Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Pollution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Plastic litter pollution along sandy beaches in the Caribbean and

Pacific coast of Colombia*

s-Ordo
Ostin Garce ~ ez a, b, d, *, Luisa F. Espinosa a, b, d, Renan Pereira Cardoso c, d,

n

rbara Barroso Issa Cardozo c, d, Roberto Meigikos dos Anjos c, d
Ba
a
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras, Jos
e Benito Vives de Andr
es eINVEMAR, Santa Marta, Colombia
b
Red de vigilancia para La Conservacio
n y Proteccio

n de Las Aguas Marinas y Costeras de Colombia, REDCAM, Colombia
c
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Instituto de Física, Laborato
rio de Radioecologia e Alteraço
~es Ambientais (LARA). Nitero

i, RJ, Brazil
d
Red de Investigacio
n de Los Estresores Marino Costeros de Latinoam
erica y El Caribe, REMARCO, Colombia

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

Article history: Plastic pollution is a global problem that poses a threat to coastal and marine ecosystems and human
Received 12 June 2020 livelihoods and requires effective solutions adaptable to local conditions. In Colombia, the knowledge
Received in revised form about marine plastic pollution is still limited and the development of effective strategies for managing
21 July 2020
marine and coastal environments is crucial. Therefore, plastic pollution was assessed on 43 Colombian
Accepted 20 August 2020
sandy beaches on the Caribbean and Pacific coasts. Amounts of macroplastic ranged from 35 ± 15 to
Available online 8 September 2020
81 ± 23 items 100 m
1, being product’s packaging the most common. Microplastic densities ranged from
3 to 1387 items m
2. The highest microplastic concentrations were found on the beaches from Caribbean
Keywords:
Marine debris
cities and in rural areas of Pacific municipalities. Fragments and polyethylene were the most commonly
Microplastics pollution observed shape and polymer categories, respectively. Tourism and poor waste management practices are
FTIR analysis the primary plastic sources on the studied beaches. Plastic litter on Colombian beaches are a problem
Solid waste management that requires prevention, mitigation, and control actions to help conserve this ecosystem.
Source pollution © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Due to the negative impacts that plastic materials produce on
coastal and marine ecosystems and the risks they represent for the
human livelihood (Lo €hr et al., 2017; Anta
~o-Barboza et al., 2018),
marine plastic pollution has become a problem of global concern
that must be tackled from different perspectives (scientific, tech-
nological, and socio-economic). Concerns are growing because of
the increasing global production of plastics: In 2016, the global
average production was 335 million tons, of them between 33% and
50% was designed to be non-reusable (Crawford and Quinn, 2017;
Alimba and Faggio, 2019). The excessive use of disposables items,
such as shopping bags (Wagner, 2017), the little recycling, and
inadequate handling (Hopewell et al., 2009) are also worrisome
factors. In addition, it is estimated that between 4.8 and 12.7
* 4.0 million tons per year. Once in the marine and coastal environ-
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Maria Cristina Fossi.
* Corresponding author. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras
eINVEMAR, Programa Calidad Ambiental Marina. Calle 25 No. 2-55 playa Salguero,
Santa Marta, Colombia.

s-Ordo
E-mail address: ostin.garces@invemar.org.co (O. Garce
n~ ez).
million metric tons of waste plastics reached the oceans in 2010
through different ways and activities (Jambeck et al., 2015), rep-
resenting between 42 and 96% of the solid waste in the marine and
coastal environments (In ~ iguez et al., 2016).
Plastics reaching the ocean come from multiple sources:
through coastal recreational activities, accidents during their
manipulating and transportation, domestic and industrial waste-
water discharges, solid waste leaks, extreme climatic events such as
storms and floods, commercial fishing, aquaculture, and agriculture
(Li et al., 2016; Vlachogianni et al., 2018; Cowger et al., 2019). Rivers
are receptors and transport routes for plastic litter from the
continent to the oceans (Schmidt et al., 2017). Lebreton et al. (2017)
estimated that rivers introduced between 1.15 and 2.41 million tons
of plastics into the oceans per year, identifying Asian streams as the
main contributors. Another assessment of the litter introduction by
the rivers are made by Schmidt et al. (2017), who estimated that the
range of plastic emission from rivers to the sea is between 0.41 and
ments, plastic litter can be carried by wind and wave actions over
long distances, accumulating in coastal ecosystems, oceanic gyres,
and the seabed (Auta et al., 2017; Alimba and Faggio, 2019).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115495
0269-7491/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495
Plastic marine litter is classified according to their size into
megaplastics (>1 m), macroplastics (25e1000 mm), mesoplastics
(5e25 mm), microplastics (<5 mm), and nanoplastics (<1 mm)
(GESAMP, 2019). Microplastics are classified according to their
origin as primary and secondary (Auta et al., 2017). Secondary
microplastics come from the fragmentation of larger plastics due to
environmental conditions to which they are exposed, such as UV
radiation, chemical reactions, microorganisms, and waves
(Weinstein et al., 2016; Auta et al., 2017; Andrady, 2017; Guo and
Wang, 2019). On the other hand, the primary are millimetric or
sub-millimetric size microplastics from manufactured products,
such as pre-production pellets, air-blasting media cosmetics, de-
tergents, toothpaste, among others (Boucher and Friot, 2017).
Microplastics reach the marine environments mainly by untreated
wastewater (Cole et al., 2011; Philip et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019;
Cowger et al., 2019). These pollutants present variable shapes and
colors, like plankton, reason why the probability to be ingested by
marine organisms at different trophic levels is high (Ory et al.,
2017). Nonetheless, many of their effects on living beings are still
unknown (Auta et al., 2017; Botterell et al., 2019).
Colombia is a transcontinental country situated in the north-
west of South America, bordered by the Caribbean Sea and the
Pacific Ocean. Studies on macrolitter and microplastics in the ma-
rine and Colombian coastal environments, showed high pollution
and impacts on sensitive ecosystems, such as mangroves (Riascos
et al., 2019; Garce
s-Ordo
n
~ ez et al., 2019; Garce
s-Ordo

n~ ez and
Bayona-Arenas, 2019), including the ingestion of microplastics by
fish (Ory et al., 2018; Caldero
n et al., 2019; Garce

s-Ordo
n
~ ez et al.,
2020a) and beaches, generating impacts on the landscape and
tourism potential (Williams et al., 2016; Rangel-Buitrago et al.,
2018; Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez et al., 2020b); and also the accumulation of
primary microplastic in industrialized areas and their interaction
with heavy metals and organisms (Acosta-Coley and Olivero-
Verbel, 2015; Acosta-Coley et al., 2019a, b).
Most of the studies were conducted in specific areas in the
Caribbean region. Therefore, at a national scale have scarce infor-
mation about the macroplastic and microplastic pollution (Carib-
bean and Pacific coast). On the other hand, the problem of marine
litter on the Caribbean coast could be more significant than on the
Pacific coast, with tourism being the primary source of marine litter
on Caribbean beaches. This may be associated with regional
geographic differences, such as different coastal dynamics,
restricted access to some coastal regions given the natural condi-
tions and historical, social conflicts in the Pacific, and the higher
number of inhabitants and the greater development of cities, in-
dustries, and tourism activity in the Caribbean (INVEMAR, 2018).
In order to obtain new scientific information at a national level,
essential to assist in the generation of updated regulatory tools for
the prevention, mitigation, and control of marine plastic litter, the
aims of this study were: (1) to identify the most common macro-
plastics types, (2) to assess the status and distribution of micro-
plastic pollution, and (3) to identify the main sources of plastic litter
along sandy beaches in the Caribbean and Pacific coast of Colombia.
This study also aims to contribute to the knowledge of the status
and spatial distribution of plastic pollution in marine coastal areas
on a regional scale.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling area
Forty-three Colombian sandy beaches were selected, of these
twenty-three are on the Caribbean coast, five in the insular Carib-
bean (San Andres Island), and fifteen on the Pacific coast (Fig. 1). Of
them, 44% were in urban areas, and 56% in rural areas; 30% were in
marine protected areas (Table 1). To facilitate the data analysis, the
forty-three beaches were grouped into eight study areas, consid-
ering geographical regions and administrative divisions of the
Colombian territory (Table 1).
Most of the urban beaches are usually cleaned by specialized
companies, and the costs are contemplated in the integrated solid
waste management plans (MinAmbiente and MinVivienda, 2013);
in a few rural beaches, the local community carries out voluntary
manual cleaning; and in other rural and urban beaches, mainly in
the Pacific and a few in the Caribbean, there is no cleaning service,
and the solid waste from the drift and the anthropogenic activities
accumulate in their sands (Williams et al., 2016; Rangel-Buitrago
et al., 2018, Table 1).
The sampling was carried out between July and November 2017
and in May 2018, during the rainy season in the Caribbean coast,
and with low rainfall in the Pacific coast. In the Pacific, pre-
cipitations occur throughout the year, being generally high be-
tween May and June and between September and November
(IDEAM, 2014).
2.2. Macroplastic sampling and identification
To identify different types of macroplastics litter (plastic mate-
rial bigger than 2.5 cm in size) accumulated on the selected
Colombian beaches, the methodology described in OSPAR (2010)
was used. The routes in sampling units of 100 m on each beach,
which covered the entire area between the water edge to the back
of the beach (supralittoral zone), were carried out, where all types
of macroplastic items were identified and recorded in paper for-
mats, photographic records were also taken.
The identified macroplastics were classified according to the
categories for marine plastic litter of OSPAR (2010); and also were
classified according to the approximate product lifetime for the
industrial sectors, described by Geyer et al. (2017): (I) < 1 year of
lifetime, comprising packaging; (II) between >1 and ~6.5 years of
lifetime, which include textiles, consumer, and institutional prod-
ucts; (III) between >6.5 and ~16 years of lifetime, comprising
electrical/electronic and transportation products; and (IV) between
>16 and ~40 years of lifetime, which correspond to industrial ma-
chinery, building, and construction.
The possible sources of macroplastic contamination were
identified with the method of attribution of marine litter to sources
according to the type of item described in OSPAR (2007) and Veiga
et al. (2016). This method consists of the assumption that certain
marine litter items are commonly or widely used by particular
commercial or public sectors or released into the marine environ-
ment by specific sources of discharges (Veiga et al., 2016). For which
the different uses of the beaches (tourism, fishing, and conserva-
tion) and the influence of river discharges were also considered.
This information will serve for environmental management to
reduce plastic pollution.
2.3. Microplastic sampling and identification
The microplastic sampling in beach sands was based on the
protocol developed by the citizen science program Científicos de la
Basura “Litter Scientists” from Chile (Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2013),
with some modifications. Eighteen quadrants of 0.5  0.5 m
(0.25 m2) were established on each beach. These quadrants were
distributed every 5 m, in three 30 m transects parallel to the
coastline. These transects were located on the recent tide line, the
middle zone and the upper zone of the beach, respectively. In each
quadrant, the superficial layer of 5 cm thickness was collected with
a stainless-steel spatula. The dry sand samples were sieved with
 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495 3

Fig. 1. Study area with the distribution of sampling stations in the Caribbean and Pacific beaches of Colombia.

5 mm and 1 mm meshes in the field. If the samples were wet (main
samples collected on the recent line tide of all beaches), they were
transported to the laboratory and then dried in an oven at 60  C
between 72 h and sieved with 5 mm and 1 mm meshes.
On the other hand, the material retained in the 1 mm mesh was
transferred to a 500 mL beaker. A hypersaline solution with a
density of 1.2 g/cm3, previously filtered, was added and it was
stirred manually with a glass rod for 3 min. Then, it was left at rest
for 10 min. Subsequently, the supernatant was collected and
filtered to obtain the microplastics. This procedure was performed
three times per sample. At the end, 9020 microplastic litter
(between 5 and 1 mm in size) were identified and separated, cor-
responding to an area of 198 m2 of evaluated beaches.
The microplastics were visually identified in a stereomicroscope
(Leica Microsystems), considering basic account criteria suggested
by Nor and Obbard (2014) and by Kova c et al. (2016). The qualitative
description and photographic record of the microplastics were
made using an AxioCam ERc5s (Zeiss). Microplastics were classified
in six shape categories suggested by Kova c et al. (2016): fragment,
filament, film, foam, granule, and pellet. The units were expressed
in items m
2.
The Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared
4 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495

Table 1
Plastic sampling stations in the Caribbean and Pacific beaches of Colombia. *Protected status: (MPA) Marine Protected Areas and (NP) No Protected. Use of the beach: (1)

s Island, (SM) Santa Marta, (CAR) Cartagena, (COR) Co
tourism, (2) conservation, (3) fishing. Study areas: (SAI) San Andre
rdoba, (UG) Uraba

Gulf, (PC) Pacific Chocoan, (BU)
Buenaventura, (TB) Tumaco Bay.

Region Study area Municipality Beach Coordinate Type *Status River influence Use Cleaning Date of sampling

Lat. N Long. W

Caribbean SAI
s
San Andre Acuario 12.55
81.69 Rural NP No 1, 2 Voluntary 23/Aug/17
Spratt Bight South 12.59
81.70 Urban NP No 1, 2 Professional
Jhonny Cay 12.59
81.69 Rural MPA No 2, 1 Voluntary
San Luis 12.54
81.70 Urban NP No 1, 2 Professional
Spratt Bight North 12.58
81.69 Urban NP No 3 No
SM Santa Marta Camello
n 11.24
74.21 Urban NP Yes 1 Professional 27-28/Jul/17
Cristal 11.32
74.07 Rural MPA No 2, 1 Voluntary
Los Cocos 11.24
74.21 Urban NP Yes 3, 1 Professional
Neguanje 11.31
74.08 Rural MPA No 2, 1 Voluntary
Rodadero 11.21
74.23 Urban NP Yes 1 Professional
Taganga 11.26
74.19 Urban NP No 1, 3 Professional
CAR Cartagena Blanca 10.22
75.61 Rural MPA No 2, 1 Voluntary 2-5/Oct/17
Bocagrande 10.39
75.56 Urban NP No 1 Professional
Castillo Grande 10.39
75.55 Urban NP Yes 1 Professional
Crespo 10.45
75.51 Urban NP No 3 No
Punta Arena 10.36
75.54 Rural NP Yes 1 Voluntary
COR San Antero Blanca 9.40
75.76 Rural MPA No 1, 2 Voluntary 8-9/May/18
Manzanillo 9.41
75.76 Rural NP No 3 No
Pto Escondido El Hoyito 8.99
76.26 Rural NP No 1 Voluntary
Mon~ itos Mon ~ itos 9.25
76.13 Urban NP No 1 Voluntary
San Bernardo San Bernardo 9.35
76.02 Urban MPA No 1 Voluntary
UG Turbo Dulce 8.09
76.74 Urban NP Yes 1, 3 Professional 1-5/Nov/17
La Martina 8.17
76.74 Rural NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary
Necoclí Necoclí 8.42
76.78 Urban NP Yes 1, 3 Professional
Totumo 8.33
76.75 Rural NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary
Acandí Acandí 8.51
77.27 Urban NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary
Capurgana 8.64
77.34 Rural NP No 1, 3 Voluntary
Sapzurro 8.66
77.36 Rural NP No 1, 3 Voluntary
Pacific PC Bahía Solano Almejal 6.11
77.43 Rural NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary 1/Sep/17
Bahía Solano 6.23
77.40 Urban NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary
Nuquí Jurubid
a 5.841
77.28 Rural MPA Yes 3, 2 No
Nuquí 5.71
77.27 Urban MPA Yes 3, 2 No
Tribuga
5.77
77.26 Rural MPA Yes 3, 2 No
BU Buenaventura Chucheros 3.93
77.31 Rural MPA Yes 1, 2 Voluntary 8-9/Aug/17
Juanchaco 3.92
77.36 Rural MPA Yes 1, 2 Voluntary
La Bocana 3.83
77.19 Rural NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary
Pianguita 3.84
77.19 Rural NP Yes 1, 3 Voluntary
Punta Soldado 3.76
77.17 Rural NP Yes 3 No
TB Tumaco Bocagrande 1.81
78.83 Rural MPA Yes 1, 3 Voluntary 11/Oct/17
El Bajito 1.82
78.75 Urban NP Yes 1 Professional
El Morro 1.83
78.73 Urban NP Yes 1 Professional
Vaquería 1.79
78.87 Rural MPA Yes 3 No
Francisco Pizarro Pizarro 2.04
78.67 Rural NP Yes 3 No

(ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy technique was used to categorize the
polymers (Anjos et al., 2020) of 1000 microplastics selected from
the evaluated beaches. For this purpose, an ATR detector coupled
with a Tensor II Fourier Transform Spectrometer (Bruker Optik
GmbH) was used. The Laborato
rio de Radioecologia e Alteraço ~es
Ambientais (LARA) of the Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil,
was responsible for the analysis.
Absorbance spectra were recorded in the mid-infrared range
(4000e400 cm
1) by combining 16 individual scans at a resolution
of 4 cm
1. The acquisition mode was double forward-backward,
and the Blackman-Harris-3 apodization function was used
(Demyan et al., 2012; Harrison et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2019). The
identification of the polymer was conducted by comparing the
absorption bands (AB) of the samples with reference bands re-
ported by Jung et al. (2018): Polyethylene (PE - AB: 2915, 2845,
1462, 730, 717 cm
1), polystyrene (PS - AB: 3024, 2847, 1601, 1451,
1027, 694 cm
1), polypropylene (PP - AB: 2950, 2915, 2838, 1455,
1377, 1166, 997, 972, 840, 808 cm
1), polyvinyl chloride (PVC - AB:
1424, 1331, 1255, 1099, 966, 616 cm
1), polyurethane (PUR - AB:
2865, 1731, 1531, 1451, 1223 cm
1), high impact polystyrene (HIPS -
AB: 2923, 2855, 1597, 1492, 1448, 1027, 909, 760, 697 cm
1), and
polyethylene terephthalate (PET - AB: 1713, 1241, 1094, 720 cm
1).
2.4. Statistical analysis of data
The normality and homoscedasticity assumptions of the data
were verified using the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests, respectively.
After complying with the premises of the non-parametric statistics,
the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used to determine the differ-
ences between the percentages of the paired categories: (1) mac-
roplastics on Caribbean and Pacific beaches, (2) lifetime of
macroplastics found on types of beaches (urban and rural) and on
beaches in marine protected and unprotected areas; and (3)
possible sources of plastics pollution on beaches in the Caribbean
and Pacific coastal, types of beaches, and beach protection status.
Besides, the Kruskal Wallis analysis was used to determine the
differences between microplastic contamination on urban and ru-
ral beaches and between marine protected and unprotected areas.
Statistical analyzes were performed in the Infostat® program, with
a 95% confidence interval.
 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495
3. Results
3.1. Amounts, types and the possible source of the macroplastic on
beaches
A total of 2257 macroplastic items were identified, corre-
sponding to 54 categories of macroplastics, according to OSPAR
(2010). The 25 macroplastic categories with the highest percent-
ages of representation in the Caribbean and the Pacific beaches are
shown in Fig. 2. The main categories observed were: (1) Crisp/
sweet packets and lolly sticks; (2) Plastic/polystyrene pieces
2.5 cme50 cm; (3) Small plastic bags; (4) caps/lids; and (5) Drinks
(bottles, containers, and drums). The remaining 29 categories
represented 11% of the macroplastics registered in the Caribbean
beaches and 10% recorded in the Pacific beaches. No significant
differences were found between the percentages of the paired
macroplastics categories on the Caribbean and Pacific beaches
evaluated (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, T ¼ 797, N ¼ 54,
P ¼ 0.6388). Amounts of macroplastic items registered on the
beaches from study areas ranged from 35 ± 15 to 81 ± 23 number of
Fig. 2. The 20 most common macroplastic categories registered on the all studied beaches in the Caribbean and the Pacific coasts of Colombia. The categories of macroplastics
correspond to those described by OSPAR (2010).
5
macroplastic items per 100 m, the highest amounts being found on
the beaches of Tumaco and Buenaventura on the Pacific and the
Gulf of Urab
a in the Caribbean (Fig. 3). The beaches in urban and
unprotected areas had the highest average macroplastics items
(Fig. 3).
Macroplastic items were found with an estimated lifetime from
<1 year to >16 years (Table 2). More than 60% of the macroplastic
litter found on the beaches of both the Caribbean and the Pacific
coasts of Colombia has a lifetime of <1 year, which includes pack-
aging of food products, beverages, and personal hygiene and
household cleaning products. The building and construction items
that are estimated to have the most extended lifetime were the
least represented (<3%). No significant differences were found be-
tween the percentages of macroplastic items with different life-
times found on the urban and rural beaches (T ¼ 16, N ¼ 8,
P ¼ 0.8308) and on the beaches in marine protected and unpro-
tected areas (T ¼ 17, N ¼ 8, P ¼ 0.9254).
Considering the possible uses of the observed macroplastics, six
main sources were identified (Table 3). On the Caribbean coast,
tourism and recreation activities were the sources with the highest
6 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495

percentages of macroplastic items (55e60%), followed by poor

waste management practices (18% and 28%). On the Pacific coast,
poor waste management practices were the main source of plastic
litter (43e50%), followed by tourism and recreation activities (30%
and 37%). In both the Caribbean and Pacific coasts, non-sourced
plastic ranked third in importance, with values between 6% and
9%. These plastics were generally fragments that it was not possible
to distinguish their type and use. It is worth noting the presence of
medical origin macroplastics on beaches in marine protected areas
of both the Caribbean and the Pacific regions of Colombia, which
represented between 1% and 3% of the total registered macroplastic
items (Table 3). The percentages of macroplastic items attributed by
the possible sources identified did not show significant differences
neither the Caribbean and Pacific regions (T ¼ 6, N ¼ 6, P ¼ 0.4164),
nor urban and rural beaches (T ¼ 30, N ¼ 12, P ¼ 0.5104). No sig-
nificant differences also observed between marine protected and
unprotected areas (T ¼ 30, N ¼ 12, P ¼ 0.5114).

3.2. Amounts, types and the possible sources of microplastic on

beaches

Microplastics with sizes from 1 to 5 mm were found in the sand

Fig. 3. Average (standard deviation) number of macroplastic items found on the
studied beaches from areas in the Caribbean and the Pacific coasts of Colombia: types
of beach (urban, n ¼ 19; rural, n ¼ 24), protected status (protected area, n ¼ 13; no

s
protected area, n ¼ 30), study areas (Santa Marta, n ¼ 6; Uraba Golf, n ¼ 7; San Andre

rdoba, Pacific Chocoan, Buenaventura, Tumaco Bay, n ¼ 5 for each
Island, Cartagena, Co
area).
of all studied beaches. The concentrations ranged between 3 and
1387 items m
2 (Fig. 4), with averages of 318 ± 314 items m
2 on
the Caribbean beaches, and 138 ± 125 items m
2 on the Pacific
ones, being statistically different (Kruskal-Wallis test, H ¼ 4.05,
P ¼ 0.0439). Microplastics pollution did not differ between urban
and rural beaches (H ¼ 1.16, P ¼ 0.2815), and between marine
protected and unprotected areas (H ¼ 0.81, P ¼ 0.3682). The study
areas with the most contaminated beaches by microplastics were
Cartagena (249e1387 items m
2), Santa Marta (144e791 items

Table 2
The lifetime of macroplastic litter on the beaches from the Caribbean and Pacific coast of Colombia, according to the type of beach (rural and urban) and protected status
(marine protected area-MPA and no protected-NP). The lifetime ranges of macroplastics were defined for this study with the information reported by Geyer et al. (2017) for
plastic products from eight industrial sectors. (n ¼ number of beaches).

Region Lifetime Type of Beach Protected Status

Rural (n ¼ 24) Urban (n ¼ 19) MPA (n ¼ 13) NP (n ¼ 30)

Caribbean <1 year 67.0% (370) 65.6% (457) 66.4% (95) 66.2% (732)
>1 and ~6.5 years 27.4% (151) 27.8% (194) 30.1% (43) 27.3% (302)
>6.5 and ~16 years 3.6% (20) 3.9% (27) 2.1% (3) 4.0% (44)
>16 and ~40 years 2.0% (11) 2.7% (19) 1.4% (2) 2.5% (28)
Pacific <1 year 59.7% (283) 72.3% (386) 65.3% (265) 67.1% (404)
>1 and ~6.5 years 35.9% (170) 23.2% (124) 29.8% (121) 28.7% (173)
>6.5 and ~16 years 3.2% (15) 2.8% (15) 3.7% (15) 2.5% (15)
>16 and ~40 years 1.3% (6) 1.7% (9) 1.2% (5) 1.7% (10)

Table 3
Sources possible of macroplastic litter on the beaches from the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Colombia, according to the type of beach (rural and urban) and protected status
((MPA) marine protected area and (NP) no protected). (n ¼ number of beaches).

Region Possible Sources Type of Beach Protected Status

Rural (n ¼ 24) Urban (n ¼ 19) MPA (n ¼ 13) NP (n ¼ 30)

Caribbean Tourism and Recreational activities 55.4% (427) 56.9% (272) 60.8% (87) 55.3% (612)
Poor waste management practices 28.3% (218) 24.1% (115) 18.9% (27) 27.7% (306)
NonSourced 6.0% (46) 8.4% (40) 9.1% (13) 6.6% (73)
Fisheries, including aquaculture 6.6% (51) 5.6% (27) 6.3% (9) 6.2% (69)
Shipping 2.7% (21) 3.3% (16) 3.5% (5) 2.9% (32)
Medical 1.0% (8) 1.7% (8) 1.4% (2) 1.3% (14)
Pacific Tourism and Recreational activities 36.8% (185) 29.7% (150) 29.8% (121) 35.5% (214)
Poor waste management practices 43.9% (221) 50.1% (253) 49.0% (199) 45.7% (275)
NonSourced 6.4% (32) 7.5% (38) 5.7% (23) 7.8% (47)
Fisheries, including aquaculture 7.8% (39) 6.9% (35) 8.6% (35) 6.5% (39)
Shipping 4.6% (23) 2.4% (12) 3.9% (16) 3.2% (19)
Medical 0.6% (3) 3.4% (17) 3.0% (12) 1.3% (8)
 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495 7

Fig. 4. Concentrations (average ± standard deviation, n ¼ 18) and percentage of microplastic categories according to the shapes recorded in the sand at the Caribbean and Pacific
beaches of Colombia.

m
2), and Co
rdoba (4e685 items m
2) in the Caribbean coast, and
Chocoan Pacific (3e317 items m
2) and Buenaventura (121e280
items m
2) in the Pacific coast (Fig. 4). The microplastics concen-
tration on the beaches of these study areas were significantly
different (H ¼ 21.33, P ¼ 0.0033) from the beaches of Tumaco Bay
(4e9 items m
2) and San Andre
s Island (32e201 items m
2).
Overall, fragments (52%), filaments (20%), pellets (11%), and
foam (10%) were the shape categories most abundant, while
granules and film accounted for 4% and 3% respectively (Fig. 4).
Fragments predominated on the beaches of the Pacific coast (52%),
followed by the filaments (26%), foam (10%), and to a lesser extent,
pellets (6%), granules (4%), and films (2%) (Fig. 4). On the Caribbean
coast, fragments (52%), filaments (19%), and pellets (12%) were
observed in high percentages, while the other shape categories
showed low amounts (foam: 9%, film: 4% and granule: 4%). Pellets
stood out with high content on the Caribbean beaches, such as
Castillo Grande in Cartagena, Neguanje in Santa Marta, Spratt Bight
in San Andre
s Island, El Hoyito and Mon ~ itos in Co
rdoba and
8 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495

Table 4
Types and percentage of polymers of the microplastic found on the sand of beaches evaluated from the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Colombia. Polymers: (PE) Polyethylene,
(PP) Polypropylene, (PS) Polystyrene, (PU) Polyurethane, (PET) Polyethylene Terephthalate, (PVC) Polyvinyl Chloride, (HIPS) High Impact Polystyrene. (n ¼ number of beaches).

Region Polymer Type of Beach Protected status

Rural (n ¼ 24) Urban (n ¼ 19) MPA (n ¼ 13) NP (n ¼ 30)

Caribbean PE 47.1% (107) 53.0% (371) 57.4% (35) 51.2% (443)

PP 27.3% (62) 16.7% (117) 36.1% (22) 18.1% (157)
PS 22.0% (50) 29.6% (207) 6.6% (4) 29.2% (253)
PU 1.3% (3) 0.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.6% (5)
PET 0.4% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.1% (1)
PVC 1.8% (4) 0.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.7% (6)
HIPS 0.0% (0) 0.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.1% (1)
Pacific PE 32.3% (21) 0.0% (0) 36.4% (4) 27.9% (17)
PP 29.2% (19) 14.3% (1) 18.2% (2) 29.5% (18)
PS 35.4% (23) 42.9% (3) 45.5% (5) 34.4% (21)
PET 0.0% (0) 28.6% (2) 0.0% (0) 3.3% (2)
HIPS 3.1% (2) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 4.9% (3)

Sapzurro in Uraba
Gulf (Fig. 4).
Seven polymer types were identified in the microplastic sam-
ples by using infrared spectroscopy (Table 4). From 1000 micro-
plastic analyzed, 50% were polyethylene (PE), 28% polystyrene (PS),
20% polypropylene (PP), 0.6% polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 0.5% poly-
urethane (PU), 0.4% high impact polystyrene (HIPS), and 0.3%
polyethylene terephthalate (PET). PE, PP, PS, PU, PET, PVC, and HIPS
polymers were found on the Caribbean beaches, these same poly-
mers were found on the Pacific beaches, except PU and PVC. The
percentages of polymers from the rural and urban beaches did not
present significant differences (H ¼ 19.16, P ¼ 0.1112). However, a
significant difference occurs in the microplastic samples from
marine protected and unprotected areas (H ¼ 19.03, P ¼ 0.0230).
The microplastic shape with the higher diversity of polymers
were the fragments (69.7% of PE, 28.4% of PP, 0.5% of PS, and 1% of
PVC), following by filaments (71.4% of PE, 14.3% of PP, and 14.3% of
PU) and foams (97.6% of PS, 1.4% of HIPS, 0.7% of PU, and 0.3% of PP).
The films were made mostly of PE (50%) and PET (50%), pellets of PE
(72.9%) and PP (27.1%), and granules of PE (100%).
4. Discussion
4.1. Amounts, types and the possible source of the macroplastic
on beaches
The studied Colombian beaches are contaminated with marine
macroplastic litter. This marine litter is found in different abun-
dances in the sampling areas, whose average values (from 35 to 81
number of macroplastic items per 100 m of beach) are below the
abundances reported on the coasts of Belgium (6140 items per
100 m of beach; Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2013), Scottish Orkney
Islands (533 items per 100 m of beach; Buckingham et al., 2020),
from Rügen Island, Germany (304 items per 100 m of beach;
Hengstmann et al., 2017) and the beaches of Croatia, Slovenia,
Montenegro, Italy, Greece, and Albania with averages of 2914, 495,
374, 280, 201, and 216 items per 100 m of beach, respectively
(Vlachogianni et al., 2018).
The most abundant types of macroplastics on Colombian bea-
ches were those with a short lifetime (<1 year), such as packaging
and containers of different food, personal care, and household
products. This type of plastic litter was reported as the most com-
mon in various studies of the characterization of marine litter on
beaches (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2013; Hengstmann et al., 2017;
Vlachogianni et al., 2018; Buckingham et al., 2020). The pollution by
macroplastics, especially those with a short lifetime, on Colombian
beaches can be attributed to the high touristic and recreational
activities developed on the studied beaches, and to the deficiency of
the basic sanitation system in the Caribbean and Pacific coastal
populations of Colombia, as the main plastic sources.
Regarding tourist and recreational activities, it is important to
mention that tourism on Colombian beaches is an important ac-
tivity for the economy of the local population (Rangel-Buitrago
et al., 2018; CITUR, 2019). Tourism develops with higher intensity
in certain months of the year, coinciding with festivities and special
dates such as Holy Week, school break, and New Year’s Eve vacation
(Fontur and MinCIT, 2012). According to official records, between
2015 and 2018, ~9,400,000 foreign tourists arrived in the country
by air, of which 47% declared different places in the 12 coastal de-
partments as their tourist destination (CITUR, 2019). Despite the
high tourist importance of the beaches, most are poorly managed;
they have deficiencies in the necessary equipment to develop
sustainable tourism, such as the lack of trash cans, signs, frequent
cleaning, control of hours of use and control of the maximum
number of people who can use the beaches (Botero et al., 2008).
77% of the studied beaches have touristic use, of which 65% are
rural and urban beaches cleaned voluntarily by the local commu-
nity, and the remaining 35% are urban beaches cleaned by the
municipal company cleaning (Table 1). Although these tourist
beaches are cleaned by volunteers or professionals, collection
methods of solid waste are not efficient to remove small plastics
litter such as bottle caps, cigarette butts, fragments of bags, among
others, which remain in the beaches sand, where they are accu-
mulated and fragmented generating microplastics (Rangel-
Buitrago et al., 2018; Garce
s-Ordo
n
~ ez et al., 2020b). Similar re-
sults have also been found for beaches of other South American
countries (Bravo et al., 2009; Lozoya et al., 2016; Honorato-Zimmer
et al., 2019; Gaibor et al., 2020).
These deficiencies in beach management and the lack of
awareness and environmental education of users generate a high
negative impact on the ecosystem, affecting its environmental
quality (Williams et al., 2016; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018). For
example, on the tourist beaches of Santa Marta (Caribbean coast), a
significant positive correlation was observed in the number of users
and marine litter pollution on the sand during high and low tourist
seasons of 2018 and 2019 (Garce
s-Ordo
n
~ ez et al., 2020b). Tourism
has also been identified as a major source of pollution on the
Caribbean beaches (Williams et al., 2016; Rangel-Buitrago et al.,
2018; Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez et al., 2020b) and in the Pacific beaches of
Colombia (INVEMAR, 2018).
Regarding solid waste management, it was observed that in
most coastal municipalities the coverage of treatment services and
adequate disposal of solid waste are deficient or even non-existent,
ranging from 40% to 99% in urban areas of the Caribbean coastal
municipalities and from 0% to 95% in urban areas of the Pacific
 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495 9

coastal municipalities (Table 5). Moreover, it is estimated that of
~2.56  106 tons of solid waste produced in these municipalities
(coastal population of ~5,700,000 inhabitants and per-capita pro-
duction of 0.45 tons of solid waste in 2016; DANE, 2018), about 65%
are inadequately discarded. These solid waste are thrower in nat-
ural water bodies, burying in the ground, and burning or throwing
into open dumps (Table 5; Garce
s-Ordo

n~ ez et al., 2017;
Superservicios, 2017a). To make matters worse, the solid waste
collected by the municipal cleaning services, in most cases in the
Pacific and a few in the Caribbean municipalities, is disposed of in
open dumps (INVEMAR, 2018). Since in Colombia the most of the
coastal populations are settled on the riverbanks, where discharge
their wastes, it is essential to assess the plastic materials trans-
ported by the rivers that flow into the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific
Ocean, considering temporary variations (rainy and dry seasons).
The sewage in San Andre
s Island, Santa Marta, and Cartagena
are discharged to the Caribbean Sea through submarine pipes that
after a preliminary treatment (physical and/or mechanical pro-
cesses, such as grids, grit traps, and grease traps) (Superservicios,
2015, 2017b). In the other Caribbean and the Pacific coastal pop-
ulations, the sewage is poured directly into rivers and other natural
water bodies, causing pollution (INVEMAR, 2018) and, probably, the
introduction of macroplastic objects (such as cotton bud sticks,
tampons, and panty liners) and microplastics (filament/fiber, frag-
ment, film, granule, and pellet). Similar situations were reported in
other coastal zones in the world (Browne et al., 2011; Correia-Prata,
2018; Sun et al., 2019). Therefore, household sewage is probably
one of the main sources of plastic pollution that affects the marine-
coastal environments of Colombia (INVEMAR, 2018). However, total
plastic load amounts that are introduced into the Colombian rivers
and the marine environments through wastewater remain still
unknown, representing a big challenge.

Table 5
Populations, production of solid waste and sewage, and disposal of waste in the coastal municipalities of Colombia. Modified from INVEMAR (2018). Sources: DANE (2005)1;
per-capita solid waste production of 0.45 tons in 2016 (DANE, 2018)2; Superservicios (2017a, 2018)3; INVEMAR (2018)4. The studied beaches are in the municipalities high-
lighted in bold.

Region Municipality #Inhabitants (2016)1 Solid waste Sewage

Urban Rural Production Disposal3,4 ~ Production ~ Direct discharge

(Ton in 2016)2 (m3/day)4 (m3/day)4

Caribbean San Andre
s 53,214 18,732 32,376 Landfill 11,106 5941

Providencia 2284 2871 2,32 Landfill 607 575
Riohacha 228,749 39,963 120,92 Transient cell 42,514 11,734
Dibulla 5577 28,611 15,385 Open-air dump 4695 2765
Manaure 46,736 61,27 48,603 Landfill 17,152 12,881
Uribia 12,95 167,435 81,173 Open-air dump 28,539 11,644
Santa Marta 474,52 17,015 221,191 Landfill 76,407 19,866

naga
Cie 99,423 5194 47,078 Open-air dump 16,051 4478
Puebloviejo 12,243 18,825 13,981 Open-air dump 4203 4203
Sitionuevo 15,783 16,306 14,44 Open-air dump 4303 4303
Barranquilla 1,219,382 4234 550,627 Landfill 187,925 93,963
Juan de Acosta 11,57 5461 7664 Landfill 2289 2289
Puerto Colombia 22,506 4483 12,145 Landfill 3563 1781
Soledad 631,599 584 284,482 Landfill 99,314 26,815
Tubara
6538 4486 4961 Landfill 1293 1270
Cartagena 971,592 41,797 456,025 Landfill 156,807 10,036
Santa Catalina 4798 8,5 5984 Landfill 1781 1701
Coven ~ as 3888 9891 6201 Landfill 1861 548
San Onofre 25,55 25,097 22,791 Landfill 6774 6008
Santiago de Tolú 27,842 6029 15,242 Landfill, Open-air dump 4569 1142
Los Co
rdobas 4763 19,708 11,012 Landfill 3343 1838
Mon ~ itos 6958 20,901 12,537 Landfill 3752 3741
Puerto Escondido 5029 24,99 13,509 Landfill 4100 4092
San Antero 17,846 14,096 14,374 Landfill 4313 2963
San Bernardo 9297 25,863 15,822 Landfill 4710 3768
Arboletes 17,374 23,835 18,544 Landfill 5609 1206
Necoclí 15,846 48,145 28,796 Landfill 10,046 2210
San Juan de Urab
a 8219 17,433 11,543 Landfill 3467 1320
Turbo 65,307 98,218 73,586 Landfill 25,687 13,100
Acandí 5259 4246 4277 Open-air dump 1104 1104
Unguía 4746 10,418 6824 Open-air dump 2019 2019
Pacific Bahía Solano 4906 4445 4208 Open-air dump 1100 1100
Bajo Baudo
3245 14,262 7878 Open-air dump, waterbody 2336 2336
El Litoral San Juan 1376 14,243 7029 Transient cell, waterbody 2121 2121
Jurado
1613 1682 1483 Landfill, waterbody 383 383
Nuquí 3809 4859 3901 Open-air dump, Burying 1029 1029
Buenaventura 373,717 33,958 183,454 Landfill, waterbody 63,613 63,613
Guapi 18,199 11,598 13,409 Open-air dump, waterbody 3960 3960

pez
Lo 5826 14,62 9201 Open-air dump, waterbody 2729 2729
Timbiquí 4,31 17,428 9782 Open-air dump, waterbody 2899 2899
El Charco 10,461 27,746 17,193 Open-air dump, waterbody 5442 5442
La Tola 9781 3331 5,9 Waterbody 1887 1887
Mosquera 5963 10,806 7546 Waterbody 2358 2358
Olaya Herrera 9924 21,669 14,217 Waterbody 4293 4293
Francisco Pizarro 7,83 7667 6974 Waterbody 2183 2183
Santa Barbara 5539 7874 6036 Waterbody 1931 1931
Tumaco 114,533 89,438 91,787 Landfill, waterbody 32,542 32,5 42
10 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495
4.2. Amounts, types and possible sources of microplastic on beaches
The results of this study correspond to a national sampling that
shows the state of microplastic pollution on 43 Colombian beaches
in the rainy season and represents a baseline that will help to un-
derstand the variations of this pollution, taking into account
possible future monitoring and considering the climatic seasons of
the Colombian Caribbean and Pacific. Although during the sam-
pling, dry samples sieved in the field and wet samples that were
dried and sieved in the laboratory were collected, which may in-
fluence the results, the number of replicas (18 quadrants per beach)
is considered significant to have robust information on the state of
microplastic contamination on the Colombian beaches evaluated.
The microplastic contents in the Colombian beach sands
(3e1387 items m
2; Fig. 4), shows similar values to Guanabara Bay,
Southeast Brazil (12e1300 items m
2), a coastal zone affected by
the river discharges and rainwater runoff (De Carvalho and
Baptista, 2016); and Malta Island (0e1462 items m
2; Turner and
Holmes, 2011). But exceeds the abundances reported from bea-
ches of the south coast of Sri Lanka (0e738 items m
2), that are
affected by continental runoffs (Bimali-Koongolla et al., 2018); from
the southeast coast of India (2e178 items m
2), even its beaches
being influenced by river discharges that flow through areas with
high urbanization (Karthik et al., 2018); from the continental
Chilean beaches (1e169 items m
2), affected by intensive aqua-
culture activities (Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2013); Portugal beaches
(1e137 items m
2), affected by marine currents (Martins and
Sobral, 2011); Mexican beaches (32e546 items m
2), influenced
by tourist activities, storms and river discharges (Alvarez-Zeferino
et al., 2020); Peruvian beaches (16e490 items m
2; De la Torre
et al., 2020); and Panamanian beaches (16e420 items m
2;
Delvalle et al., 2020).
Secondary (fragments, filaments, films, foams) and primary
(granules, pellets) microplastics are present on the Colombian
sandy beaches evaluated. The findings show no significant differ-
ences between urban and rural beaches, regardless of whether they
are in marine protected areas or not. The beaches most contami-
nated by microplastics were found in urban areas of major coastal
cities such as Cartagena and Santa Marta on the Caribbean coast,
and rural areas influenced by rivers such as Cordoba in the Carib-
bean, Choco, and Buenaventura in the Pacific coast. These results
are probably linked to the inadequate management of solid waste
and sewage, recreational tourism, industrial production of plastic
materials, and fishing activities (Acosta-Coley and Olivero-Verbel,
2015; Lebreton et al., 2017; INVEMAR, 2018).
The large proportion of microplastics found in the sand of the
studied beaches are of secondary origin. It comes from the frag-
mentation of larger plastic items. Macroplastics on Colombian
beaches are under environmental conditions that favor their rapid
fragmentation in situ, because of the high temperatures (30
to > 34  C in the Caribbean, 28 to> 34 in the Pacific; IDEAM, 2014),
high solar radiation (4e6 Wh m
2 in the Caribbean, 2.5e4.5 Wh
m
2 in the Pacific; IDEAM, 2015a), and prolonged exposure to
sunlight during the day (4e10 h a day in the Caribbean, 4e10 h a
day in the Pacific; IDEAM, 2015a). Macroplastic fragmentation in-
creases microplastic pollution, which in turn, increases the risks for
coastal marine ecosystems and public health, due to the negative
impacts of these pollutants (Guzzetti et al., 2018; Guo and Wang,
2019; Laskar and Kumar, 2019; Garce
s-Ordo
n
~ ez et al., 2020b).
The seven polymers types (PE, PP, PS, PU, PVC, HIPS, and PET)
identified in the analyzed microplastic are related with the mac-
roplastic items registered on the Colombian beaches. PE is typically
used to make supermarket bags, plastic bottles, and fishing nets
(Costa et al., 2017; Anjos et al., 2020), and also it is used in the
manufacture of microbeads or pellets. PP is typically used for
packaging materials, bottle caps, ropes, carpets, drinking straws,
product packaging, hinged caps, and car bumper (Costa et al., 2017).
HIPS is an important source of electronic plastic waste (from
computers, audio, and video devices). PU in mattresses and insu-
lation panels. PVC is used in pipes, window frames, flooring, and
shower curtains. PET in soft drink bottles, food packaging, thermal
insulation, blister packs (Costa et al., 2017; Anjos et al., 2020). These
findings are consistent with the social and industrial activities of
the coastal areas studied.
4.3. Regional environment differences and their relationship
with the plastic pollution problem
In the Colombian Caribbean coast, the beaches have high
importance for tourism and have infrastructure facilities and ser-
vices available for the development of this activity. On the contrary,
in the Pacific coast, few beaches are used for tourism and recrea-
tional activities to the local community, like El Morro in Tumaco
(Narin~ o department), La Bocana, Pianguita, and Juanchaco in Bue-
naventura (Valle del Cauca department), and Almejal in Bahía
Solano (Choco
department).
The coastal dynamics, climate, population density, and socio-
economic development have very marked differences between
the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Colombia, which influence the
distribution of plastic pollution in coastal marine ecosystems. One
of these differences is the tide amplitude. On the Pacific coast, it
ranges between 2.46 m and 3.08 m (IDEAM, 2017a), while on the
Caribbean coast, it ranges between 0.22 m and 0.25 m (IDEAM,
2017b). These tidal ranges on the Pacific coast facilitate the export
of plastic litter from urban areas to rural beaches, as has been
observed in Buenaventura, Tumaco, and Choco
, where the plastics
are accumulated in the upper zone of the beach. On the contrary, on
the Caribbean coast, the litter is not exported by tidal, and it is
accumulated in the strip of the middle and upper zone of the beach.
However, on the Caribbean coasts, another environmental factor,
such as wind, has an important role in plastic litter export from
coastal to open-dumps and the emerged part of beaches. The
maximum wind speed at 10 m altitudes in the Caribbean coast
ranges from 24 m s
1 to >39 m s
1, with the highest speeds
occurring from January to March and from September to November,
during the dry season and in the Pacific coast ranges from 15 m s
1
to 30 m s
1, with the highest speeds occurring from February to
April (IDEAM, 2015b).
Coastal population size is directly related to the quantity of solid
waste and sewage generated (Table 5; INVEMAR, 2018). On the
Colombian Caribbean coast, the population estimated to 2016 (4.2
million inhabitants; DANE, 2005) is five times greater than the
population of the Colombian Pacific coast (842 thousand in-
habitants; DANE, 2005). Therefore the production of these residues
in the Caribbean region is higher. Additionally, the intensity of
socio-economic activities such as manufacturing, ports, commerce,
and tourism is more concentrated in the Caribbean coast compared
to the Pacific coast; therefore, the areas with the highest micro-
plastic pollution were in cities with the largest populations in the
Caribbean (Santa Marta and Cartagena). Cartagena and Barranquilla
are two industrial cities in the Caribbean; Cartagena has been
considered a hot spot for pollution by primary microplastics
(Acosta-Coley et al., 2019a), from where these contaminants are
exported to other sites in the southwest of the Colombian Carib-
bean through marine currents (Acosta-Coley et al., 2019a), as in the
Co
rdoba Department, where high contamination by pellets was
 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495
recorded.
On the other hand, poor waste management practices in the
Pacific coastal populations may be related to environmental
complexity, territorial effects of the armed conflict (Salas-Salazar,
2016), and difficult access to populations in this region. Most of
the people inhabit the river banks because the transport routes
between communities are fluvial. The houses are built on wooden
stilts to stay above the maximum water level. Generally, under the
houses, the inhabitants throw the waste, which is later carried by
the water at high tide into the rivers that flow into the Pacific
Ocean.
Finally, 30% of the studied beaches are in marine protected areas
of Colombia, these beaches are not free of macroplastics and
microplastics litter. Due to the low anthropogenic activities that
take place in these areas, is presumed that these pollutants are
imported from other places such as large urban centers in the
Caribbean and the Pacific (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018), as have
been evidenced in marine and coastal protected areas in other
countries (Blaskovi

n et al.,
c et al., 2017; Bayo et al., 2019; Ruiz-Orejo
2019; Mazariegos-Ortíz et al., 2020).
5. Conclusions and recommendations
All the beaches evaluated in the Caribbean and Pacific regions of
Colombia are polluted by plastic litter, such as containers and
packages of food, drink, personal hygiene, and household cleaning
products, net and fishing lines, engine oil container, and micro-
plastics, among others, which shows the impact of poor manage-
ment practices of municipal waste and the waste from the activities
as tourism, recreation, fishing, and shipment boats, among others.
These macroplastics, which are in a large percentage are a short
lifetime or disposable, are a major environmental problem on
Colombian beaches, indicating to the environmental authorities the
urgent need to regulate their production and excessive use such as
packaging, containers, and bags, among others, and to promote the
change to other materials easily recyclable and friendly to the
environment.
The beaches of the Colombian Caribbean coast have more
microplastic pollution than the Pacific beaches, probably due to
differences in their geographical conditions, tidal dynamics, pop-
ulation density, and intensity of socio-economic activities. The
most polluted beaches are in the urban Caribbean and the rural
Pacific areas, where there is a larger population, greater production
of waste, deficiencies in basic sanitation, and poor management of
tourist beaches. The marine protected areas of the Colombian
Caribbean and Pacific are vulnerable to pollution by marine plastic
litter, which comes from unprotected areas with high anthropo-
genic activities. The microplastic pollution mostly from the sec-
ondary origin, resulting from the breakdown of major plastic items,
given the conditions of high radiation and prolonged exposure to
sunlight during the day which promotes fragmentation in situ, and
in millimeter sizes, plastics represent a high environmental risk.
Plastics on the Colombian beaches represent a threat to eco-
systems and public health. Given the large knowledge gaps on the
problem of plastics in the coastal areas of Colombia, further
research is required on the impacts of different sources of marine
litter (domestic and industrial waste, river discharge, and socio-
economic activities) and their ecological, social, and economic ef-
fects. To decrease the marine litter pollution in the Colombian
beaches is necessary to improve the basic sanitation of the coun-
try’s coastal populations, change production and consumption
patterns, prohibit the use of disposable plastics, strengthen envi-
ronmental education in the society, and promote recycling and the
use of waste.
11
Credit author statement
Ostin Garce
s-Ordo
n
~ ez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Inves-
tigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Renan
Pereira Cardoso: Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review &
editing. B

arbara Barroso Issa Cardozo: Investigation, Methodology,
Writing - Review. Roberto Meigikos dos Anjos: Supervision, Vali-
dation, Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing - Review. Luisa
Espinosa: Resources, Project administration, Funding acquisition,
Writing e Review.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was financed by Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarollo
Sostenible de Colombia and Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y
Costeras “Jos

e Benito Vives de Andr
eis” - INVEMAR. The authors
would like to thank the funding agencies for their financial support
to performed ATR-FTIR analysis: IAEA , Austria(RLA7022), CNPq,
Brazil (302112/2018e9) and FAPERJ, Brazil (E-26/202.794/2017 and
E-26/010.101100/2018). Thank the Regional Autonomous and Sus-
tainable Development Corporations of Colombia (CORALINA, COR-

CODECHOCO,
CVC and
PAMAG, CARDIQUE, CVS, CORPOURABA,
CORPONARINO),~ the Centro de Investigaciones Oceanogra
ficas e
Hidrografícas del Pacífico, and the researchers Victoria Castillo,
Ramiro Rueda, Mo
nica Bayona, Daniel Fawcett, Jennifer Lo

pez, Lina
Blando
n and Kevin Mejía for the support provided during the field
trips, laboratory work, and information analysis. We also thank the
researcher Felipe Valencia Ospina for cartographic support and Dr.
Martin Thiel for the previous revision of the manuscript. Scientific
contribution of INVEMAR No. 1272.
References
Acosta-Coley, I., Olivero-Verbel, J., 2015. Microplastic resin pellets on an urban
tropical beach in Colombia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 435. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-015-4602-7.
Acosta-Coley, I., Duran-Izquierdo, M., Rodriguez-Cavallo, E., Mercado-Camargo, J.,
Mendez-Cuadro, D., Olivero-Verbel, J., 2019a. Quantification of microplastics
along the Caribbean Coastline of Colombia: pollution profile and biological
effects on Caenorhabditis elegans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 574e583. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.084.
Acosta-Coley, I., Mendez-Cuadro, D., Rodríguez-Cavallo, E., De la Rosa, J., Olivero-
Verbel, J., 2019b. Trace elements in microplastics in Cartagena: a hotspot for
plastic pollution at the caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 139, 402e411. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.016.
Alimba, C., Faggio, C., 2019. Microplastics in the marine environment: current
trends in environmental pollution and mechanisms of toxicological profile.
Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 68, 61e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.etap.2019.03.001.
Alvarez-Zeferino, J.C., Ojeda-Benítez, S., Cruz-Salas, A., Martínez-Salvador, C.,
Va
zquez-Morillas, A., 2020. Microplastics in Mexican beaches. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 155, 104633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104633.
Andrady, A.L., 2017. The plastic in microplastics: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 119 (1),
12e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.082.
Anjos, R.M., Amaral, S.S.G., Muniz, M.C., Cardoso, R.P., Bernardo, T.A.S., Guerrieri, A.,
Lage, L.L., 2020. Using infrared spectroscopy analysis of plastic debris to intro-
duce concepts of interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter. Phys.
Educ. 55, 025014 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab630b.
Ant~
ao-Barboza, L., Vethaak, A.D., Lavorante, B., Lundebye, A., Guilhermino, L., 2018.
Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security, food safety and
human health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 336e348. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2018.05.047.
Auta, H.S., Emenike, C.U., Fauziah, S.H., 2017. Distribution and importance of
microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects,
and potential solutions. Environ. Int. 102, 165e176. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envint.2017.02.013.
12 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495
Bayo, J., Rojo, D., Olmos, S., 2019. Abundance, morphology and chemical composi-
tion of microplastics in sand and sediments from a protected coastal area: the
Mar Menor lagoon (SE Spain). Environ. Pollut. 252 (Part B), 1357e1366. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.024.
Bimali-Koongolla, J., Andrady, A.L., Terney Pradeep Kumara, P.B., Gangabadage, C.S.,
2018. Evidence of microplastics pollution in coastal beaches and waters in
southern Sri Lanka. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 277e284. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2018.10.031.
Blaskovi

c, A., Fastelli, P., Ci zmek, H., Guerranti, C., Renzi, M., 2017. Plastic litter in
sediments from the Croatian marine protected area of the natural park of
Telascica bay (Adriatic Sea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (1), 583e586. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.018.
Botero, C., Hurtado, Y., Gonza
lez, J., Ojeda, M., Díaz, L., 2008. Metodología de ca
lculo
de la capacidad de carga turística como herramienta para la gestio
n ambiental y
su aplicacio
n en cinco playas del Caribe norte colombiano. Gest. Ambiente 11
(3), 109e122. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/gestion/article/view/
14036/14817.
Botterell, Z., Beaumont, N., Dorrington, T., Steinke, M., Thompson, R.C.,
Lindeque, P.K., 2019. Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine
zooplankton: a review. Environ. Pollut. 245, 98e110. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2018.10.065.
Boucher, J., Friot, D., 2017. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation
of Sources, vol. 43p. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, ISBN 978-2-8317-1827-9. https://
doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.01 (en).


Bravo, M., de los Angeles Gallardo, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Nún ~ ez, P., V
asquez, N.,
Thiel, M., 2009. Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): re-
sults from a national survey supported by volunteers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (11),
1718e1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.06.017.
Browne, M., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E.L., Tonkin, A., Thompson, T. Galloway y
R.C., 2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and
sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 9175e9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s.
Buckingham, J., Capper, A., Bell, M., 2020. The missing sink - quantification, cate-
gorisation and sourcing of beached macro-debris in the Scottish Orkney Islands.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 157, 111364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111364.
Caldero
n, E., Hansen, P., Rodríguez, A., Bletter, M., Syberg, K., Khan, F., 2019.
Microplastics in the digestive tracts of four fish species from the cie
naga Grande
de Santa Marta estuary in Colombia. Water Air Soil Pollut. 230, 257. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.javeriana.edu.co/10.1007/s11270-019-4313-8.
CITUR, 2019. Centro de Informacio
n Turística de Colombia - estadísticas Nacionales.
http://www.citur.gov.co/estadisticas.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T., 2011. Microplastic as contaminants
in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12), 2588e2597.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025.
Correia-Prata, J., 2018. Microplastics in wastewater: state of the knowledge on
sources, fate and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 129 (1), 262e265. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.046.
Costa, J., Duarte, A., Rocha-Santos, T., 2017. Microplastics e occurrence, fate and
behaviour in the environment. In: Rocha-Santos, T., Duarte, A.C. (Eds.), Char-
acterization and Analysis of Microplastics, Comprenhensive Analytical Chem-
istry, vol. 75. Elsevier, pp. 1e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.coac.2016.10.004.
Cowger, W., Gray, A.B., Eriksen, M., Moore, C., Thiel, M., 2019. Evaluating wastewater
effluent as a source of microplastics in environmental samples. In:
Karapanagioti, H.K., Kalavrouziotis, I.K. (Eds.), Microplastics in Water and
Wastewater. IWA Publishing, London, UK, pp. 109e131.
Crawford, C., Quinn, B., 2017. 3- Plastic production, waste and legislation. 39-56 p.
In: Christopher Blair Crawford, Brian Quinn. Microplastic Pollutants. Elsevier,
ISBN 9780128094068. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809406-8.00003-
7.39-56.
DANE, 2005. Proyeccio
n nacional y departamental de la poblacio
n para los an ~ os
desde 2005 al 2020. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-
tema/demografia-ypoblacion.
DANE, 2018. Cuenta Ambiental y economica de flujos de materiales e residuos
so
lidos 2012-2016. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadisticas,
Bogota
, p. 14. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/pib/ambientales/
cuentas_ambientales/cuentas-residuos/Bt-Cuenta-residuos-2016p.pdf.
De Carvalho, D., Baptista, J.A., 2016. Microplastic pollution of the beaches of Gua-
nabara bay, southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 128, 10e17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.009.
De la Torre, G.E., Dioses-Salinas, D., Marlith Castro, J., Antay, R., Yupanqui
Ferna
ndez, N., Espinoza-Morribero
n, D., Saldan
~ a-Serrano, M., 2020. Abundance
and distribution of microplastics on sandy beaches of Lima, Peru. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 151, 110877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110877.
Delvalle, D., F
abrega, J., Olmos, J., Garce
s-Ordo
n
~ ez, O., Amaral, S., Vezzone, M.,
Felizardo, J., Anjos, R., 2020. Distribution of plastic debris in the Pacific and
Caribbean beaches of Panama. Air Soil. Water Res. 13, 1e8. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1178622120920268.
Demyan, M.S., Rasche, F., Schulz, E., Breulmann, M., Müller, T., Cadisch, G., 2012. Use
of specific peaks obtained by diffuse reflectance Fourier transform mid-infrared
spectroscopy to study the composition of organic matter in a Haplic Cher-
nozem. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 63, 189e199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2389.2011.01420.x.
Fontur and MinCIT, 2012. Investigacio
n internacional de mercados para la regio
n de
Ame
rica. Fondo de promocio
n turística. Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y
Turismo, Bogot
a, p. 295. https://www.fontur.com.co/aym_document/aym_
estudios_fontur/investigacion_internacional_de_mercados_para_la_region_de_
america.pdf.
Gaibor, N., Condo-Espinel, V., Cornejo-Rodríguez, M., Darquea, J., Pernia, B.,
Domínguez, G., Briz, M., M
arquez, L., Laaz, E., Alema
n-Dyer, C., Avendan ~ o, U.,
Guerrero, J., Preciado, M., Honorato-Zimmer, D., Thiel, M., 2020. Composition,
abundance and sources of anthropogenic marine debris on the beaches from
Ecuador e a volunteer-supported study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 154, 111068. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111068.
Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez, O., Bayona-Arenas, M., 2019. Impactos de la contaminacio
n por
basura marina en el ecosistema de manglar de la Cie
naga Grande de Santa
Marta, Caribe colombiano. Revista Ciencias Marinas Y Costeras 11 (2), 145e165.
https://doi.org/10.15359/revmar.11-2.8.
Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez, O., Castillo, V., Rueda, R., Ríos, M., Bayona, M., Molina, F.,
Escobar, M., 2017. Diagno
stico de residuos micropl
asticos en las zonas marinas
de Colombia. 108-166. In: INVEMAR and MinAmbiente, 2017. Resolucio
n No.
646 de 2017. Formulacio
n de lineamientos, medidas de conservacio
n, manejo y
uso de ecosistemas marinos y costeros, con la intencio
n de apoyar acciones de
fortalecimiento en la gestio
n ambiental de las zonas costeras de Colombia,
p. 239. Santa Marta.
Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez, O., Castillo-Olaya, V., Granados-Bricen ~ o, A., Blando
n, L.,
Espinosa, L., 2019. Marine litter and microplastic pollution on mangrove soils of
the Cie
naga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombian Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 145,
455e462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.058.
Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez, O., Mejía-Esquivia, K., Sierra-Labastidas, T., Patin ~ o, A., Blando
n, L.,
Espinosa-Díaz, L., 2020a. Prevalence of microplastic contamination in the
digestive tract of fishes from mangrove ecosystem in Cispata, Colombian
Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 154, 111085. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2020.111085.
Garce
s-Ordo
n~ ez, O., Espinosa, L., Pereira, R., Muniz, M., 2020b. The impact of
tourism on marine litter pollution on Santa Marta beaches, Colombian Carib-
bean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. (in press).
GESAMP, 2019. Guidelines or the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter and
microplastics in the ocean. In: Kershaw, P.J., Turra, A., Galgani, F. (Eds.), (IMO/
FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Ex-
perts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Rep. Stud,
vol. 99. GESAMP No, pp. 1020e4873, 130pp. ISSN.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Lavender, K., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Science Advance 3 (7), e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Guo, X., Wang, J., 2019. The chemical behaviors of microplastics in marine envi-
ronment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2019.03.019.
Guzzetti, E., Sureda, A., Tejada, S., Faggio, C., 2018. Microplastic in marine organism:
environmental and toxicological effects. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 64,
164e171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2018.10.009.
Harrison, J.P., Ojeda, J.J., Romero-Gonza
lez, M.E., 2012. The applicability of reflec-
tance micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for the detection of syn-
thetic microplastics in marine sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 416, 455e463.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.078.
Hengstmann, E., Gr€ awe, D., Tamminga, M., Fischer, E., 2017. Marine litter abundance
and distribution on beaches on the Isle of Rügen considering the influence of
exposition, morphology and recreational activities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 115 (1e2),
297e306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.026.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Thiel, M., 2013. Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris
on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen science
project. Mar. Environ. Res. 87e88, 12e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marenvres.2013.02.015.
Honorato-Zimmer, D., Kruse, K., Knickmeier, K., Weinmann, A., Hinojosa, I.,
Thiel, M., 2019. Inter-hemispherical shoreline surveys of anthropogenic marine
debris e a binational citizen science project with schoolchildren. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 138, 464e473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.048.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., 2009. Plastics recycling: challenges and oppor-
tunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364 (1526), 2115e2126. https://doi.org/
10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.
IDEAM, 2014. Plataforma del Atlas climatolo
gico de Colombia. Instituto de Hidro-
logía, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, Bogot
a. http://atlas.ideam.gov.co/
visorAtlasClimatologico.html.
IDEAM, 2015a. Plataforma del Atlas interactivo de radiacio
n solar en Colombia.
Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, Bogota
. http://
atlas.ideam.gov.co/visorAtlasRadiacion.html.
IDEAM, 2015b. Plataforma del Atlas interactivo de viento de Colombia. Instituto de
Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, Bogot
a. http://atlas.ideam.
gov.co/visorAtlasVientos.html.
IDEAM, 2017a. Prono
sticos de pleamares y bajamares en la costa Pacífico
colombiana, an ~ o 2017, vol. 132. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y estudios
Ambientales, Bogota, 958-95850-6-X.
IDEAM, 2017b. Prono
sticos de pleamares y bajamares en la costa Caribe colombiana,
an~ o 2017, vol. 168. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y estudios Ambientales.
Bogot
a. SBN 958-95850-6-X.
~ iguez, M.E., Conesa, J.A., Fullana, A., 2016. Marine debris ocurrence and treatment:
In
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64, 394e402. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.06.031.
Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Lavender Law, K., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science
347 (6223), 768e771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Jung, M.R., Horgen, F.D., Orski, S.V., Rodriguez, C.V., Beers, K.L., Balazs, G.H.,
Jones, T.T., Work, T.M., Brignac, K.C., Royer, S.J., Hyrenbach, K.D., Jensen, B.A.,
 O. Garc
es-Ordo

n~ ez et al. / Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115495
Lynch, J.M., 2018. Validation of ATR FT-IR to identify polymers of plastic marine
debris, including those ingested by marine organism. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127,
704e716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.061.
Karthik, R., Robin, R.S., Purvaja, R., Ganguly, D., Anandavelu, I., Raghuraman, R.,
Hariharan, G., Ramakrishna, A., Ramesh, R., 2018. Microplastics along the bea-
ches of southeast coast of India. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1388e1399. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.242.
Kova  Peterlin, M., Horvat, P., Kr
c, M., Palatinus, A., Koren, S., zan, A., 2016. Protocol for
microplastics sampling on the sea surface and sample analysis. JoVE 118, 55161.
https://doi.org/10.3791/55161.
Laskar, N., Kumar, U., 2019. Plastics and microplastics: a threat to environment.
Environ. Technol. Innovation. 14, 100352. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eti.2019.100352.
Lebreton, L., van der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J., 2017. River
plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 15611. https://doi.org/
10.1038/ncomms15611.
Li, W.C., Tse, H.F., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of
source, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566e567, 333e349. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084.
€hr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., Van Belleghem, F., 2017. Solutions
Lo
for global marine litter pollution. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 28, 90e99. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009.
Lozoya, J.P., de Mello, F.T., Carrizo, D., Weinstein, F., Olivera, Y., Cedre
s, F., Pereira, M.,
Fossati, M., 2016. Plastics and microplastics on recreational beaches in Punta del
Este (Uruguay): unseen critical residents? Environ. Pollut. 218, 931e941. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.041.
Martins, J., Sobral, P., 2011. Plastic marine debris on the Portuguese coastline: a
matter of size? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12), 2649e2653. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2011.09.028.
Mazariegos-Ortíz, C., Rosales, M.A., Carrillo-Ovalle, L., Cardoso, R.P., Muniz, M.C.,
Anjos, R.M., 2020. First evidence of microplastic pollution in the El Quetzalito
sand beach of the Guatemalan Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 156, 111220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111220.
MinAmbiente, MinVivienda, 2013. Decreto 2981 de 2013, por el cual se reglamenta
la prestacio
n del servicio público de aseo. Diario Oficial 49010. Bogot
a D.C.
https://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sisjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i¼56035.
Nor, N., Obbard, J., 2014. Micropla
stics in Singapore’s coastal mangrove ecosystem.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79 (1e2), 278e283. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2013.11.025.
Ory, N., Sobral, P., Ferreira, J., Thiel, M., 2017. Amberstripe scad Decapterus muroadsi
(Carangidae) fish ingest blue microplastics resembling their copepod prey along
the coast of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Sci.
Total Environ. 586, 430e437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.175.
Ory, N., Chagnon, C., Felix, F., Fern
andez, C., Ferreira, J., Gallardo, C., Garce
s
Ordo
n~ ez, O., Henostroza, A., Laaz, E., Mizraji, R., Mojica, H., Murillo, V., Ossa
Medina, L., Preciado, M., Sobral, P., Urbina, M.A., Thiel, M., 2018. Low prevalence
of microplastic contamination in planktivorous fish species from the southeast
Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 211e216. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2017.12.016.
OSPAR, 2007. OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter, Monitoring of
Marine Litter in the OSPAR Region, vol. 75, 978-1-905859-45-0.
OSPAR, 2010. Guideline for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Beaches in the OSPAR
Maritime Area, p. 84. London 9036319739. https://www.ospar.org/ospar-data/
10-02e_beachlitter%20guideline_english%20only.pdf.
Philip, J.M., Aravind, U.K., Aravindakumar, C.T., 2018. Emerging contaminants in
Indian environmental matrices e a review. Chemosphere 190, 307e326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.09.120.
Rangel-Buitrago, N., 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, 22e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.023.
Riascos, J., Valencia, N., Pen ~ a, E., Cantera, J., 2019. Inhabiting the technosphere: the
encroachment of anthropogenic marine litter in Neotropical mangrove forests
and its use as habitat by macrobenthic biota. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 559e568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.010.
Ruiz-Orejo
n, L.F., Mourre, B., Sarda
, R., Tintore

, J., Ramis-Pujol, J., 2019. Quarterly
variability of floating plastic debris in the marine protected area of the Menorca
13
Channel (Spain). Environ. Pollut. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.063
(in press).
Salas-Salazar, L., 2016. Conflicto armado y configuracio
n territorial: elementos para
la consolidacio
n de la paz en Colombia. Bitacoras 26 (2), 45e57. https://doi.org/
10.15446/bitacora.v26n2.57605.
Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S., 2017. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the
sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (21), 12246e12253. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.7b02368.
Silva, M.M., Maldonado, G.C., Castro, R.O., Felizardo, J.S., Cardoso, R.P., Anjos, R.M.,
Araújo, F.V., 2019. Dispersal of potentially pathogenic bacteria by plastic debris
in Guanabara Bay, RJ, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 561e568. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.064.
Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M., Ni, B.-J., 2019. Microplastics in
wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res.
152, 21e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050.
Superservicios, 2015. Informe Sectorial de los Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios de
Acueducto y Alcantarillado Grandes Prestadores Empresas con ma
s de 2500
suscriptores. Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios, Bogot
a,
p. 124.
Superservicios, 2017a. Disposicio
n Final de Residuos So
lidos Informe Nacional e
2016. Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios, p. 78. Bogot
a.
https://www.superservicios.gov.co/sites/default/archivos/SSPD%
20Publicaciones/Publicaciones/2018/Oct/
informenacional2016disposicionfinalderesiduossolidos1.pdf.
Superservicios, 2017b. Estudio Sectorial de los servicios públicos domiciliarios de
Acueducto y Alcantarillado e 2016. Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos
Domiciliarios, p. 64. Bogot
a. https://www.superservicios.gov.co/sites/default/
archivos/SSPD%20Publicaciones/Publicaciones/2018/Oct/estudio_sectorial-
compilado-26-12-2017-vbibiana.pdf.
Superservicios, 2018. Informe de disposicio
n final de residuos so
lidos -2017.
Superintendencia de Servicios Públicos Domiciliarios, p. 177. Bogot
a. https://
www.superservicios.gov.co/sites/default/archivos/Publicaciones/Publicaciones/
2018/Dic/2._disposicion_final_de_residuos_solidos_-_informe_2017.pdf.
Turner, A., Holmes, L., 2011. Occurrence, distribution and characteristics of beached
plastic production pellets on the island of Malta (central Mediterranean). Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 62 (2), 377e381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.027.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Claessens, M., Vandegehuchte, M.B., Mees, J., Janssen, C.R.,
2013. Assessment of marine debris on the Belgian continental shelf. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 73 (1), 161e169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.05.026.
Veiga, J.M., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S., Galgani, F.,
Thompson, R.C., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., Cronin, R., 2016. Identifying
sources of marine litter. MSFD GES TG marine litter thematic report; JRC
technical report. EUR 28309. https://doi.org/10.2788/018068.
Vlachogianni, T., Fortibuoni, T., Ronchi, F., Zeri, C., Mazziotti, C., Tutman, P., Bojani
c
Varezi
 Peterlin, M., Mandi

c, D., Palatinus, A., Trdan, S., c, M., Markovic, O.,
Prvan, M., Kaberi, H., Prevenios, M., Kolitari, J., Kroqi, G., Fusco, M.,
Kalampokis, E., Scoullos, M., 2018. Marine litter on the beaches of the Adriatic
and Ionian Seas: an assessment of their abundance, composition and sources.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 745e756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.006.
Wagner, T., 2017. Reducing singe-use plastic shopping bag in the USA. Waste Manag.
70, 3e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.003.
Wang, T., Li, B., Zou, X., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, C., Yu, W., 2019. Emission of
Primary Microplastics in Mainland China: Invisible but Not Negligible. Water
Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.042 (in press).
Weinstein, J.E., Croker, B.K., Gray, A.D., 2016. From macroplastic to microplastic:
degradation of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene in a
salt marsh habitat. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (7), 1632e1640. https://doi.org/
10.1002/etc.3432.
Williams, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Anfuso, G., Cervantes, O., Botero, C., 2016. Litter
impacts on scenery and tourism on the Colombian north Caribbean coast.
Tourism Manag. 55, 209e224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.008.
INVEMAR, 2018. Diagno
stico y evaluacio
n de la calidad de las aguas marinas y
costeras en el Caribe y Pacífico colombianos. Bayona-Arenas, M. y Garce
s-
Ordo
n
~ ez, O. (Ed). Red de vigilancia para la conservacio
n y proteccio
n de las
aguas marinas y costeras de Colombia e REDCAM. Serie de Publicaciones Per-

dicas No. 4 del. INVEMAR, Santa Marta, p. 336.
io