Rocha-Santos, T., 2020. Environmental
exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible human health effects. Sci. Total
Environ. 702, 134455.
Rangel-Buitrago, N.G., Williams, A., Anfuso, G., Arias, M., Gracia, A., 2017. Magnitudes,
sources, and management of beach litter along the Atlantico department coastline,
Caribbean coast of Colombia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 138, 142–157.
Rangel-Buitrago, N.G., Williams, A., Anfuso, G., 2018. Killing the goose with the golden
eggs: litter effects on scenic quality of the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 127, 22–38.
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Velez, A., Gracia, A., Mantilla, E., Arana, V., Trilleras, J., Arroyo-
Olarte, H., 2019. Litter impacts on cleanliness and environmental status of Atlantico
department beaches, Colombian Caribbean coast. Ocean Coast. Manag. 179, 104835.
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Velez-Mendoza, A., Gracia, A., Neal, W., 2020. The impact of
anthropogenic litter on Colombia’s central Caribbean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
152, 110909.
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Velez, A., Mantilla, E., Arroyo-Olarte, H., Arana, V., Trilleras, J.,
Gracia, A., Neal, W., Williams, A., 2021. Plastic pollution on the Colombian central
Caribbean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162, 111837.
Ronda, A.C., Arias, A.H., Oliva, A.L., Marcovecchio, J.E., 2019. Synthetic microfibers in
marine sediments and surface seawater from the Argentinean continental shelf and a
marine protected area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110618.
Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S., 2017. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 12246–12253.
N. Rangel-Buitrago et al.
Schott, F.A., Molinari, R.L., 1996. The western boundary circulation of the subtropical
warmwatersphere. In: Krauss, W. (Ed.), The Warmwatersphere of the North Atlantic
Ocean. Gebrueder Bontraeger, Berlin, pp. 229–252.
Schulz, M., Neumanm, D., Fleet, D., Matthies, M., 2013. A multi-criteria evaluation
system for marine litter pollution based on statistical analyses of OSPAR beach litter
monitoring time series. Mar. Environ. Res. 92, 61–70.
Sruthy, S., Ramasamy, E.V., 2017. Microplastic pollution in Vembanad Lake, Kerala,
India: the first report of microplastics in lake and estuarine sediments in India.
Environ. Pollut. 222, 315–322.
Stachowitsch, M., 2019. The Beachcomber's Guide to Marine Debris. Springer,
Amsterdam.
Stager, C., 2011. Deep Future. The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth. Thomas Dunne
Books, New York.
Tekman, M.B., Wekerle, C., Lorenz, C., Primpke, S., Hasemann, C., Gerdts, G., 2020.
Tying up loose ends of microplastic pollution in the Arctic: distribution from the sea
surface, through the water column to deep-sea sediments at the HAUSGARTEN
observatory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 4079–4090.
Thompson, R.C., 2015. Microplastics in the marine environment: sources, consequences
and solutions. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic
Litter. Springer, Cham.
Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G., 2004.
Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304, 838.
Thunman, H., Berdugo, T., Seeman, M., Maric, J., Vela, I., Pissot, S., Nguyen, H., 2019.
Circular use of plastics-transformation of existing petrochemical clusters into
thermochemical recycling plants with 100% plastics recovery. Sustain. Mater.
Technol. 22, e00124.
UN, 2019. Marine litter. https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas
/what-we-do/working-regional-seas/marine-litter. (Accessed 23 April 2020).
UNEP, 2020. Sustainable Coastal Tourism – An Integrated Planning Management
Approach. United Nations Environment Programme, Milan.
13
Marine Pollution Bulletin 170 (2021) 112685
Wang, X., Huang, W., Wei, S., Shang, Y., Gu, H., Wu, F., Lan, Z., Hu, M., Shi, H.,
Wang, Y., 2020. Microplastics impair digestive performance but show little effects on
antioxidant activity in mussels under low pH conditions. Environ. Pollut. 258,
113691.
Williams, A., Micallef, A., 2009. Beach Management: Principles and Practice.
EARTHSCAN, London.
Williams, A.T., Rangel-Buitrago, N., 2019. Marine litter: solutions for a major
environmental problem. J. Coast. Res. 35 (3), 648–663.
Williams, A.T., Simmons, S.L., 1996. The degradation of plastic litter in rivers:
implications for beaches. J. Coast. Conserv. 2 (1), 63–72.
Williams, A.T., Gregory, M., Tudor, D.T., 2005. Marine debris – onshore, offshore,
seafloor. In: Schwartz, M.L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Coastal Processes. Springer,
pp. 623–628.
Woodall, L.C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L., Coppock, R., Sleight, V.,
Calafat, A., Rogers, A.D., Narayanaswamy, B.E., Thompson, R.C., 2014. The deep sea
is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 1, 140317.
Wu, X., Zhong, C., Wang, T., Zou, X., Zang, Z., 2020. Occurrence and distribution of
microplastics on recreational beaches of Haichow Bay, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 28, 6132–6145.
Wust, G., 1963. On the stratification and the circulation in the cold-water sphere of the
Antillean-Caribbean basins. Deep-Sea Res. 10, 165–187.
Zeng, E.Y., 2018. Microplastic Contamination in Aquatic Environments - An Emerging
Matter of Environmental Urgency. Elsevier.
Zhang, C., Chen, X., Wang, J., Tan, L., 2017. Toxic effects of microplastic on marine
microalgae Skeletonema costatum: interactions between microplastic and algae.
Environ. Pollut. 220, 1282–1288.
Zobkov, M., Esiukova, E., 2017. Microplastics in Baltic bottom sediments: quantification
procedures and first results. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (2), 724–732.
Zobkov, M., Esiukova, E.E., Zyubin, A.Y., Samusev, I.G., 2019. Microplastic content
variation in water column: the observations employing a novel sampling tool in
stratified Baltic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138, 193–205.