Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Marine litter and microplastic pollution on mangrove soils of the Ciénaga T

Grande de Santa Marta, Colombian Caribbean
⁎
Ostin Garcés-Ordóñeza,b, , Victoria A. Castillo-Olayab, Andrés F. Granados-Briceñoc,
⁎
Lina M. Blandón Garcíaa, Luisa F. Espinosa Díaza,
a
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras –INVEMAR, Calle 25 No. 2-55 playa Salguero, Santa Marta, Colombia
b
Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano, Carrera 2 No. 11 - 68 Edificio Mundo Marino, Santa Marta, Colombia
c
Universidad del Magdalena, Carrera 32 No. 22-08, Santa Marta, Colombia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Marine litter pollution has become a complex global problem, because of the negative ecological and socio-
Microplastics economic impacts as well as the human health risks that it represents. In Colombia, mangroves are affected by
Plastic debris inadequate solid waste management, which results in litter accumulation. Additionally, the information related
Solid waste management to this problem is limited avoiding the development of prevention and reduction strategies. For the first time,
Lagoon complex
pollution by marine litter and microplastics were evaluated in mangrove soils of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa
Mangrove ecosystem
Marta, where 540 ± 137 and 31 ± 23 items/ha of marine litter were determined in mangroves near and away
from populated centers respectively. Plastics represented between 73 and 96% of litter, and microplastic
quantity oscillated between 31 and 2,863 items/kg finding the highest concentrations in mangroves near to the
population. This study contributes to the knowledge of the marine litter problem in mangroves of the Colombian
Caribbean, becoming a help for their conservation.

1. Introduction
Marine litter has been considered all persistent, manufactured or
processed solid material discarded, disposed or abandoned in the
marine and coastal environment (UNEP, 2009), it generates pollution in
ecosystems, causing negative ecological and socioeconomical impacts
as well as high human health risks (Antão-Barboza et al., 2018), be-
coming a problem of global interest that requires scientific studies to
understand the problem and design effective solutions that need to be
adapted to local cultural contexts (UNEP, 2009; Löhr et al., 2017).
Plastics are the main constituent of marine litter (between 60 and 90%)
due to its high production (299 million tons in 2013) and use in dis-
posable products, cosmetics, personal and household cleaning, con-
struction industries, chemical- pharmaceutical, metal-mechanic, food,
among others (Li et al., 2016). Furthermore, marine pollution by
plastics is associated with deficiencies in basic sanitation, low recycling
and low environmental awareness since it is produced until it is con-
sumed (Li et al., 2016). In Colombia, it is estimated that about 65% of
the solid waste generated in the coastal populations are inadequately
managed being finally disposed in open dumps or in natural water
bodies, like rivers that transport this waste to the sea (Garcés-Ordóñez
et al., 2017). In that way, it is estimated that the Magdalena River emit
16,700 tons of plastics per year to the Caribbean Sea (Lebreton et al.,
2017), which is finally accumulate on the beaches, mangroves and
other marine- coastal ecosystems. Once in these ecosystems, plastics are
deteriorate due to its exposure to solar radiation, waves and other en-
vironmental factors which cause its fragmentation generating minor
particles like microplastics (plastic particles ≤5 mm) (Li et al., 2016).
Microplastics are considered an emerging pollutant, because of its
size, weight, form, color and abundance, in the environment they are
ingested by different organisms such as mollusks, crustaceans, fishes,
among others (Wright et al., 2013; Antão-Barboza et al., 2018). Like-
wise, microplastics can deteriorate environmental quality, causing
physical damage and mortality of marine fauna (Derraik, 2002; Cole
et al., 2011; Andrady, 2011; Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014; Wang et al.,
2016; Sun et al., 2017), in addition, microplastics can adsorb persistent
organic pollutants and heavy metals generating the bioaccumulation
and biomagnification of these materials in the food web through its
consumption increasing the probability of human health affection (Ríos
et al., 2007; Andrady, 2011; Kühn et al., 2015; Bennecke et al., 2016;
Wang et al., 2016; Massos and Turner, 2017). Furthermore, other im-
pacts of microplastics presence is the facilitation of the introduction and

⁎
Corresponding authors at: Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras –INVEMAR, Programa Calidad Ambiental Marina, Calle 25 No. 2-55 playa Salguero,
Santa Marta, Colombia.
E-mail addresses: ostin.garces@invemar.org.co (O. Garcés-Ordóñez), luisa.espinosa@invemar.org.co (L.F. Espinosa Díaz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.058
Received 24 May 2019; Received in revised form 18 June 2019; Accepted 19 June 2019
Available online 24 June 2019
0025-326X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al.
spread of exotic species (Rech et al., 2016) in new habitats and the
propagation of pathogenic microorganisms (Kovač Viršeka et al., 2017);
among others. On the other hand, microplastics have also been found in
bottled drinking water, cooking salt and other foods, as well as in the
air, so human beings are also exposed to them and as consequence their
health is affect (Antão-Barboza et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the ecolo-
gical and social effects associated with them are still unknown (Auta
et al., 2017).
In Colombia, mangrove is one of the coastal-marine ecosystems
considered strategic for the development of the country, due to their
ecological functions and the provision of ecosystem services that
strongly influences the culture, the economy and the life quality of
human populations near to them (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2016).
Unfortunately, in Colombia mangroves degradation is a big concern,
the main causes are related to urban expansion, climate change, pol-
lution, changes in the use of the soil and overexploitation of the natural
elements, among others (Uribe and Urrego, 2009). Specifically, urban
expansion towards the mangrove areas has generated pollution due to
the wastewater and solid waste, which are improperly handled and
dumped into the ecosystem, whereby turning solid waste into marine
litter (Riascos et al., 2019).
The lagoon complex of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM)
has an area of 4,280 km2, it is the main provider of environmental
goods and services to the local population. The CGSM is considered one
of the coastal lagoon systems most productive in the Colombian
Caribbean region being declared as RAMSAR wetland, biosphere re-
serve, Important Birds Conservation Areas and Natural National Park
(Vía Parque -VIPIS and Sanctuary of Flora and Fauna of the CGSM)
(INVEMAR, 2018). The CGSM has one of the larger coverages of
mangrove in the Colombian Caribbean (39,535 ha in 2014), re-
presenting 14% of the national coverage of these forests (289,122 ha;
INVEMAR, 2014, 2018). Nevertheless, the CGSM has been negatively
affected by human activities (fishing, aquaculture, livestock, agri-
culture, among others) carried out therein and in its surroundings
causing its continuous deterioration (Vivas-Aguas et al., 2013;
INVEMAR and MinAmbiente, 2013; INVEMAR, 2018). One of the
principal environmental degradation factors that affect the mangroves
of the CGSM is the inadequate management and accumulation of solid
waste. Even though this is an evident problem, the effects of these
pollutants over the mangrove ecosystem have not been quantified yet,
ignoring the possible negative effects due to the synergy between the
accumulation of marine litter and other factors over the recovery of the
mangrove.
The aim of this work was to assess the state of pollution by marine
litter, including microplastics, on the mangroves soil in the CGSM, key
information for the management of the solid waste in the CGSM by the
competent environmental authorities. Besides, this study contributes to
the Sustainable Development Goal No. 14: Conserve and sustainably
use the oceans, seas and marine resources, in its target 14.1 related to
the prevention and significantly reduction of this type of pollution in
marine environments (United Nations, 2019).
2. Research area and methods
2.1. Sampling stations description
Six sampling stations distributed in North and West zones of the
CGSM over the places known as Isla Rosario (E1), Tasajera (E2, E5 and
E6) and Buenavista (E3, E4) were selected to determine the status of
pollution by marine litter and microplastics on mangrove soils (Fig. 1
and Table 1). Linear distance from populated centers was calculated
with the program Google Earth Pro 2018, and the disturbance state of
the mangrove forest was according to previous reports by INVEMAR
(2018). E1, E3 and E4 stations are in moderately disturbed mangrove
near to the population centers (< 2 km). These stations were char-
acterized for the presence of Laguncularia racemosa, Avicennia germinans
456
Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462
and Rhizophora mangle with 7 to 18 m of height and the pneumato-
phores covered between > 25 and < 75% of 1 m2 of soil, many of the
mangrove trees were found dead standing in these stations. E2 station is
located in a highly disturbed mangrove at 4̴ km from the population
center, formed by a strip of R. mangle living on the edge of the swamp,
followed by an area of dead standing trees of A. germinans and L. ra-
cemosa, covered by the pneumatophores < 25% of 1m2 of soil. E5 and
E6 stations (national natural park VIPIS) were characterized by low
disturbed mangroves at 20 km from the nearest urban center and L.
racemosa and A. germinans trees with heights between 7 and 18 m.
Besides, many of the mangrove trees were found dead standing in these
stations with pneumatophores covering between < 25 and > 75% of
1 m2 of soil respectively.
An sampling area of 1000 m2 was established in each station
georeferenced using a Garmin GPS. The areas were parallel to the long
edge of the mangrove, from the line of highest tide behind the first strip
(between 2 and 3 m of wide) of the R. mangle trees towards the interior
of the forest where there was a low density of A. germinans and L. ra-
cemosa. It was difficult to take samples at the intertidal zone because
the root system of R. mangle was very dense.
2.2. Marine littler characterization
Sample collection was carried out during the dry season, where the
mangrove soil in the stations was mostly dry, with flood levels < 5 cm
in certain areas. The methodology of marine litter monitoring of OSPAR
(2010) was adapted to the access, structure and mangroves conditions
in the selected stations. For this, ten transects of 50 m long with 2 m
wide were made, for a total sampling area of 1000 m2, starting from the
edge towards the interior of the mangrove with the purpose of observe
the accumulation gradient of the marine litter. In each transect, all solid
wastes with size > 2.5 cm (macro-litter) that were found above the
mangrove soil (between and on the pneumatophores of A. germinans
and L. racemosa) were collected. In total, 2220 units of marine litter
were counted, separated and classified according to the categories de-
scribed in OSPAR (2010) as plastic, metal, glass, rubber, rubble, wood,
textile, hospital and sanitary waste. Additionally, marine litters were
weighed with a weighing scale brand Mettler Toledo ( ± 0.1 g of pre-
cision), and a total weight of 184 kg was obtained. Finally, the per-
centage of hazardous and non-hazardous waste was determined, ac-
cording to the definition of the Decree 4741 of 2005 of the Environment
Ministry of Colombia as “Residues or waste that may cause risk or harm to
human health and the environment due to its characteristics, corrosive, re-
active, explosive, toxic, flammable, infectious or radioactive. Likewise, is
considered residue or hazardous waste the containers, packaging and
packaging that have been in contact with them” (MinAmbiente, 2005).
2.3. Microplastics collection
Three points within the sampling area of marine litter were ran-
domly selected (1m2 of the area) and an integrated sample of surface
sediment (~500 g) was taken for microplastics analyses (1 to 5 mm of
size). Once in the laboratory, the sediments were dried at 60 °C during
72 h, weighted and deposited in an airtight container where a solution
of sodium hexametaphosphate (2.5 g L−1) was added. The sediments in
the solution were agitated at 180 rpm during 25 min to separate the
grains. Subsequently, to remove the greater proportion of clays and
mud, sediments were screened using a sieve (1–5 mm), distilled water
and filtered (WHATMAN, 1–5 mm pore size 8 μm). Then, the material
retained in the 1 mm sieve was dried at 65 °C during 48 h. Finally, the
dry sample was examined at the stereoscope (Leica Microsystems) for
visual identification, separation and classification of microplastics ac-
cording to their form, fragment, filament, pellet, granule, film and
foam, in concordance to the procedure described by Kovač Viršek et al.
(2016). A total of 3470 microplastics were obtained from 4567.3 g of
dry mangrove sediment.
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462

Fig. 1. Study area with the distribution of sampling stations (E1-E6, pink points) at Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta - Caribbean Colombian. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

2.4. Attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
(ATR-FTIR)
170 microplastics significant of each station were selected using a
stereoscope (Stemi 2000, Zeiss) and images were taken with an
AxioCam ERc5s (Zeiss). Then, ATR-FTIR spectra analyses were re-
corded at room temperature in the mid IR range (400–4000 cm−1)
using an IR – Tracer Instrument (Shimadzu) equipped with a DLATS
detector and a single reflection horizontal ATR accessory (ATR -
MIRacle™ PIKE). Each spectrum was average over 124 scans with a
resolution of 4 cm−1. The ATR correction to each spectrum was applied
using the LabSolutions IR software. Taking into account that bags and
packaging were the most abundant plastic elements in all stations (see
Results section) characteristics bands of high and low - density poly-
ethylene (2915, 29,845 and 1462 cm−1) were used to identify the mi-
croplastic materials (Jung et al., 2018). In addition, the spectra ob-
tained were compared to the reference libraries 23-IRs Polymer 2 and
IRs pharmaceuticals.

Table 1
Marine litter and microplastics sampling stations.
Station Coordinates Mangrove disturbance state* Nearby population Population size** Population center distance Pollution sources observed

E1 10° 59′ 2.076″ N Moderate Isla de Rosario 32,346 hab. 0.2 km 1, 2, 3, 4.

74° 17′ 34.242″ W
E2 10° 58′ 2.460″ N High Tasajera 3537 hab. 4.1 km 1, 2, 3, 4.
74° 22′ 13.094″ W
E5 10° 57′ 41.850″ N Moderate 21.0 km 3, 4.
74° 29′ 38.260″ W
E6 10° 58′ 44.166″ N Low 30.0 km 3, 4.
74° 34′ 55.988″ W
E3 10° 50′ 21.228″ N Moderate Buenavista 1029 hab. 1.8 km 1, 3, 4.
74° 29′ 34.202″ W
E4 10° 50′ 38.425″ N Moderate 0.2 km 1, 3, 4.
74° 30′ 44.597″ W

Pollution sources observed in the field: inadequate management of household solid waste (1), aquaculture (2), artisanal fishing (3) y vehicle traffic/boats (4).
*Invemar (2018), **Invemar y MinAmbiente (2013).

457
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462

Marine litter types acording to abundance

800 100 PL

Abundance (item/ha)
MT

Percentage (%)
600 75 VI
CA
400 50 ES
MD
200 25 TE
RH

0 0 RS
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Stations Stations

Marine litter types acording to weight

120 100 PL
MT
Weight (kg/items)

Percentage (%)
90 75 VI
CA
60 50 ES
MD
30 25 TE
RH
0 0 RS
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Stations Stations
Fig. 2. Abundance, weight and percentage of marine litter in the sampling stations. Plastic (PL), metal (MT), glass (VI), rubber (CA), rubble (ES), wood (MA), textile
(TE), hospital waste (RH) and sanitary waste (RS).

3. Results 2 units, and medicines containers: 11 units). These hazardous wastes

3.1. Marine litter pollution
Marine litter of the type of plastic, metal, glass, rubber, rubble,
textile, processed wood and hospital and sanitary wastes were found in
all stations (Fig. 2). In the sampling area, a greater accumulation was
observed in the first 10 m of the edge diminishing towards the interior
of the forest. The abundance of marine litter ranged between 15 and
728 items/ha, with weights between 0.1 and 49.5 kg per item, finding
the higher abundance (540 ± 137 items/ha) in stations near to the
populated centers (E1, E2, E3 and E4). On the other hand, the stations
away from the populated centers (E5 and E6) presented an average
abundance of 31 ± 23 items/ha (Fig. 2).
Plastics were the most abundant solid waste in all stations, re-
presenting between 73 and 96% of the units counted and about 50% of
the total weight, followed by textiles and glass (Fig. 2). The bags and
packaging were the most abundant plastic elements (1233 units), fol-
lowed by other plastic parts like polystyrene (319 units), bottles
(296 units), kitchenware (66 units) and personal grooming (24 units),
fishing nets (20 units), toys (20 units) and appliances (6 units) (Fig. 3).
In the category of other plastic parts and polystyrene were included the
fragments of polystyrene (185 units), fragments of hard plastics
(67 units), bottle caps and containers (43 units), fragments of ethylene-
vinyl acetate (4 units), sticks of candy (4 units), clothespin, sack and
felt-tip pen (2 units of each element), strings, brush for washing, hose,
hat and streetlights of boat (1 unit of each element) (Fig. 3).
Regarding the pollutants' classifications according to their hazard,
99% of the waste was non-hazardous. It was found ordinary subtypes
(e.g. plastic bags and packaging: 1233 units, disposable expanded
polystyrene: 181 units, elements of earthenware and ceramics: 2 units,
among others) and recyclable (e.g., PET plastic bottles: 216 units, metal
elements: 9 units, and glass bottles: 70 units). The other 1% were dan-
gerous biohazard waste (e.g. syringes and lancets used: 1 unit each and
disposable diapers: 4 units) and chemical (e.g. lubricating oil engine:
7 units, AA batteries: 3 units, lights: 6 units, pesticide containers:
were found in stations E1, E2, E3 and E4.
3.2. Microplastics pollution
The normalized concentrations were between 31 and 2863 items/kg
of dry sediment, with the highest concentrations in the stations near to
the populated centers of Rosario Island (E1), Tasajera (E2) and
Buenavista (E4) (Fig. 4). The most abundant types of microplastic were
the films from the fragmentation of food bags and wrappings, followed
by fragments of hard plastics and disposable utensils, the foams, mainly
of expanded polystyrene, rope fragments and fishing nylon.
3.3. Attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
(ATR-FTIR)
ATR-FTIR analyses were made to 170 microplastics (previously se-
lected) and the significant spectrum corresponding to each sampling
station is report (Fig. 5). In general, microplastics from all the stations
presented peaks around 2900 and 2800 cm−1 which correspond to the
asymmetric stretching vibration of methylene in the saturated hydro-
carbon backbone and symmetric stretching vibration of methylene re-
spectively, these peaks are commonly found in high and low-density
polyethylene materials. On the other hand, comparing the spectrums
with those in the libraries Polymer 2 and IRs pharmaceuticals it was
found similarity with two types of compounds acrylonitrile butadiene
rubber (NBR) (Fig. 5) and methaqualone (Fig. S1). In this sense, the
peak at 2200 cm−1 was attributed to C]N stretching vibration (a
common group in NBR materials). In a minor proportion other peaks at
the 1700 cm−1 characteristic of C]O stretching vibration and C]C
stretching vibration, and the peak at 1400 cm−1 assigned to CH2 de-
formation vibration were found (Faizan et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2016).
4. Discussion
The accumulation of marine litter in the CGSM mangroves has

458
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462

Fig. 3. Number and proportion of waste plastic types registered at sampling stations. Plastic elements types: bags and packaging (B&P), other pieces of plastic or
polystyrene (OT), bottles (BO), kitchenware (KT), personal grooming (PG), fishing nets (FN), toys (TY), appliances (AP).

Categories of microplastic
Concentration Foams Filaments Films Fragments

E6 31

E5 377

E4 1065

E3 343

E2 2863

E1 794

0 1000 2000 3000 0 20 40 60 80 100

Microplastic/Kg d.w. Percentage (%)
Fig. 4. Concentrations and percentages of the microplastics categories in mangroves sediments.

459
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al.
Fig. 5. Significant spectrums corresponding to each sampling station.
principally occurred as a result of the inadequate disposal of household
solid waste, the fisheries, the aquaculture activities and the vehicles
transit and the discharges of solid waste from the Magdalena,
Aracataca, Fundación, and Sevillano rivers, among other sources of
contamination (Vivas-Aguas et al., 2013; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2018).
There are few studies related to the quantification of the abundance
of marine litter and microplastics on mangrove soils, possibly due to the
difficulties in the sampling activities. In Brazil, Cordero and Costa
(2010) assessed the marine litter in mangroves of the San Vicente es-
tuary, finding an average abundance of 1,300 items/ha, being plastics
the most representatives (63%). On the other hand, Smith (2012) de-
termined average abundances of marine litter (between 1,200 and
78,300 items/ha) in the mangroves of Motupore Island in Papua New
Guinea, where 89.7% were plastics. Also, Martin et al. (2019) de-
termined abundances of marine litter around 20 items/ha in newly
planted forests, and 3,700 items/ha in a mature natural forest in the
coast of Yanbu, Saudi Arabia and the 92.2% were plastics. These
abundances exceed those determined in the CGSM, due to the greater
population density in the areas of these cities and the influence of ocean
currents.
Regarding microplastics, Mohamed Nor and Obbard (2014) re-
ported a maximum average concentration of 60.7 ± 27.2 items/kg of
dry sediment from the mangrove of Singapore. Naji et al. (2017) re-
ported maximum average concentrations of 125 ± 25 items/kg of dry
sediment from two mangrove stations at coast in the Persian Gulf of
Iran and Li et al. (2018) reported maximum concentrations of 125
items/kg of dry sediment inside mangroves of the Qinzhou Bay in
China. These values are below the maximum average concentration of
460
Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462
microplastics determined in this study (2,745 ± 1,978 items/kg of dry
sediment), characterized for the low population density and in-
dustrialization, which means a high index of pollution by microplastics
in the mangrove sediments of the CGSM. These results are in con-
cordance with the type of water body, lentic system and high state of
mangroves disturbance in the CGSM which facilitates plastics frag-
mentation, generating microplastics (Weinstein et al., 2016).
Stations with the greatest abundance of marine litter and micro-
plastics in the CGSM (E1, E2 and E4) were nearby to the populated
centers of Isla de Rosario, Tasajera and Buenavista, respectively. In
these stations, the mangrove is highly disturbed and the populations
have deficiencies in the toilet and sewerage services, with inadequate
management of solid waste (Vivas-Aguas et al., 2013; INVEMAR and
MinAmbiente, 2013). These results are consistent with those reported
by Riascos et al. (2019) in Buenaventura - Colombian Pacific man-
groves, where solid wastes are poorly managed and accumulate in
mangrove swamps nearby urban areas. This situation leads to the
creation of dumps into the mangroves, mainly in the Northern and
Western sectors of the CGSM (Fig. 6). In addition, part of the municipal
solid waste is discharged to the water bodies in the CGSM and by the
action of the winds and currents arrive at the mangrove where normally
they are retained by the roots (Martin et al., 2019).
In the E5 and E6 stations, which are inside the VIPIS Natural Park
were found the lowest abundances of marine litter and microplastics,
due to their long distance from populated centers, the type of water
body (channel), low intensity of fishing activities and minor mangrove
disturbance states (INVEMAR, 2018). In the E5 station were found
fragments of bags, plastic food wrappers, plastic and glass bottles,
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al.
A)
Fig. 6. Solid waste dumps in the mangroves of the E1 station, Isla del Rosario sector (A) and the E6 station, Buenavista sector (B).
footwear, plastic utensils and fragments of expanded polystyrene,
which are associated with the fishing activities and felling of mangroves
trees as main sources of contamination. In the E6 station was found
plastic waste such as bags and bottles, footwear, glass bottles, bottle
tops and processed wood, whose source could be boat traffic and the
consumption of products during the dredging activities of the channels
to guarantee the water flows in the CGSM (INVEMAR, 2018).
In the mangroves of the E3 station, located at Caño Grande, the
fishermen have suitable space where they prepare their food, repair
their fishing net and wait while they place fishing nets in the water
(calado) or removed their fishing nets of water (virado). All solid waste
from products used by fishermen on this site, such as food wrapping,
plastic containers of cooking oil and motor oil, bottles of refreshment,
AA batteries, fishing nets and textiles, among others, are abandoned in
the mangrove accumulating on the soil, where it is covered by sediment
and leaf litter. Because of the state of mangrove disturbance in the
stations of sampling (INVEMAR, 2018), the vast majority of the plastic
waste were directly exposed to the solar radiation (main factor that
weakens the plastic structure; Weinstein et al., 2016), so at the time of
collecting them, were fragmented generating microplastics.
Many of the plastic wastes were found covering the pneumato-
phores of A. germinans and L. racemosa, others were found above the
roots of R. mangle, plant structures that act as marine litter traps (Martin
et al., 2019; Ivar do Sul et al., 2014). This negatively affects the mol-
lusks and crustaceans habitats, species that live in the soil associated
with the roots of these mangroves, similar to what was reported by
Bulow and Ferdinand (2013) in mangroves from Panama, where the
number of burrows of crabs of the Uca genus, decreased with respect to
the area occupied by marine litter. In the other hand, the establishment
and survival of mangrove seedlings are also affected by marine litter
causing physical damage, loss of foliage, crushing and death, situations
that need to be investigated.
There are few reports about microplastics in Colombian Caribbean
marine - coastal ecosystems, being this the first related to these findings
in mangrove soils of the CGSM. Like CGSM mangroves, other areas of
mangroves and coastal lagoons in the Colombian Caribbean have been
observed with abundant litters, but no studies have been conducted to
quantify this contamination, so this type of knowledge is limited in the
country. At this point, it is important to resalt that the cities in the
Colombian Caribbean are known for its industrial activities which can
be a font of microplastic pollution. For example, Cartagena de Indias
has been known as the “South-American capital of plastics” (Acosta-
Coley et al., 2019). In that way, Acosta-Coley et al. (2019) evaluated
microplastics in Cartagena, finding white-new polyethylene pellets and
secondary microplastics with trace elements (Hg, Barium, Cr, Rb, Sr,
Ce, Zr, Ni, Pb, among others).
In this study, the majority of the microplastics analyzed by the FTIR
– ATR presented characteristic peaks found in polymeric materials,
specifically they were similar to the NBR according to the 23 – IRs
461
Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462
B)
polymer 2 library, a synthetic copolymer used in the fabrication of
various polymeric materials (Liu et al., 2016). On the other hand, the
E2 station presented a material similar to a compound derived from
pyridine (Faizan et al., 2018) used in the pharmaceutical industry
known as methaqualone according to the IRs pharmaceutical library,
which is in concordance with the other pollutant materials described.
5. Conclusions and challenger for Colombia
The CGSM mangrove soils are polluted by marine litter and mi-
croplastics as results of the fragmentation of plastic elements of greater
size, which contributed with the deterioration of the environmental
quality of the lagoon complex. Plastic waste is the most abundant type
of marine litter found in the CGSM and microplastics concentrations are
among the highest reported in mangroves.
Taking into account the global situation of marine liter and micro-
plastics, and the poor knowledge about it in Colombia, we require re-
search efforts to know the current situation and to provide scientific
basis to the Government of Colombia to design management tools for
the prevention, reduction and control of these emergent pollutants.
These strategies will be useful to advance in the Colombian State ob-
jective “To provide a healthy marine environment, in order to improve
the population life quality”. In this sense, we have identified three key
challenges and actions to address the contamination of marine debris in
Colombia, especially plastics and microplastics:
1) Increase the knowledge about the state of pollution by plastics and
microplastics in the marine and coastal environment.
2) Improve education and awareness of the population, in order to
prevent pollution
3) Reduce the discharge of persistent solid waste from land-based and
marine sources Colombians seas.
These challenges involve different government agencies for plan-
ning and management the strategies to basic sanitation, generate reg-
ulations for the control and monitoring, and develop corrective and
compensatory actions. In addition, is necessary involve the Colombian
population, to raise awareness about the use of plastics, to reduce sig-
nificantly the income of these pollutants to coastal and marine en-
vironments.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.058.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the “Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarollo Sostenible,
Colombia” for the financial support. Thanks to the Marine and Coastal
Research Institute “José Benito Vives de Andréis” for the institutional
support. In addition, we want to thank the researcher Diana Romero
O. Garcés-Ordóñez, et al.
Dachiardi for the Cartographic studies and the doctors Martin Thiel and
Nicolas Ory for their contributions to improve the quality of the
manuscript.
Statement
The percentage of hazardous and non-hazardous waste was de-
termined, according to the definition of the Decree 4741 of 2005 of the
Environment Ministry of Colombia.
References
Acosta-Coley, I., Mendez-Cuadro, D., Rodríguez-Cavallo, E., De la Rosa, J., Olivero-
Verbel, J., 2019. Trace elements in microplastics in Cartagena: a hotspot for plastic
pollution at the Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 139, 402–411. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.016.
Andrady, A., 2011. Microplastic in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (8),
1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Antão-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, 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.05.047.
Auta, H.S., Emenike, C.U., Fauziah, S.H., 2017. Distribution and importance of micro-
plastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and po-
tential solutions. Environ. Int. 102, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.
02.013.
Bennecke, D., Duarte, B., Paiva, F., Cacador, I., Canning-Clode, J., 2016. Microplastic as
vector of heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuar. Coast.
Shelf Sci. 178, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.003.
Bulow, E.S., Ferdinand, T.J., 2013. El efecto de la basura en la dinámica de los ecosis-
temas de manglar: Un análisis comparativo. Smithsonian Institute y McGill
University. Panamá 26.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T., 2011. Microplastic as contaminants in
the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12), 2588–2597. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025.
Cordero, C., Costa, T., 2010. Evaluation of solid residues removed from a mangrove
swamp in the São Vicente Estuary, SP, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (10), 1762–1767.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.06.010.
Derraik, J.G., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5.
Faizan, M., Alam, M.J., Afroz, Z., Bhat, S.A., Ahmad, S., 2018. Anharmonic vibrational
spectra and mode-mode couplings analysis of 2-aminopyridine. Spectrochim. Acta A
188, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2017.06.054.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Castillo, V., Rueda, R., Ríos, M., Bayona, M., Molina, F., Escobar, M.,
2017. Diagnóstico de residuos microplásticos en las zonas marinas de Colombia. 108-
166. In: Invemar and MinAmbiente, 2017. Resolución No. 646 de 2017. Formulación
de lineamientos, medidas de conservación, manejo y uso de ecosistemas marinos y
costeros, con la intención de apoyar acciones de fortalecimiento en la gestión am-
biental de las zonas costeras de Colombia, pp. 239 Santa Marta.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Bayona, M., Castillo, V., Rueda, R., 2018. Evaluación de impactos de
microplásticos sobre el ecosistema de manglar en la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta.
In: Invemar y MinAmbiente, 2018. Cuarto Informe técnico. Convenio
Interadministrativo 659 de 2017. Santa Marta, Colombia, pp. 197–226 (374 p.).
INVEMAR, 2014. Elementos técnicos que permitan establecer medidas de manejo, con-
trol, uso sostenible y restauración de los ecosistemas costeros y marinos del país.
Código: ACT-BEM-001-014. Informe técnico final. Convenio MADS-INVEMAR No.
190. Santa Marta, Colombia. pp. 1–108.
INVEMAR, 2018. Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambios estructurales y
funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y de los recursos pesqueros durante la
rehabilitación de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. In: Informe Técnico Final 2017.
vol. Volumen 16 (Santa Marta 174p).
INVEMAR and MinAmbiente, 2013. Elementos técnicos y generación de capacidad para el
ordenamiento y manejo de los espacios y recursos marinos, costeros e insulares de
Colombia. ACT-VAR-001-013. Informe técnico final. Convenio MinAmbiente-
Invemar No. 57. Santa Marta, Colombia. pp. 404–547.
Ivar do Sul, J., Costa, M., 2014. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the
marine environment. Environ. Pollut. 185, 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2013.10.036.
Ivar do Sul, J., Costa, M., Silva-Cavalcanti, J., Araújo, M., 2014. Plastic debris retention
and exportation by a mangrove forest parch. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 78 (1–2), 252–257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.11.011.
Jung, M.R., Horgen, F.D., Orski, S.V., Rodriguez, V., Beers, K., Balazs, G., Jones, T.T.,
Work, T., Brignac, K., Royer, S., Hyrenbach, K.D., Jensen, B., Lynch, J., 2018.
Validation of ATR FT-IR to identify polymers of plastic marine debris, including those
ingested by marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 704–716. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.061.
Kovač Viršek, M., Palatinus, A., Koren, Š., Peterlin, M., Horvat, P., Kržan, A., 2016.
Protocol for microplastics sampling on the sea surface and sample analysis. JoVE
(118), 55161. https://doi.org/10.3791/55161.
Kovač Viršeka, M., Nika Lovšin, M., Koren, Š., Kržan, A., Peterlin, M., 2017. Microplastics
462
Marine Pollution Bulletin 145 (2019) 455–462
as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen species Aeromonas sal-
monicida. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 125 (1–2), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.08.024.
Kühn, S., Bravo, E.L., Van Franeker, J.A., 2015. Deleterious effects of litter on marine life.
In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter.
Springer, Berlin, pp. 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_4. 447 p.
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. 566-567, 333–349. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084.
Li, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, K., Yang, R., Li, R., Li, Y., 2018. Characterization, source, and
retention of microplastic in sandy beaches and mangrove wetlands of the Qinzhou
Bay, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 136, 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2018.09.025.
Liu, J., Li, X., Xu, L., Zhang, P., 2016. Investigation of aging behavior and mechanism of
nitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR) in the accelerated thermal aging environment. Polym.
Test. 54, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.06.010.
Löhr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., Van Belleghem, F., 2017. Solutions
for global marine litter pollution. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 28, 90–99. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009.
Martin, C., Almahasheer, H., Duarte, C., 2019. Mangroves forests as traps for marine
litter. Environ. Pollut. 247, 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.067.
Massos, A., Turner, A., 2017. Cadmium, lead, and bromine in beached microplastics.
Environ. Pollut. 227, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.034.
MinAmbiente, 2005. Decreto 4741 de 2005 “Por el cual se reglamenta parcialmente la
prevención y manejó de los residuos o desechos peligrosos generados en el marco de
la gestión integral”. Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial,
Bogotá 18 pp.. http://quimicos.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/residuos-peligrosos/
normativa-de-residuos-o-desechos-peligrosos.
Mohamed Nor, N., Obbard, J., 2014. Microplástics in Singapore's coastal mangrove
ecosystem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79 (1–2), 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2013.11.025.
Naji, A., Esmaili, Z., Mason, S., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. The occurrence of microplastic
contamination in littoral sediments of the Persian Gulf Iran. ESPR 24 (25),
20459–20468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9587-z.
OSPAR. 2010. Guideline for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Beaches in the OSPAR
Maritime Area. London. 84 p. https://www.ospar.org/ospar-data/10-02e_beachlitter
%20guideline_english%20only.pdf. ISBN 9036319739.
Rech, S., Borrell, Y., García-Vázquez, E., 2016. Marine litter as vector of non-native
especies: what we need to know. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 113 (1–2), 40–43. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.032.
Riascos, J., Valencia, N., Peña, 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, 559–568. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.010.
Ríos, L.M., Moore, C., Jones, P.R., 2007. Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic
polymersin the ocean environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54 (8), 1230–1237. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.03.022.
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J.A., Sierra-Correa, P.C., Gómez-Cubillos, M.C., Villanueva, L.V.L.,
2016. Mangroves of Colombia. In: Finlayson, C., Milton, G., Prentice, R., Davidson, N.
(Eds.), The Wetland Book. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-6173-5_280-2. 978-94-007-4001-3.
Smith, S., 2012. Marine debris: a proximate threat to marine sustainability in Bootless
Bay, Papua New Guinea. Mar. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 1880–1883. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2012.06.013.
Sun, X., Li, Q., Zhu, M., Liang, J., Zheng, S., Zhao, Y., 2017. Ingestion of microplastic by
natural groups in the northern South China sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 115 (1–2),
217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.004.
UNEP, 2009. Marine Litter a Global Challenge. UNEP, Nairobi, pp. 232. https://wedocs.
unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/10744/MarineLitterAglobalChallenge.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
United Nations, 2019. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/.
Uribe, J., Urrego, L., 2009. Gestión ambiental de los ecosistemas de manglar:
aproximación al caso colombiano. Gest. Amb. 12 (2), 57–72. http://www.redalyc.
org/articulo.oa?id=169414455005.
Vivas-Aguas, L.J., Espinosa, L.F., Parra Henríquez, L., 2013. Identificación de fuentes
terrestres de contaminación y cálculo de las cargas de contaminantes en el área de
influencia de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Caribe colombiano. Bol. Investig.
Mar. Cost. 42 (1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.25268/bimc.invemar.2013.42.1.57.
Wang, J., Tan, Z., Peng, J., Qiu, Q., Li, M., 2016. The behaviors of microplastics in the
marine environment. Mar. Environ. Res. 113, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marenvres.2015.10.014.
Weinstein, J.E., Croker, B.K., Gray, A.D., 2016. From macroplastic to microplastic: de-
gradation of high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene in a salt
marsh habitat. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (7), 1632–1640. https://doi.org/10.1002/
etc.3432.
Wright, S., Thompson, R., Galloway, T., 2013. The physical impacts of microplastic on
marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178, 483–492. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031.