Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review

Where and how? A systematic review of microplastic pollution on beaches

in Latin America and the caribbean (LAC)☆
Yan Weber Mesquita a, b, Mateus Farias Mengatto a, b, Renata Hanae Nagai a, *
a
Center for Marine Studies, Federal University of Paraná, Av Beira-Mar, S/n, Pontal Do Sul, 83255-976, Pontal Do Paraná, PR, Brazil
b
Graduate Program in Coastal and Oceanic Systems (PGSISCO) of the Federal University of Parana, Av Beira-Mar, S/n, Pontal Do Sul, 83255-976, Pontal Do Paraná,
PR, Brazil

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

Keywords: The dispersion of microplastics (MPs) in coastal and marine environments and their potential harmful effects on
Microplastics organisms and ecosystems makes MPs pollution an emerging problem that has gained increasing attention from
Emerging contaminants the scientific community. Despite the recent increase in the number of studies on MPs presence in different
Sediments
marine environments, investigations in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are still relatively limited. This
South America
review presents the spatial distribution (where) and the methods applied (how) in assessing MPs contamination
Caribbean
Coastal zone on LAC sandy beaches, identifying the challenges to be faced in advancing the understanding of this emerging
contaminant. Most of the 39 papers reviewed were published between 2020 and 2021 (51%) and conducted on
Brazilian beaches (43%). The LAC investigations apply spot sampling (69%) on shoreline stretches between 10
and 1000 km (59%). These works used inconsistent sampling methods, incomparable techniques for MPs
extraction from sediments, and different measurement units to report their data. The MPs presence on LAC
beaches is not negligible, as it varies significantly in its distribution and concentration (0–2457 MP/dw kg and
0–5458 MP/m2). Its highest accumulation is on ocean island beaches; however, there are still large stretches of
coastline (Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina) with no data on MPs presence and a small number of studies exploring
these contaminants’ temporal variability. The lack of standardization in the studies’ methodologies, particularly
their measurement units, hinders their quantitative comparison and our ability to establish baseline values
regarding MPs abundance on LAC beaches. In this sense, future works should direct efforts towards the spatial
and temporal expansion of their sampling, as well as protocol standardization to facilitate result comparability on
MPs on LAC sandy beaches.

1. Introduction Microplastics (MPs), solid polymeric particles with sizes between 5

Plastic pollution has been the focus of recent studies and represents a
management challenge for coastal and marine regions. Marine plastic
pollution was first reported in the 1970s; since then, plastic debris with
sizes ranging from meters to micrometers has been reported in all coastal
and marine environments (Napper & Thompson, 2020). It is estimated
that about 1.15–12.7 million tons of plastic enter the ocean each year
(Jambeck, 2015; Lebreton et al., 2017), this figure is predicted to reach
53 million tons annually by 2030 (Borrelle et al., 2020). Of the positively
buoyant marine plastic debris released from land-based sources,
approximately 77% ends up being deposited on beaches or floating in
coastal waters (Onink et al., 2021).
and 0.001 mm (Frias & Nash, 2019), represent the largest proportion of
plastic debris in the ocean. In 2014 the accumulated number of micro­
plastic particles floating at the ocean surface ranged from 15 to 51
trillion particles (Van Sebille et al., 2015). MPs can be divided into two
size categories large microplastics (LMP, 1–5 mm) the focus of many
sandy beach investigations (Ivar Do Sul et al., 2009), or small micro­
plastics (SMP, 0.001–1 mm) (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012). These anthro­
pogenic particles are classified according to their origin into primary
and secondary and enter the marine ecosystem through land and marine
sources (GESAMP, 2019). Primary MPs are those purposely produced
sized < 5 mm, commonly used in cosmetic products (Horton et al.,
2017), while secondary MPs are the product of from the gradual

☆
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Maria Cristina Fossi.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: renatanagai@ufpr.br (R.H. Nagai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120231
Received 27 June 2022; Received in revised form 12 September 2022; Accepted 17 September 2022
Available online 21 September 2022
0269-7491/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
weathering and fragmentation of larger plastic debris (Andrady, 2011).
These plastic particles have received increasing attention due to their
small size and ubiquity in all ecosystems and deleterious effects the
ecosystem (Kutralam-Muniasamy et al., 2020; Ugwu et al., 2021).
Like other plastic debris, MPs accumulate in coastal areas, particu­
larly on beaches (Lebreton et al., 2017, Zhang, 2017). In these envi­
ronments, meteo-oceanographic conditions (wave height and direction
and tidal and coastal drift currents) and geomorphological features favor
the stranding and deposition of these particles in sediments (Zhang,
2017; Enders et al., 2019; Harris, 2020). The impacts of MPs on marine
ecosystems are multifaceted, ranging from sediment matrix physical
properties (thermal capacity) changes (Carson et al., 2011; Lavers et al.,
2021) to their interaction with marine biota. MP ingestion is widely
reported in the literature for several marine organisms; once ingested,
MPs are quickly coated by proteins and biomolecules and assimilated
into cells and tissues (Galloway et al., 2017). Consequently, marine or­
ganisms may suffer from growth delay, oxidative stress, reduction of
feeding activity, genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and reduction of repro­
ductive fitness (Raju et al., 2022). In addition to the plastic itself, their
hydrophobic characteristic facilitates the adsorption of metals (Cd, Pb,
and Zn) (Liu et al., 2022) and organic pollutants (Gorman et al., 2019).
As MPs are transferred along the food chain, it creates vulnerabilities for
both prey and predator through bioaccumulation of microplastic and
other contaminants disturbing ecosystem functions (i.e., physiological
functions, prey-predator populations, trophic transfers, etc.). Addition­
ally, MP can act as vectors for invasive species and pathogens (bacteria,
algae, and invertebrates) dispersion (García-Gómez et al., 2021). In this
regard, the number of scientific publications assessing the presence of
these emerging contaminants on beaches has increased in the last
decade (Ivar Do Sul & Costa, 2014; Kutralam-Muniasamy et al., 2020;
Harris, 2020; Schruti et al., 2021; Curren et al., 2021; Mvovo, 2021).
MP investigation in these environments is recent and presents a great
diversity of methodologies applied to MP sample collection and analysis
(Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Enders et al., 2020; Harris, 2020). Also, ac­
cording to Kutralam-Muniasamy et al. (2020), although Latin America
accounts for 4% of the world’s total plastic production, and 8% of its
total plastic consumption, the investigation of MP presence in the
environment is still incipient and limited to a few countries, leading to
knowledge gaps about MP contamination. In LAC’s case, in addition to
the diversity of methods regarding MP collection and the assessment of
the distribution of MP pollution on beaches, there is a heterogeneous
spatial distribution of works. This results in areas that are either un­
derrepresented or have no data (Ivar Do Sul & Costa, 2007; Castro et al.,
2018; Schruti et al., 2021), which makes the assessment of the MP
pollution status difficult in the region. However, to advance MP research
on LAC beaches, it is first necessary to organize, analyze, and understand
existing information not only to identify gaps and challenges, but also to
assess the directions of future research. Therefore, this review aims to (i)
present the current state of MP research on LAC’s sandy beaches and (ii)
identify gaps in the knowledge already produced, providing recom­
mendations for the development of future works.
2. Literature screening and selection
2.1. Search methods and paper selection criteria
A systematic literature review was conducted using the platforms
Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/wos), Scopus
(https://www.scopus.com/search), PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov), and Wiley Online (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com). The
search took place on November 20th, 2021, using the search descriptors
((microplastic* OR (plastic* AND (pellet* OR fiber* OR film* OR foam*
OR fragment*))) AND beach*). Initially, 1425 results were retrieved
across all platforms, whose information (title, authors, journal of pub­
lication, volume, year, keywords, and abstract) was entered into Rayyan
Online (Ouzzani et al., 2016, https://www.rayyan.ai) so that duplicate
2
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
papers were excluded. At the end of this step, 721 results remained
(Fig. 1). Then, on the same platform, the remaining papers were filtered
based on the following criteria: having been conducted in LAC,
including oceanic beaches, having a clear sampling design, and quan­
tifying MPs in sediment. Thus, 39 articles were selected for full review
and qualitative synthesis.
2.2. Data extraction
The publication data (title, authors, journal, year, and objective) of
each of the 39 selected papers were extracted along with their location,
spatial and temporal sampling scales, sampling design, sample collec­
tion methodology, MP extraction methodology, and MP classification
(morphotypes, size, colors, and composition). The spatial scale was
determined using available information from geographic coordinates,
maps, or other location indicators, while the temporal scale was deter­
mined using the available information regarding the sampling date or
month. This information was used to calculate the spatial extent
(coastline distance between the two most distant sampling sites), spatial
resolution (extent/sampling sites), duration (time between the first and
the last collections), and temporal resolution (duration/amount of col­
lections made at the same site) of each selected work. The coastline
length of the LAC countries was obtained from the World Factbook (https:
//www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/coastline/).
Additional information was also extracted regarding the studied
areas, more specifically which environmental and anthropogenic vari­
ables were described in each work. Furthermore, the quality of infor­
mation of each variable was classified regarding its detailing as low
resolution (literature data for the entire region sampled), high resolution
(literature data that differentiates sampling sites), or information
collected directly during the development of the work (considering
hydrodynamic modeling as sampled data).
The concentration units used to report the data were considered for
the description of MP distribution patterns in each work, which pro­
vided maximum and minimum MP values, as well as the total range of
MPs found in each paper. When possible, data were extrapolated to
calculate the density of MP per square meter (MP/m2) and per kilogram
of dry sediment (MP/dw kg) to allow result comparisons between the
selected works.
3. Literature review and results
A total of 39 papers, published between the years 2009 and 2021,
that evaluated the abundance of MPs on LAC’s sandy beaches were
selected (Fig. 2a, Table 1). The first of these works was published by Ivar
Do Sul et al. (2009) and conducted in Brazil. Starting in 2015, there was
a significant increase in the number of papers published per year and in
the number of LAC countries addressed (Fig. 2c). Most of LAC’s MP
research papers were conducted on beaches in Brazil (n = 17), followed
by Colombia (n = 6), Mexico (n = 3), Peru (n = 2), Uruguay (n = 2),
Panama, Chile, Guatemala and the Lesser Antilles (4 distinct territories
grouped by the paper itself), Ecuador, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas (n
= 1). Our search did not retrieve any published papers for the remaining
Latin American countries.
The countries with the largest number of studied beaches are Brazil
(n = 154), Mexico (n = 89), Colombia (n = 83), and Chile (n = 39)
(Fig. 2b). Mexico and Colombia had 100% of their coastline length
assessed, while Chile had 85%. In contrast, even though Brazil has the
largest number of studied beaches (45%), long stretches of its Northern
and Northeastern regions have not been studied, since the published
papers have focused on the South and Southeast. Similarly, Argentina,
the Bahamas, Peru, and Ecuador have large stretches of coastline with
few sampling sites (Fig. 2a).
Y.W. Mesquita et al. Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231

Fig. 1. Flowchart applied in selecting the articles used in this paper.

Fig. 2. Works published on MPs in LAC. (a) Map representing the locations of the published works, the number of beaches sampled (circles), and the number of
papers published per country (color scheme), (b) Coastline length (km, green bar, left axis), represented coastline length (km, blue bar, left axis) and the number of
beaches sampled (orange bar, right axis) by LAC country, (c) the number of papers published per year, classified by country. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

3.1. Spatial and temporal scales
The works that investigated MPs on a national scale (>1000 km, n =
4) showed low spatial resolution (Fig. 3a, Table 1), using spacing >100
km between sampled sites, and associated their results to general pat­
terns of anthropogenic and environmental activities among different
regions of the studied country or territory (Hidalgo-Ruz & Thiel, 2013;
Alvarez-Zeferino et al., 2020; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020b). On the
other hand, the distribution of MPs has been assessed with a higher
degree of detail and between closer sites in most regional scale works
(10–1000 km) (Turra et al., 2014, Piñon-Colin et al., 2018; De Borrero
et al., 2020). Moreover, it was common in these works to select specific
factors, such as the distance from specific MP sources (port/industrial
complexes or urbanized river mouths) to explain the MP distribution
observed (Izar et al., 2019; Acosta-Coley et al., 2019). There was also
variety regarding the spatial resolution of the beaches studied in
regional works (n = 23), for example, Retama et al. (2016) studied 35
beaches in 40 km (1.1 km spacing between collection sites),
Balthazar-Silva et al. (2020) evaluated only 4 beaches in 45 km (10.1 km
spacing), and Purca & Henostroza (2017) investigated 4 beaches in 600
km (160 km spacing). In general, works assessed local MP pollution
(<10 km, n = 8) investigated only one beach or small beach arcs in the
same municipality (De La Torre et al., 2020; Rodríguez et al., 2020).
These works sought to understand specific processes, such as the
assessment of factors controlling the transport and deposition of MPs on
beaches (beachrock interference by Pinheiro et al. (2019) or tidal cycles
variability by Moreira et al. (2016b)).
Most LAC conducted works (69%, n = 27) assessed MP pollution on
sandy beaches based on single sampling campaigns (Fig. 3b, Table 1).
Some of these works showed temporal differences greater than 1 year
between the sampling of distinct points, leading to a large temporal
discrepancy between spatial samplings (Purca & Henostroza, 2017;
Piñon-Colin et al., 2018). Works that performed seasonal samplings
(20%, n = 8) sought to relate MP distribution not only to variations in
environmental conditions, such as winds (Acosta-Coley &
Olivero-Verbel, 2015), surface ocean currents (Lozoya et al., 2016), and

3
Y.W. Mesquita et al. Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231

Table 1
Summary of works about MPs on sandy beaches in LAC. The table presents location data (country and state or municipality) and factors considered in the spatial
(number of beaches, total length represented, and average sampling spacing) and temporal (number of campaigns, duration, and frequency) analysis of each work.
Author Country State/ N. of beaches Total length Average sample N. of Duration Frequency
Municipality studied (km) spacing (km) campaigns (year)

Ivar Do Sul et al. (2009) Brazil Fernando de 11 25 2.48 1 0.25 Single

Noronha
Costa et al. (2010) Brazil Recife 1 1 2.00 1 0.08 Single
Hidalgo-Ruz & Thiel (2013) Chile Chile 39 6435 169.23 1 0.17 Single
Turra et al. (2014) Brazil Santos 4 320 100.00 1 N/A Single
Fernandino et al. (2015) Brazil Salvador 24 25 1.09 2 0.58 Seasonal
Acosta-Coley & Colombia Cartagena 1 2 2.00 7 0.42 Monthly
Olivero-Verbel. (2015)
Retama et al. (2016) Mexico Huatulco Bay 35 38.5 1.13 2 1.67 Seasonal
Carvalho et al. (2021) Brazil Guanabara’s Bay 17 131 8.16 2 0.58 Seasonal
Moreira et al. (2016a) Brazil São Paulo coast 13 330 27.34 1 N/A Single
Lozoya et al. (2016) Uruguay Punta del Este 10 20 2.20 1 0.17 Single
Moreira et al. (2016b) Brazil Ponta do Sul 1 1 2.00 12 0.03 Tidal
Purca & Henostroza (2017) Peru Central Peru 4 640 200.00 1 1.00 Single
Bosker et al. (2018) Lesser Antilles Lesser Antilles 21 180 8.98 1 0.08 Single
Piñon-Colin et al. (2018) Mexico Baja California 21 2661 132.75 1 1.08 Single
Martinelli-Filho and Brazil Santa Catarina 25 110 4.58 1T 0.04 Single
Monteiro (2019)
Izar et al. (2019) Brazil São Paulo coast 12 353 31.87 1 N/A Single
Acosta-Coley et al. (2019) Colombia Cartagena 4 454 141.88 2 0.33 Seasonal
Pinheiro et al. (2019) Brazil Recife 2 0.1 0.08 1 N/A Single
Martinelli-Filho & Monteiro Brazil Foz do Amazonas 1 1 2.00 1 0.01 Single
(2019)
Garcés-Ordóñez et al. Colombia Colombia 43 3208 76.34 1 0.08 Single
(2020b)
Alvarez-Zeferino et al. Mexico Mexico 33 11,122 347.24 1 0.25 Single
(2020)
Monteiro et al. (2020) Brazil Fernando de 15 37 2.63 1 0.25 Single
Noronha
Garcés-Ordóñez et al. Colombia Santa Marta 11 40 3.97 2 1.25 Seasonal
(2020a)
Castro et al. (2020) Brazil Niterói 8 12 1.69 2 0.33 Seasonal
Borrelle et al., 2020 Brazil Santos 4 45 14.06 6 1.00 Monthly/
Tidal
De La Torre et al., 2020 Peru Lima 4 1.2 0.38 1 0.17 Single
De Borrero et al. (2020) Panamá Panamá 4 150 46.88 1 0.50 Single
Rodríguez et al. (2020) Uruguay Punta del Diablo 4 5 1.56 2 0.67 Seasonal
Maynard et al. (2021) Guatemala El Quetzalito 1 1 2.00 1 0.08 Single
Perez-Alvelo et al. (2021) Colombia Seaflower 1 1 2.00 1 0.08 Single
Reserve
Rangel-Buitrago et al. (2021) Colombia Santa Marta 23 75 3.40 1 N/A Single
Jones et al. (2021) Ecuador Galapagos 17 110 6.85 1 0.08 Single
Jaubet et al. (2021) Argentina Mar del Plata 9 38 4.69 1 0.17 Single
Carvalho et al. (2021) Brazil Fernando de 6 12 2.33 13 0.04 Daily/
Noronha Weekly
Maynard et al. (2021) Brazil Southeast/ 6 1480 287.78 2 0.17 Single
Northeast
Perez-Alvelo et al. (2021) Puerto Rico Puerto Rico 6 80 15.56 1 0.75 Single
(USA)
Tsukada et al. (2021) Brazil Northern São 4 9.5 2.97 1 0.04 Single
Paulo
Fernander & Welsh-Unwala Bahamas New Providence 3 6 2.67 1 0.08 Single
(2021)
Truchet et al. (2021) Argentina Mar del Plata 3 4 1.78 1 0.25 Single

wave direction (Castro et al., 2020) but also to the tourist flow and the
type of human use of the studied beaches (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020b,
Rodríguez et al., 2020). There are few studies that performed samplings
with shorter temporal spacing (n = 4), such as: monthly samplings (n =
2), to understand the relationship between MP distribution and pre­
cipitation conditions (Acosta-Coley & Olivero-Verbel, 2015, Balth­
azar-Silva et al., 2020), daily frequency (n = 1), to assess MP
concentration variability on a small temporal scale (Carvalho et al.,
2021), and the influence of tidal cycles (n = 2) on pellet deposition on
beach faces (Balthazar-Silva et al., 2020) and drift lines (Moreira et al.,
2016b).
3.2. Methods applied in MP investigation
MP research papers in LAC have presented distinct definitions of
MPs, following the literature updates made over time. In association
with methodological ease, 54% of works evaluated only LMP, while 24%
considered both LMP and SMP. Monteiro et al. (2020) were the only
ones to analyze just SMP. Other works (18%) focused on a specific type
of MPs: pellets (Turra et al., 2014; Acosta-Coley & Olivero-Verbel,
2015), whose definition comes from the microplastics’ morphology,
not their size. The focus on different MP fractions influenced the
methodological variety (sampling designs, sample collection strategies,
and laboratory methods employed) found among the selected papers
(Table 2).

4
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
Fig. 3. Spatial and temporal scales in LAC sandy beach MP works. (a) Spatial scale defined by the length (km) and location (beaches) sampled, (b) temporal scale
defined by duration (year) and number of campaigns at the same location, categorized by frequency.
3.2.1. Sample design and sample collection methods
The presence of MPs on LAC sandy beaches was predominantly
investigated at the drift line/high tide line (71%, n = 28, Fig. S1a).
Fewer studies assess this subject on the backshore/supralittoral zone (n
= 2) and the intertidal/shoreface zone (n = 2). However, it is worth
noting that some works (n = 6) sampled more than one zone, including
coastal dunes. These works evaluated differences in the dynamics of MP
deposition between distinct zones (Moreira et al., 2016a; De La Torre
et al., 2020; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020a; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020b)
or sought to understand the difference between the distribution and
accumulation of these particles (Moreira et al., 2016a; Izar et al., 2019).
The investigated zones’ sampling was performed by most of the work
on transects (from 10 to 1000 m) parallel to the beach (82%, n = 32),
usually 100 m long (n = 13) (Fig. S1b). The remaining works have
variable or undefined distances (n = 7) and others define transects
perpendicular to the coast (n = 4). The number of samples collected
varies from 1 to 60 and, in 50% of the works, up to 4 points are collected
per beach (Fig. S1c).
The equipment used to collect the sediment samples, the total area of
collection, and the volume of sediment collected also varied. Most works
(n = 8) reported using quadrats or measuring tape to define an area
ranging from 0.009 to 4 m2 (usually 0.25 m2) and performed sediment
scraping. Others used a plastic cylinder (n = 2) that defines area and
depth (0.098 m2 × 0.05 m, Alvarez-Zeferino et al. (2020)), or manual
augers (n = 2) to collect deeper sediments (0.009 m2 × 2 m by Turra
et al. (2014), 0.031 m2 × 1 m by Moreira et al. (2016a)). It is important
to note that most investigations regarding the MPs abundance on bea­
ches occurred in the first few centimeters of the sediment column, with
cuts of the first 5 cm (n = 12), 2 cm (n = 8), and on the surface (n = 7).
However, many works (n = 8) did not specify the area, depth, volume, or
weights sampled, in these papers the description of “excavating or
scraping the first few centimeters” was common. It is also worth noting
that 4 works investigated MPs in deeper layers, such as Turra et al.
(2014), who investigated a 2 m depth, and Martinelli-Filho & Monteiro
(2019), who investigated a 0.6 m depth.
The variety of methods applied in collecting MPs is reflected in the
diversity of measurement units in which MP data are reported (Table 2).
Thus, 9 different measurement units in total were used in the analyzed
papers. Some papers reported MP concentration data based on length
(MPs/m), area (MPs/m2), volume (MPs/m3), and sediment dry weight
(MPs/dw kg), while others reported only the abundance of MPs found,
using absolute numbers (here identified as MPs/site). Area-related units
were most common, especially regarding the amount of MPs per square
meter (MPs/m2) (n = 20, 51%) and MPs weight in grams per square
meter (gMPs/m2) (n = 3, 7%). 11 articles (28%) opted to report the
5
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
concentration of MPs per kilogram of dry sediment (MPs/dw kg).
3.2.2. MP extraction methods
The laboratory protocols for separation, extraction, and identifica­
tion of MPs from the sediment matrix varied widely among the works
reviewed (Table 2). Regarding separation, most of the works (n = 30,
76%) sieved the material, using a 1 mm mesh as the minimum limit
(smallest mesh), restricting themselves to LMP analysis. A large pro­
portion of the works sieved the sediment matrix (n = 21) in the labo­
ratory or at the sampling site. However, some authors (n = 6) sieved
supernatant material after the flotation process, utilizing meshes be­
tween 1 and 0.1 mm.
The separation of MPs by density via flotation was adopted by 28
works (71%), but there were variations in their process (different salt
solutions and densities) (Table 2). It is worth noting that 5 of the works
performed flotation at the collection site (Turra et al., 2014; Moreira
et al., 2016a) and used seawater directly to separate the particles, which
makes it difficult to control the extracted particles’ density and sampled
materials’ contamination. The works that performed laboratory flota­
tion used mainly NaCl salt solutions (n = 16) with densities from 1.2 to
1.35 g cm− 3, and ZnCl2 (n = 3) with higher densities, from 1.5 to 1.58 g
cm− 3. Also, come of the works that state having performed extraction
via flotation (n = 7) did not report the salt or solution density used. It is
relevant to highlight that 8 works detailed precautions against sample
contamination by MPs, such as the use of cotton lab coats (Retama et al.,
2016), the filtration of the solutions used for flotation (Jaubet et al.,
2021; Truchet et al., 2021), or the use of exposed filters to control
contamination by particles present in the air (De Borrero et al., 2020;
Castro et al., 2020).
3.3. MP distribution patterns on LAC sandy beaches
The works evaluated in this review reported the presence of MPs in
LAC beach sediments with concentrations between 0 and 2457 MPs/dw
kg, and between 0 and 5458 MP/m2. The spatial distribution of MPs on
LAC beaches is heterogeneous, with no significant difference in MP
concentration between Pacific and Atlantic beaches, or those associated
with marginal seas, such as the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico
(Fig. 4).
There is no clear relationship between higher MP concentrations and
areas of greater urban development: low maximum values of MP con­
centrations have been reported on beaches near large urban centers in
Southeast Brazil (17 MP/m2 in Izar et al. (2019), 30 MP/m2 in Maynard
et al. (2021)) and Uruguay (Lozoya et al., 2016, Rodríguez et al., 2020),
suggesting that, on LAC beaches, the proximity to the MP source is not
 Y.W. Mesquita et al.
Table 2
Summary of methods applied in sample collection, MP extraction, and analysis.
Author Beach area Section N.◦ of Tool Area Depth Volume Sieve Flotation Density Extraction Contamination Identification Chemical Unit
(m) sampling (m2) (m) (m3) mesh solution (g/ml) Method Control characterization
sites (mm) technique

Ivar Do Sul et al. Drift line Variable 2 Quadrat 0.090 0.020 0.002 1 Naked eye MP/
(2009) beach
Costa et al. Drift line 100 3 Quadrat 0.098 0.020 0.002 1, 0.5 MP/
(2010) cm2
Hidalgo-Ruz & Drift line 30 6 Quadrat 0.250 0.020 0.005 1, Microscope MP/m2
Thiel (2013) 4.75
Turra et al. Backshore 400 30 Hand 0.009 2.000 0.018 1 Seawater Sieve Microscope Raman MP/m3
(2014) drill
Fernandino et al. Drift line 1000 1 Quadrat 1.000 0.050 0.050 MP/
(2015) m2, PPI
Acosta-Coley & Drift line 2200 1 Stereomicroscope FTIR MP/
Olivero-Verbel. beach
(2015)
Retama et al. Drift line 3 ZCI 1.58 1.2 μm Stereomicroscope EDX MP/30
(2016) filter g dws
De Carvalho & Drift line 100 9 Quadrat 1.000 0.050 0.050 1, 0.5 NaCl Manual Naked eye MP/m2
Baptista-Neto
(2016)
Moreira et al. Backshore/ 50 60 Hand 0.031 1.000 0.031 1 Seawater Sieve Visual MP/m2
(2016a) Coastal Dunes drill MP/
stretch
Lozoya et al. Drift line 3 Quadrat 4.000 0.020 0.080 0.3 NaCl 1.20 Stereomicroscope Raman MP/
(2016) m2,
gMP/
6

m2
Moreira et al. Drift line 100 10 Transect 0.005 MP/
(2016b) beach
Purca & Drift line 100 3 Quadrat 0.250 1 Seawater 1 μm filter Naked eye FTIR MP/
Henostroza m2,
(2017) gMP/
m2
Bosker et al. Drift line 100 5 Quadrat 0.250 0.050 5 NaCl 0.45 μm Yes Stereomicroscope MP/
(2018) filter kgs
Piñon-Colin et al. Backshore 300 3 0.050 1 NaCl 1.20 Manual Microscope and FTIR MP/
(2018) and 23 μm naked eye kgs
filter
Martinelli-Filho Drift line 50 1 100.000 0.000 Naked eye MP/
and Monteiro beach,
(2019) PPI
Izar et al. (2019) Drift line and 20 Corer 0.222 0.250 0.056 1 Seawater Manual Naked eye MP/m3

Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231

backshore
Acosta-Coley Drift line 1 1 Quadrat 1.000 0.050 0.050 0.4, Naked eye FTIR MP/m2
et al. (2019) 20
Pinheiro et al. Drift line 300 12 Quadrat 0.090 0.020 0.002 1 NaCl 1.30 2 μm filter Stereomicroscope MPs/
(2019) m2
Martinelli-Filho Drift line 200 5 Quadrat 0.600 0.25, Sieve Stereomicroscope MP/m3
& Monteiro 0.5, 5
(2019)
Garcés-Ordóñez Drift line/ 30 18 Quadrat 0.250 0.050 0.013 1, 5 NaCl 1.20 Filter (?) Stereomicroscope FTIR MP/m2
et al. (2020b) Backshore/
Coastal dunes
(continued on next page)
 Y.W. Mesquita et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Author Beach area Section N.◦ of Tool Area Depth Volume Sieve Flotation Density Extraction Contamination Identification Chemical Unit
(m) sampling (m2) (m) (m3) mesh solution (g/ml) Method Control characterization
sites (mm) technique

Alvarez-Zeferino Drift line 100 10 Cilinder 0.089 0.050 0.018 1 CaCl2 1.60 Manual Yes Stereomicroscope FTIR MP/m2
et al. (2020)
Monteiro et al. Drift line 3 Quadrat 0.090 1 NaCl 1.20 Yes MP/m2
(2020)
Garcés-Ordóñez Intertidal/ Variable 9 Quadrat 0.250 0.050 0.013 1, 5 Sieve Yes Naked eye FTIR MP/m2
et al. (2020a) Backshore/
Coastal Dunes
Castro et al. Drift line 1 1 Quadrat 0.250 0.020 0.005 5, 2, 1 NaCl 1.35 15 μm Yes Naked eye FTIR MP/
(2020) filter kgs
Borrelle et al., Perpendicular 10 5 Transect 0.000 0.1 MP/m
2020 *
De La Torre et al., Intertidal/ Variable 12 Quadrat 0.250 0.010 0.003 1, 2.8, NaCl 1.20 Manual Yes Microscope and FTIR MP/m2
2020 Backshore 4.75 naked eye
De Borrero et al. Drift line 100 5 Quadrat 0.250 0.010 0.003 1, 5 NaCl 1.21 Manual Yes Microscope FTIR MP/m2
(2020)
Rodríguez et al. Drift line 3 Quadrat 4.000 0.020 0.080 1, NaCl 1.30 Manual Naked eye FTIR MP/
(2020) 4.75 m2,
gMP/
m2
Maynard et al. Drift line 100 5 Quadrat 0.250 0.010 0.003 1, 5 NaCl 1.20 Drying Stereomicroscope FTIR MP/m2
(2021)
Perez-Alvelo et al. Perpendicular 20 15 Quadrat 2.000 0.050 0.100 0.06, Seawater Sieving MP/
7

(2021) transect 0.5 stretch

Rangel-Buitrago Transecto 100 4 Dredge 1.000 0.050 0.050 NaCl 1.20 Filter MP/
et al. (2021) perpendicular kgs
Jones et al. Drift line 100 5 Quadrat 0.050 ZCl 1.50 MP/
(2021) m2,
MP/kg
dws
Jaubet et al. Drift line 150 5 Quadrat 0.040 0.050 0.002 CaCl 1.30 1.2 μm Yes MP/
(2021) filter kgs
Carvalho et al. Drift lines Variable 3 Quadrat 0.090 1 Yes Stereomicroscope MP/
(2021) m2,
MP/
m3,
MP/kg
Maynard et al. Drift line 100 10 Quadrat 0.250 0.15 ZCl, NaCl 1.5 Sieve MP/m2
(2021)

Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231

Perez-Alvelo et al. Drift line 100 4 Quadrat 0.250 0.020 0.005 0.3, 1, MP/
(2021) 4.75 kgs,
MP/m2
Tsukada et al. Drift line 1 Quadrat 1.000 0.040 0.040 1 Visual HSI-NIR MP/
(2021) beach
Fernander & Drift line 100 10 MP/
Welsh-Unwala kgs
(2021)
Truchet et al. Drift line 3 Yes Visual MP/
(2021) kgs
Y.W. Mesquita et al. Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231

Fig. 4. MP abundance in LAC sandy beaches. Distribution map of the (a) minimum and (b) maximum MP concentration values reported in papers studying sandy
beaches in LAC, represented by MP/m2 (squares) and MP/dw kg (circles).

the only determining factor for beach contamination. The highest MP
concentrations were found by Alvarez-Zeferino et al. (2020). They
report MP concentration values of up to 5458 MP/m2 at sites affected by
the passage of a cyclone in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico.
Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize the presence of relatively
high MP values on island beaches in the Caribbean (667 MP/dw kg in
the Bahamas (Fernander and Welsh-Unwala, 2021), 2480 MP/m2 in the
Lesser Antilles (Bosker et al., 2018)), the Atlantic (3711 MP/m2 at
Fernando de Noronha (Carvalho et al., 2021)), and the Pacific (808
MP/m2 on Easter Island in Chile (Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2013), and the
Galapagos (808 MP/m2 (Jones et al., 2021)). These data corroborate
works that indicate oceanic islands as potential hotspots for solid debris
accumulation, such as Monteiro et al. (2018), who analyzed macro,
meso, and microplastics on islands in the southern Atlantic Ocean.
3.4. Complementary variables
In general, the most reported complementary environmental

Fig. 5. Level of detail of variables evaluated along with MPs. Table representing the degree of detail regarding environmental (shades of green) and anthropogenic
(shades of gray) variables qualified for each paper. The top columns represent the number of variables used in each paper, the bars on the right show the number of
papers that evaluate the variable. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

8
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
variables are beach orientation (n = 39), currents description (n = 26),
and wind direction and speed (n = 18), mostly with low resolution
(Fig. 5). Usually collected at the same time as the MP sampling cam­
paigns, granulometry (n = 9), beach slope (n = 12), and morphody­
namics (n = 13) are the environmental variables presented in greater
detail. The works of Rodríguez et al. (2020) and Lozoya et al. (2016)
presented the best detailing of environmental variables, relating gran­
ulometric, slope, and beach morphodynamic characteristics with MP
concentration on Uruguayan beaches.
In addition to these variables, many works report anthropogenic
variables, such as beach use (n = 26), tourism (n = 25), industrial
presence (n = 21), and population density (n = 20). There is no
increasing trend in the anthropogenic variables’ amount or resolution
(Fig. 5).
4. Discussion
4.1. Methods applied in MP investigation on LAC beaches
MP works evaluated here applied different investigation methods
(sampling design, collection procedures, MP extraction methods)
(Table 2). Which resulted in data with different spatial and temporal
scales (Fig. 3). Therefore, the lack of numerical detail regarding these
works’ MP concentration results provide a fragmented view of LAC
sandy beaches’ MP contamination.
National scale (spatial resolution >1000 km) assessments provide a
broader view of the MP contamination problem. Usually, they identify
sites or regions with higher contamination potential, and their rela­
tionship to regional environmental and anthropic influences. For
example, Hidalgo-Ruz & Thiel (2013) explore the impact of different
anthropogenic activities on MP morphotype abundance on Chilean
beaches. According to these authors, pellet abundance is higher on more
urbanized Chilean beaches, while foams — mainly Styrofoam — pre­
dominate where aquaculture activities occur. On the other hand,
Garcés-Ordóñez et al. (2020b) established that tidal range and wind
direction, combined with anthropogenic activities, are determining
factors for MP concentration differences between the Caribbean and
Pacific coasts of Colombia. Additionally, studies carried out on a na­
tional scale have provided important information on regions that should
be monitored and evaluated in greater detail, guiding new scientific
investigations and public management actions (Alvarez-Zeferino et al.,
2020; Maynard et al., 2021).
LAC studies at regional scales (100–1000 km) focus on understand­
ing MP introduction and distribution in the marine environment and
significantly advance scientific knowledge about MP contamination,
whose application is not restricted to LAC. However, most national and
regional scale investigations are based on single sampling (Fig. 3b),
which hampers temporal variability understanding of processes con­
trolling MP input and their distribution on LAC beaches. Seasonal
variability (temperature and precipitation conditions) is the focus of
works with more than one sampling. Thus, several works attributed the
seasonal differences in their results to seasonal changes in environ­
mental conditions, such as wind and wave direction, precipitation, and
river flow (Acosta-Coley et al., 2019, De Carvalho and Baptista Neto,
2016). Garcés-Ordoñez et al. (2020a), for example, did not observe the
relationship between tourism and meso- and microplastic abundance for
MPs, suggesting that changes in environmental conditions, could be the
main factors modulating temporal changes in MP abundances. Only
Fernandino et al. (2015) reported no significant seasonal changes in
pellet concentration on beaches from Salvador, Northeast Brazil. Addi­
tionally, few LAC works relate temporal changes in MP abundance to
seasonal beach recreational uses and tourist flow (e.g., Retama et al.,
2016).
Meanwhile, local scale works (<100 km) explore meteo-
oceanographic processes and geomorphological features that influence
beach MPs distribution and accumulation (Lozoya et al., 2016,
9
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
Rodríguez et al., 2020). Generally, these works carry out higher tem­
poral resolution investigations, evaluating the influence of processes
that occur on a time scale ranging from hours to months. Balthazar-Silva
et al., 2020 linked the monthly offset in the MP concentration of a
southeastern Brazilian beach to regional rainfall changes. While
measuring pellet abundances over tidal cycles provided clues to these
process control over this morphotype distribution on sandy beaches
(Balthazar-Silva et al., 2020; Moreira et al., 2016b).
Some works have also evaluated MP distribution in different beach
zones (beach face, backshore, and coastal dunes). Beaches are dynamic
depositional environments, and different transport agents control
distinct zones’ depositional processes. Thus, these works provide
essential information for understanding MPs’ transport and deposition
processes. Moreira et al. (2016a) investigated MPs in two distinct zones
(backshore zone and coastal dunes) of several beaches in Southeast
Brazil and found higher MPs concentration in the coastal dunes. These
authors suggest that the coastal dunes may act as an MP reservoir,
accumulating these particles over time, while the backshore zone would
function as a more temporary deposition zone, from where MPs can
return to the environment. The work of De La Torre et al., 2020 in Lima,
Peru, is also noteworthy: these authors reported a reversal in MP dis­
tribution pattern in the intertidal zone and at the drift line of beaches
that have rigid anthropogenic structures.
In addition, some LAC works investigate different sediment column
depths, with a primary focus on the first 5 cm, similar to what occurs in
other regions of the planet (Besley et al., 2017). Turra et al. (2014),
demonstrated the importance of high-energy meteo-oceanographic
events (storms) and anthropogenic interference (beach debris cleanup)
in pellet burial and accumulation. These authors report less than 10% of
the pellets in the first 5 cm of the sedimentary column, while 20–50% of
the particles were between 5 and 20 cm. While Izar et al. (2019), report
differences in pellet accumulation depth dependent of beach zones, with
higher pellet concentration between 0 and 5 cm at the drift line and
between 6 and 25 cm in the backshore zone. These results indicate that,
in most works, there is a large MP contingent that is not reported
resulting in an underestimation of LAC sandy beaches MP
contamination.
The diversity of laboratory protocols applied in the separation,
extraction, and MP identification represent an additional factor that can
interfere with MP quantification. LAC MP investigations apply different
protocols (Table 2). Approximately 75% of the works evaluate only MPs
in the 1–5 mm size fraction, using wet sieving technique to extract MPs
from the sediment matrix. Differentiating works that quantify SMP,
LMP, or both can be helpful when standardizing and comparing MP data
since observing different particle size classes may change results
regarding MPs abundance. Also, among those who extract MP via
flotation, different density salt solutions are adopted (NaCl, = 1.2–1.35
g/cm3/ZCL2 = 1.58 g/cm3) which can select polymer types.
4.2. The role and quality of complementary variables in understanding
MP distribution on LAC beaches
MP concentration and distribution in coastal and marine environ­
ments result from the interaction of different natural and anthropogenic
processes that control the input and transport of these particles from
their sources to their deposition sites. In this sense, for a robust assess­
ment of coastal environments’ MP contamination status, it is necessary
to consider the different environmental and anthropogenic variables
that influence these depositional environments. Environmental vari­
ables associated with particle transport and deposition, such as wave
direction and height, tide cycles, and rainfall, should be considered
(Harris, 2020). These variables help identify zones more susceptible to
MP accumulation and environmental conditions that favor MP
contamination. As MPs are anthropogenic, it is also necessary to
consider the surrounding area’s population density, degree of urbani­
zation, and type of anthropogenic activity (Andrady, 2011).
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
The works evaluated in this review consider different environmental
and anthropogenic variables in the interpreting their results. These
variables were described in varying detail (Fig. 5). Among the 11
environmental variables, the most evaluated were beach orientation,
surface currents, and wind direction and speed. Wind, waves, and sur­
face currents characterization aided in explaining MP distribution pat­
terns on beaches facing the Fernando de Noronha Island (Carvalho et al.,
2021, Ivar Do Sul et al., 2009; Monteiro et al., 2020) and in the Carib­
bean (Bosker et al., 2018). Tidal range is also one of the environmental
variables explored by different LAC MP investigations. Garcés-Ordóñez
et al. (2020b), for example, reported an association between the higher
tidal range of some beaches in Colombia with a higher MP concentra­
tion. However, for LAC works, the description of environmental vari­
ables often comes from the literature and is presented with a low
resolution, not allowing for comparison between neighboring beaches.
In contrast, data regarding grain size and beach morphology were
often obtained simultaneously with MP sampling and presented in
detail. Lozoya et al. (2016) and Rodríguez et al. (2020), for example,
evaluated the influence of the morphology of Uruguayan beaches on MP
deposition and distribution, considering MPs as low-density sedimen­
tary particles. These authors observe higher MP accumulation on more
dissipative beaches with smaller grain sizes and lower slopes. More
recently, Tsukada et al. (2021) found a positive correlation between MP
accumulation and other morphodynamic forcings, such as wave height
and sand strip length. Furthermore, the LAC works also considered
environmental variables such as rainfall and the distance (and charac­
terization) of river mouths and estuaries, directly related to MP trans­
port to coastal environments. For example, Acosta-Coley &
Olivero-Verbel (2015) and Balthazar-Silva et al., 2020 report a more
significant MP deposition after wetter periods and, consequently, higher
riverine flow, which is responsible for urban debris transport.
LAC works commonly consider population density and type of an­
thropic activity among the anthropogenic variables, especially in­
vestigations developed on a national spatial scale (Alvarez-Zeferino
et al., 2020; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020b). However, in addition to
population density, waste management is a critical factor in the solid
waste contribution to the environment that was rarely observed in these
works (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020a). Also, the distance between the
beach and port activities (ports and shipping routes) and industrial poles
have been considered by the studies developed in LAC’s coastal envi­
ronments. (Izar et al., 2019, De Borrero et al., 2020). Izar et al. (2019)
found a radial pattern of pellet distribution with the proximity of port
facilities, pointing out that the local surface current direction does not
interfere with MP distribution.
As mentioned earlier, some works have found a relationship between
the seasonal variability of MP concentration and tourism activities. In
this sense, they evaluate the studied beaches’ tourist appeal, considering
variables such as hotel structure and seaside dining. These factors can
increase tourist movement and, consequently, waste production and
disposal on beaches, sportswear use in the water and hotels’ laundry
effluents. This favors seasonal changes in MP concentrations, such as
filaments (Retama et al., 2016), foams, and easily fragmenting dispos­
able plastics particles (De La Torre et al., 2020). However,
Garcés-Ordoñéz et al. (2020a) report a positive correlation between
macroplastic abundance and tourism activity but no direct response
between MP concentration and tourism and beach use.
Recently, some works have also evaluated the role of coastal in­
terventions on MP accumulation, such as the presence of rigid structures
to contain beach erosion processes. Pinheiro et al. (2019) suggest that
rigid coastal structures of natural (i.e., beachrocks) or anthropic (i.e.,
coastal protection structures) nature favor MP deposition in the area
that is protected from wave energy. This relationship was supported by
De La Torre et al., 2020. They found higher MPs abundance on the
backshore than on the beach face zones in a beach arc sector protected
from the main wave direction, the opposite of what was observed in the
other sectors.
10
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
Interpreting sandy beach MP data together with a detailed descrip­
tion or measurements of environmental and anthropic variables can
significantly impact the inferred relationships between MPs abun­
dances, sources, and transport agents. To identify primary and second­
ary MP sources, LAC researchers need to determine the presence and
distance of nearby industry and port activities; and sewage treatment
systems, solid waste management, and urban drainage discharge,
respectively. The latter is the least considered variables in sandy beach
MP studies carried out in LAC. Additionally, when aiming at unraveling
MP beach deposition processes, LAC researchers should consider joint
evaluation of beach slope and grain size (associated with beach mor­
phodynamics), tidal range, and wave height.
4.3. Challenges and suggestions for future works
LAC sandy beaches MP contamination studies have increased in
recent years, following a global trend (Serra-Gonçalves et al., 2019;
Curren et al., 2021). However, there are still challenges to be faced when
assessing the status of beach contamination by microplastics to improve
our capacity to recognize MPs sources and remediate environmental
impacts. The main challenges for building a robust LAC sandy beaches
MP contamination status overview rely on its extensive coastline, the
scarcity of studies with seasonal/annual temporal scope, the lack of
method standardization, and the units used to report MP data.
The extensive coastline of many countries presents a challenge for
spatial assessment of MP presence and distribution. LAC still has large
continuous stretches of coastline with no information on MP contami­
nation (Cuba, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and Central America,
except for Panama) (Fig. 1). Even countries with multiple studies still
have large sectors of their coastline without MP data, such as Brazil,
Argentina, and Peru. In these countries, most works were carried out at a
regional/local spatial scale (Figs. 2 and 3a) and focused mainly on
beaches close to urban hubs, resulting in an underrepresentation of MP
contamination on beaches located in less urbanized regions. In this
sense, individual and joint efforts by LAC countries would be helpful to
expand the spatial distribution of studies focused on MP identification,
quantification, and characterization, and provide an initial baseline for
monitoring this emerging contaminant and its impacts on the
environment.
Another factor that hinders the advancement of our understanding of
MP contamination on LAC beaches is the scarcity of studies with longer
temporal scope. In general, most works perform spot sampling cam­
paigns with low temporal resolutions (Fig. 3b). Few LAC studies eval­
uate MP temporal variability during more extended periods with
seasonal sampling. Assessing MP temporal variability associated with
environmental variables can improve our understanding of the natural
and anthropogenic processes that influence MP input and accumulation
in beach environments. This information, combined with better spatial
resolution data, is crucial for understanding the factors controlling MP
distribution and abundance and to formulate public policies to monitor
and mitigate MP contamination on beaches.
In general, the works on LAC sandy beaches concentrate on LMP
assessment (54% of the result works), with little attention given to SMP.
Considering that, generally, the smaller the MP size, the greater the
number of marine animals susceptible to interaction with these particles
(Gusmão et al., 2016), greater attention should be devoted to SMP
determination on LAC sandy beaches. Also, as noted in studies assessing
environmental contamination (Acosta-Coley et al., 2019; Kutra­
lam-Muniasamy et al., 2020), there is no available information on
nanoplastics presence and abundance on LAC beaches.
The lack of methodological standardization and reporting of MP data
using different units is another challenge in assessing MP contamination
on LAC beaches. This problem occurs not only in LAC works but globally
(Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Curren et al., 2021; Mvovo, 2021). The
absence of a detailed description of the methods and techniques
employed in sample collection, processing, and analysis of MP in LAC
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
beaches hinders reproducibility and replicability. Accurately describing
the methodological approaches would also favor comparing MP data
between LAC beaches. Additionally, the lack of standardization in the
units chosen to report MP data (items, MPs/m2, MPs/m3, MPs/dw kg) is
problematic. As a recommendation, all LAC MP investigations should
report their data as total abundance (number of items) and MP abun­
dance in relation to dry sediment weight (MPs/dw kg).
Although there are many challenges to be overcome, it is optimistic
that the interest in MPs on LAC’s sandy beaches and marine environ­
ment has increased (Kutralam-Muniasamy et al., 2020; Ita-Nagy et al.,
2022). Some of the possible ways to improve our knowledge about MP
contamination in these environments include: increasing the spatial and
temporal resolution of studies; standardizing methods and units for MP
data acquisition and reporting, and sharing and making MP data avail­
able in pre-existing databases (PANGEA®) or creating a MP specific
database following FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and
Reusable) guiding principles for scientific data management and steward­
ship. These actions will help stakeholders to seek efficient solutions for
mitigation and remediation of MP contamination. However, for this to
happen, there must be government interest and investment in science, as
well as in campaigns to raise society’s awareness of the problem of MP
pollution.
5. Conclusion
This study provides an updated summary of the current state of
microplastic research on LAC’s sandy beaches, where the number of
investigations is still limited. Although MP research has gained attention
in the last six years, interest in MPs on LAC’s sandy beaches only
increased significantly in 2020. The works reviewed highlight that MPs
are present throughout the LAC coast, with higher concentrations on
oceanic islands. They also showcase that interpreting MP data with
environmental (e.g. grain size, beach slope, tidal range and wave height)
and anthropic (e.g. industries, ports, wastewater and solid waste treat­
ment plants) variables can significantly improve our understanding of
relationships between MPs abundances, sources, and transport agents.
The present application of different methods and measurement units for
reporting MP data makes it challenging to compare works and under­
stand the current scenario of MP contamination on LAC beaches.
Furthermore, future works are still needed to identify MPs sources to
these coastal environments and determine the extent of these contami­
nants’ impacts. The information presented here may serve as a critical
reference for future works. In this sense, considering the advances and
gaps observed and discussed, we present a summary of recommenda­
tions for future work on MPs on LAC sandy beaches. They should:
1. Focus on narrowing spatial gaps, seeking to improve knowledge
about the presence and distribution of MP contamination, including
expanding the works’ spatial scale through joint international
initiatives,
2. Evaluate different time scales (seasonal, short, and long term),
seeking a better understanding of the inter-annual variability in MP
input and the role of seasonal changes in environmental conditions
on these contaminants’ input and distribution, as well as to allow
comparisons between LAC regions,
3. Extend the evaluation of microplastics in the SMP fraction (0.001–1
mm), as well as evaluate the presence of nanometric plastics,
providing crucial information for ecotoxicological work on these
contaminants on marine organisms,
4. Include natural and anthropic variables, in their analysis, as they can
help answer questions associated with MP sources, transport, and
deposition on beaches.
Furthermore, efforts are needed to expand scientific capacity and
establish regional and international networks for research groups
working on (micro)plastic contamination issues in LAC. These initiatives
11
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
can contribute to the standardization of protocols employed in the
collection and analysis of MPs, favor data sharing, and thus increase our
knowledge about MP contamination on LAC beaches.
Credit authorship statement
Mesquita, Y.W. - Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Mengatto, M. F. - Writing - Original Draft,
Nagai, R.H. - Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Proofreading &
Editing, Supervision.
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.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Giovanna Cunha Fortes for her help
in the initial phase of the work. Y.W. Mesquita and M.F. Mengatto would
like to thank CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível Superior) for their master’s degree Scholarship. R.H. Nagai would
like to thank Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) for a research grant
(EDITAL N. February 2020 – PESQUISA/PRPPG/UFPR). The authors
would also like to thank the Academic Publishing Advisory Center
(Centro de Assessoria de Publicação Acadêmica, CAPA - www.capa.ufpr.
br) of UFPR for assistance with English language translation and
developmental editing. We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful
comments and efforts toward improving this manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120231.
References
Acosta-Coley, I., Duran-Izquierdo, M., Rodriguez-Cavallo, E., Mercado-Camargo, J.,
Mendez-Cuadro, D., Olivero-Verbel, J., 2019. Quantification of microplastics along
the Caribbean Coastline of Colombia: pollution profile and biological effects on
Caenorhabditis elegans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.06.084.
Acosta-Coley, I., Olivero-Verbel, J., 2015. Microplastic resin pellets on an urban tropical
beach in Colombia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187 (7) https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-015-4602-7.
Alvarez-Zeferino, J.C., Ojeda-Benítez, S., Cruz-Salas, A.A., Martínez-Salvador, C.,
Vázquez-Morillas, A., 2020. Microplastics in Mexican beaches. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 155 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104633.
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62,
1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Balthazar-Silva, D., Turra, A., Moreira, F.T., Camargo, R.M., Oliveira, A.L., Barbosa, L.,
Gorman, D., 2020. Rainfall and Tidal Cycle Regulate Seasonal Inputs of Microplastic
Pellets to Sandy Beaches. Front. Environ. Sci. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fenvs.2020.00123.
Besley, A., Vijver, M.G., Behrens, P., Bosker, T., 2017. A standardized method for
sampling and extraction methods for quantifying microplastics in beach sand. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 114, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.055.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, K.L., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G.H., Hilleary, M.A., Eriksen, M., Possignham, H.
P., Frond, H., Gerber, L.R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N.,
Barnes, M., Rochman, C., 2020. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to
mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369 (6510), 1515–1518. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.aba3656.
Bosker, T., Guaita, L., Behrens, P., 2018. Microplastic pollution on caribbean beaches in
the lesser Antilles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.05.060.
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
Carson, H.S., Colbert, S.L., Kaylor, M.J., Mcdermid, K.J., 2011. Small Plastic debris
changes water movement and heat transfer through beach sediments. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 62 (8), 1708–1713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.032.
Carvalho, J.S., Silva, T.S., Costa, M.F., 2021. Distribution, characteristics and short-term
variability of microplastics in beach sediment of Fernando de Noronha Archipelago,
Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 166, 112212 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.112212.
Castro, R.O., Silva, M.L.D., Marques, M.R.C., Araújo, F.D., 2020. Spatio-temporal
evaluation of macro, meso and microplastics in surface waters, bottom and beach
sediments of two embayments in Niterói, RJ, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111537.
Castro, R.O., Silva, M.L.D., Araújo, F.D., 2018. Review on microplastic studies in
Brazilian aquatic ecosystems. Ocean Coast Manag. 165, 385–400. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.013.
Costa, M.F., Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., 2010. On the importance of size of
plastic fragments and pellets on the strandline: a snapshot of a Brazilian beach.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 168, 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-1113-
4.
Curren, E., Kuwuhara, S., Yoshida, T., Leong, S.C., 2021. Marine microplastics in the
ASEAN region: a review of the current state of knowledge. Environ. Pollut. 288,
117776 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117776.
De Borrero, D., Fábrega Duque, J., Olmos, J., 2020. Distribution of plastic debris in the
pacific and caribbean beaches of Panama. Air Soil. Water Res. 13 https://doi.org/
10.1177/1178622120920268.
De Carvalho, D.G., Baptista Neto, J.A., 2016. Microplastic pollution of the beaches of
guanabara bay, Southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 128, 10–17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.009.
De La Torre, G.E., Dioses-Salina, D.C., Castro, J.C., 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.
Enders, K., Käppler, A., Biniasch, O., Felderns, P., Stollberg, N., Lange, X., Fischer, D.,
Eichhorn, K.J., Pollehne, F., Oberbeckmann, S., Labrenz, M., 2019. Tracing
microplastics in aquatic environments based on sediment analogies. Sci. Rep. 9 (1),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50508-2.
Enders, K., Lenz, R., Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Tagg, A.S., Labrenz, M., 2020. When every particle
matters: a QuEChERS approach to extract microplastics from environmental
samples. MethodsX 7, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100784.
Fernander, J.A., Welsh-Unwala, K., 2021. Microplastics in the Bahamas: a reconnaissance
quantifying the prevalence on selected beaches in New Providence. International
Journal of Bahamian Studies 27. https://doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v27i0.429.
Fernandino, G., Elliff, C.I., Silva, I.R., Bittencourt, A.C.S., 2015. How many pellets are too
many? the pellet pollution index as a tool to assess beach pollution by plastic resin
pellets in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 15
(3), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci566.
Frias, J., Nash, R., 2019. Microplastics: finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 138, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.022.
Galloway, T.S., Cole, M., Lewis, C., 2017. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout
the marine ecosystem. Nature ecology & evolution 1, 0116. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41559-017-0116.
García-Gómez, J.C., Garrigós, M., Garrigós, J., 2021. Plastic as a vector of dispersion for
marine species with invasive potential. A review. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
9, 629756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.629756.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa, L.F.D., Cardoso, R., Muniz, M.C., 2020a. The impact of
tourism on marine litter pollution on Santa Marta beaches, Colombian Caribbean.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111558 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111558.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa, L.F., Cardoso, R., Issa-Cardozo, B.B., Meigikos Dos
Anjos, R., 2020b. Plastic litter pollution along sandy beaches in the Caribbean and
Pacific coast of Colombia. Environ. Pollut. 267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115495.
Gesamp, 2019. Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter in the
ocean. Reports and Studies GESAMP 99, 130.
Gorman, D., Moreira, F.T., Turra, A., Fontenelle, F.R., Combi, T., Bícego, M.C.,
Martins, C., 2019. Organic contamination of beached plastic pellets in the South
Atlantic: risk assessments can benefit by considering spatial gradients. Chemosphere
223, 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.094.
Gusmão, F., Di Domenico, M., Amaral, A.C.Z., Martínez, A., Gonzalez, B.C., Worsaae, K.,
Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Cunha Lana, P., 2016. In situ ingestion of micro fibres by
meiofauna from sandy beaches. Environ. Pollut. 216, 584–590. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.015.
Harris, T., 2020. The fate of microplastic in marine sedimentary environments: a review
and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 158 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111398.
Hidalgo-Ruz, P., Gutow, L., Thompson, R.C., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the marine
environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (6), 3060–3075. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505.
Hidalgo-Ruz, P., 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. 87, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2013.02.015. –88.
Horton, A.A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D.J., Lahive, E., Svendsen, C., 2017. Microplastics in
freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current understanding to
identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586,
127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitoten2017.01.190.
Ita-Nagy, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Kahhat, R., 2022. Prevalence of microplastics in the
ocean in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances
5, 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazad2021.100037.
12
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine debris review for Latin America and the
Wider Caribbean Region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here?
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54 (8), 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2007.05.004.
Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 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.A., Spengler, Â., Costa, M.F., 2009. Here, there and everywhere. Small
plastic fragments and pellets on beaches of Fernando de Noronha (Equatorial
Western Atlantic). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (8), 1236–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2009.05.004.
Izar, G.M., Morais, L.G., Pereira, C.D.S., Cesar, A., Abessa, D.M.S., Christofoletti, R.A.,
2019. Quantitative analysis of pellets on beaches of the São Paulo coast and
associated non-ingested ecotoxicological effects on marine organisms. Regional
Studies in Marine Science 29, 100705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rsma.2019.100705.
Jambeck, J.R., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347,
768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Jaubet, M.L., Hines, E., Elías, R., Garaffo, G., 2021. Factors driving the abundance and
distribution of microplastics on sandy beaches in a Southwest Atlantic seaside resort.
Mar. Environ. Res. 171, 105472 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2021.105472.
Jones, J.S., Porter, A., Muñoz-Perez, J., Alarcón-Ruales, D., Galloway, T.S., Godley, B.J.,
Santillo, D., Vagg, J., Lewis, C., 2021. Plastic contamination of a Galapagos Island
(Ecuador) and the relative risks to native marine species. Sci. Total Environ. 789,
147704 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147704.
Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., Pérez-Guevara, F., Elizalde-Martínez, I., Shruti, P.C., 2020.
Review of current trends, advances and analytical challenges for microplastics
contamination in Latin America. Environ. Pollut. 267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115463.
Lavers, J.L., Rivers-Auty, J., Bond, A., 2021. Plastic debris increases circadian
temperature extremes in beach sediments. J. Hazard Mater. 416, 126140 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126140.
Lebreton, L.C., Van Der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.W., 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.
Liu, Y., Zhang, K., Xu, S., Yan, M., Tao, D., Chen, L., Wei, Y., Wuf, C., Liu, G., Lam, P.K.,
2022. Heavy metals in the “plastisphere” of marine microplastics: adsorption
mechanisms and composite risk. Gondwana Res. 108, 171–180. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gr.2021.06.017.
Lozoya, J., Teixeira De Mello, F., Carrizo, D., et al., 2016. Plastics and microplastics on
recreational beaches in Punta del Este (Uruguay): unseen critical residents? Environ.
Pollut. 218, 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.041.
Martinelli-Filho, J.E., Monteiro, R.C., 2019. Widespread microplastics distribution at an
Amazon macrotidal sandy beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 145, 219–223. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.049.
Maynard, I.F.N., Bortoluzzi, V.C., Nascimento, L.M., Madi, R.R., Cavalcanti, E.B.,
Lima, A.S., Jeraldo, V.L.S., Marques, M.N., 2021. Analysis of the occurrence of
microplastics in beach sand on the Brazilian coast. Sci. Total Environ. 771, 114777
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144777.
Monteiro, R.C., Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2018. Plastic pollution in islands of the
Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Pollut. 238, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.01.096, 2018.
Monteiro, R.C., Do Sul, J.A.I., Costa, M.F., 2020. Small microplastics on beaches of
fernando de noronha island, tropical atlantic ocean. Ocean and Coastal Research 68,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2675-28242020068235.
Moreira, F.T., Balthazar-Silva, D., Barbosa, L., Turra, A., 2016a. Revealing accumulation
zones of plastic pellets in sandy beaches. Environ. Pollut. 218, 313–321. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.006.
Moreira, F.T., Prantoni, A.L., Martini, B., Abreu, M.A., Stoiev, S.B., Turra, A., 2016b.
Small-scale temporal and spatial variability in the abundance of plastic pellets on
sandy beaches: methodological considerations for estimating the input of
microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102 (1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2015.11.051.
Mvovo, I., 2021. A comprehensive review on micro-plastic pollution in African aquatic
systems. Environmental Advances 5, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envad2021.100107.
Napper, I.E., Thompson, R.C., 2020. Plastic debris in the marine environment: history
and future challenges. Global Challenges 4, 1900081. https://doi.org/10.1002/
gch2.201900081.
Onink, P., Jongedijk, C.E., Hoffman, M.J., Sebille, E.V., Laufkötter, C., 2021. Global
simulations of marine plastic transport show plastic trapping in coastal zones.
Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064053 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abecbd.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., Elmargamid, A., 2016. Rayyan—a web and
mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13643-016-0384-4.
Perez-Alvelo, K.M., Llegus, E.M., Forestier-Babilonia, J.M., Elías-Arroyo, C.V., Pagán-
Malavé, K.N., Bird-Rivera, G.J., Rodríguez-Sierra, C.J., 2021. Microplastic pollution
on sandy beaches of Puerto Rico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 164, 112010 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112010.
Pinheiro, L.M., Monteiro, R.C.P., Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2019. Do beachrocks
affect microplastic deposition on the strandline of sandy beaches? Mar. Pollut. Bull.
141, 569–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.010.
Piñon-Colin, T.J., Rodriguez-Jimenez, R., Pastrana-Corral, M.A., Rogel-Hernandez, E.,
Wakida, F.T., 2018. Microplastics on sandy beaches of the Baja California peninsula,
Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.03.055.
Y.W. Mesquita et al.
Purca, S., Henostroza, A., 2017. Presencia de microplásticos en cuatro playas arenosas de
Per. Rev. Peru. Biol. 24 (1), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v24i1.12724.
Raju, P., Santhanam, P., Perumal, P., 2022. Impacts of microplastics on marine
organisms: present perspectives and the way forward. The Egyptian Journal of
Aquatic Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2022.03.001.
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Arroyo-Olarte, H., Trilleras, J., Arana, V.A., Mantilla-Barbosa, E.,
Gracia, A.C., Mendoza, A.V., Neal, W.J., Williams, A.T., Micallef, A., 2021.
Microplastics pollution on Colombian central caribbean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
170, 112685 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112685.
Retama, I., Jonathan, M., Shruti, C., Velumani, S., Sarkar, S.K., Roy, P.D., Rodríguez-
Espinoza, P.F., 2016. Microplastics in tourist beaches of Huatulco Bay, Pacific coast
of southern Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 113, 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.08.053.
Rodríguez, C., Fossatti, M., Carrizo, D., Sánchez-Garcia, L., Mello, F.T., Weinstein, F.,
Lozoya, J.P., 2020. Mesoplastics and large microplastics along a use gradient on the
Uruguay Atlantic coast: types, sources, fates, and chemical loads. Sci. Total Environ.
721, 137734 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137734.
Schruti, C., Pérez-Guevara, F., Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., 2021. The current state of
microplastic pollution in the world’s largest gulf and its future directions. Environ.
Pollut. 291, 118142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118142.
13
Environmental Pollution 314 (2022) 120231
Serra-Gonçalves, C., Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2019. Global review of beach debris
monitoring and future recommendations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (21),
12158–12167. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01424.
Truchet, D.M., Forero López, M.G., Ardusso, G.N., Rimondino, G.N., Buzzi, N.S.,
Malanca, F.E., Spetter, C.V., Fernándes Severini, M.D., 2021. Microplastics in
bivalves, water and sediments from a touristic sandy beach of Argentina. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 173 (B) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113023.
Tsukada, E., Fernandes, E., Vidal, C., Salla, R.F., 2021. Beach morphodynamics and its
relationship with the deposition of plastic particles: a preliminary study in
southeastern Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 172, 112809 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.112809.
Turra, A., Manzano, A.B., Dias, R.J.S., Mahiques, M.M., Barbosa, L., Balthazar-Silva, D.,
Moreira, F.T., 2014. Three-dimensional distribution of plastic pellets in sandy
beaches: shifting paradigms. Sci. Rep. 4, 4435. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04435.
Ugwu, K., Herrera, A., Gómez, M., 2021. Microplastics in marine biota: a review. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 169, 112540 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112540.
Van Sebille, E., Wilcox, C., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Hardesty, B.D., van Franeker, J.
A., Eriksen, M., Siegel, D., Galgani, F., Law, K.L., 2015. A global inventory of small
floating plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124006 https://doi.org/10.1088/
1748-9326/10/12/124006.
Zhang, H., 2017. Transport of microplastics in coastal seas. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 199,
74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.09.032.