Regional Studies in Marine Science 5 (2016) 35–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Regional Studies in Marine Science

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

Preliminary study on marine debris pollution along Marina beach,

Chennai, India
A. Arun Kumar a,∗ , R. Sivakumar b , Y. Sai Rutwik Reddy b , M.V. Bhagya Raja b , T. Nishanth b ,
V. Revanth b
a
Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box No. 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248 001, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur Pt, Kancheepuram Dt., Tamil Nadu, 603 203, India

highlights
• A total of 6,872 pieces of debris falling in 46 categories (as per NOAA method) were collected in four surveys conducted in Marina beach between March
2015 and April 2015.
• The average number and weight of the debris per 100m is found to be 171.8 and 3.24 kg respectively.
• Plastic debris formed the majority of all the debris items (44.89 %) collected on the beaches during the survey period.
• The main sources of beach debris were shoreline/recreational activities (74.46 %) based on ICC method.

article info abstract

Article history: Marine debris is a global issue with adverse impacts on marine organisms, ecological processes, aesthetics
Received 20 July 2015 and economies. Numerous studies have been conducted to quantify debris on the beach, few of these
Received in revised form have been conducted in the Chennai coast and are carried out by volunteers and NGOs. This preliminary
22 November 2015
study involves collecting and quantifying of various debris along the Marina beach in Chennai, India
Accepted 7 January 2016
Available online 11 January 2016
by conducting survey along the waterline as prescribed by the NOAA Marine Debris Program. Debris
was collected on four occasions between March 2015 and April 2015 from 10 transects, each 5 m wide
Keywords:
and 100 m long, sorted and categorized by type, quantity and concentration rate along the coastline.
Debris The results indicate that the plastic, paper and wood debris occur in the greatest number followed by
Marina food waste and metal. The major contributing factor for the debris abundance in Marina beach is the
Chennai local recreational activity which suggests that the land-based sources provide major inputs to plastic
Source pollution at the beach. These results reinforce that similar large scale projects, monitoring larger areas
Litter for considerably longer durations are to be undertaken for accurate quantification of available debris and
Plastic their impacts on coastal habitats.
Pollution © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA
2011) defines marine debris as any persistent solid material that is
manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally
or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine en-
vironment or the Great Lakes. Marine debris causes problems be-
yond creating an eyesore for tourists. It is a source of serious dam-
age to marine lives, ecosystems, fisheries, and navigational safety
(Barnes, 2002; Derraik, 2002; Donohue et al., 2001; Hall, 2000;
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arunkumar@wii.gov.in (Arun Kumar A.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2016.01.002
2352-4855/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Hong et al., 2013; Rochman et al., 2013). Research efforts indicate
that the amount and variety of marine debris present in the global
oceans are considerable, increasing, and constitute a threat to the
marine environment (Edyvane et al., 2004; Lidia and Fischer, 2003).
Thus the marine debris is clearly a global issue, affecting all ma-
jor water bodies above and below the surface. The marine debris
can adversely impact humans, wildlife and the economic health of
coastal communities (Sheavly and Register, 2007).
Marine debris load is often measured by land-based surveys
along shorelines (Frost and Cullen, 1997; Cunningham and Wilson,
2003; Storrier et al., 2007; Hong et al., 2014). Beach surveys
can identify the distribution and variation in litter quantity and
type, through aggregate spatial and temporal beach monitoring
(Rees and Pond, 1995; Kusui and Noda, 2003; Edyvane et al.,
36 Arun Kumar A. et al. / Regional Studies in Marine Science 5 (2016) 35–40
2004; Oigman-Pszczol and Creed, 2007). Beach litter surveys have
been conducted around the globe for the purposes of better
understanding the types and distribution of marine debris (Golik
and Gertner, 1992; Velander and Mocogni, 1998; Kusui and Noda,
2003; Martinez-Ribes et al., 2007; Santos et al., 2009; Moore et al.,
2011; Hong et al., 2014).
The marine debris research is comparatively poor in India and
most of the published data are in the form of reports from NGOs
and other voluntary groups as a part of the coastal clean-up event.
Nigam (1982) was the first to study the origin of plastic pellets
along the Caranzalem beach of Goa. Dharani et al. (2003) reported
unusual quantities of marine debris along the Great Nicobar Island
and concluded a prospective improper handling of the solid waste
in adjacent foreign countries. The impact of ship breaking and ma-
rine debris accumulation along the Gulf of Cambay was studied and
categorized into different polymer groups by Reddy et al. (2006).
Sridhar et al. (2007) quantified the plastic litter along five sandy
beaches of Karnataka, India. Ganesapandian et al. (2011) have re-
ported the highest debris type to be plastic from the Northern Gulf
of Mannar region on the Southeast coast of India. The impact of var-
ious anthropogenic activities along the Indian coastline was stud-
ied by Kaladharan et al. (2012) by monitoring the parameters such
as CO2 , BOD, TSS, NH3 , NO3 , primary productivity, quantity of plas-
tics and other non-biodegradable materials. Jayasiri et al. (2013)
assessed the quantity of plastic debris on recreational beaches in
Mumbai, India and studied the seasonal changes in the debris load.
The Marina beach on the Southeast coast of India is extensively
used as a recreational beach. The recreational uses such as
swimming, surfing and picnicking generate debris such as food
wrappers, plastic bags and cups, trash bags, product containers,
toys and floats. Most of the debris data for beaches outside India
have been collected systematically and scientifically, while most of
the debris information in India has been collected mainly through
beach clean-up activities. Although these activities give valuable
insight to the debris problem they do not provide a quantitative
estimate of each debris type. In this experimental study, we take
the first step to assess the type and amount of debris for a small
part of Marina beach. Further long term monitoring studies have
to be carried out on different types of beaches to assess the impact
of the debris on the ecology of the beach.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Chennai Metropolitan City is located on the Southeast Coast of
India with 56 km coastline and is the capital city of Tamil Nadu
state. Chennai is the fourth most populous metropolitan area and
the sixth most populous city in India with an estimated urban ag-
glomeration of over 8.6 million people (http://www.chennai.tn.
nic.in). Marina Beach is a natural urban beach in the city of Chennai,
along the Bay of Bengal, part of the Indian Ocean. The Marina Beach
runs for 12 km along the shoreline of the city. Two rivers meander
through Chennai, the Cooum River through the centre and the Ad-
yar River to the south. A third river, the Kortalaiyar, flows through
the northern fringes of the city before draining into the Bay of Ben-
gal at Ennore. The average width of the beach is 300 m with the
maximum width of 437 m.
The Marina beach is the most crowded beach in the country
and attracts about 30,000 visitors a day during weekdays and
50,000 visitors a day during the weekends and holidays. During
summer months, about 15,000–20,000 people visit the beach
daily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Beach#cite_note-12).
For this study a portion of Marina beach was considered between
13° 3′ 36.568′′ and 13° 3′ 38.261′′ of the Northern Latitude and
80° 17′ 12.723′′ and 80° 17′ 13.137′′ of the Eastern Longitude and
transects were carried out as prescribed by the NOAA Marine
Debris Program (2011).
2.2. Survey method
Our study was conducted in a small area of the Marina beach,
immediately south of Chennai Harbour and Cooum River. This
beach experiences some of the lowest wave energy and is consid-
ered to be depositional (Kumar and Kunte, 2012). Fig. 1 shows the
location of the study area. The beach survey was carried out bi-
monthly with a total of four surveys between March 2015 and April
2015. The access to the beach is open to the public and fishermen
and there are no management regulations to clean up the beach at
regular intervals. Also no permits were required for this study and
field work. The samples were collected along ten transects each
5 m wide and 100 m long from the High Tide Line towards the veg-
etation line covering an area of 5000 m2 . All existing marine debris
on the beach were removed at the end of February 2015 so as to
remove possible effects of accumulation during the past months.
For each survey, recorders walked back and forth along the 100 m
transects and collected all visible anthropogenic litter in individu-
ally labelled plastic bags. Only surface debris was removed and no
attempt was made to exhume buried items unless they protruded
through the beach surface.
2.3. Classification and quantification
Survey results were recorded on data sheets of (Lippiatt et al.,
2013) that listed 46 types of debris grouped into seven categories
according to the type of materials naming plastics, metal, glass,
rubber, wood/paper, cloth/fibre and others (food waste and corn
stalk). Each debris type was separated, sorted, counted and
placed in separate plastic bags. These 7 categories of debris
were further characterized into five broad categories of origin
namely, shoreline/recreational, ocean/waterway, smoking related,
dumping, and medical/personal hygiene activities (ICC, 2009). The
items that were too small or too degraded were categorized as
‘others’.
Marine debris concentration was calculated per transect using
the formula
n
C =
W ∗l
where C = concentration of debris items (# of debris items/m2 );
n = number of macro-debris items observed; w = width (m) of
shoreline section recorded during sampling and l = length (m) of
shoreline sampled.
3. Results
3.1. Quantities of beach debris
A total of 6872 pieces falling in 46 debris categories were col-
lected in bimonthly survey conducted on the Marina beach be-
tween March 2015 and April 2015. The total weight of the debris
was 129.67 kg (Table 1). The average number and weight of the
debris on the beach were 171.8 counts/100 m and 3.24 kg/100 m
respectively (Table 2). There is a clear and systematic difference
in the seasonal pattern in abundance and weight of the debris
observed during different sampling periods. The total number of
items and weight were relatively higher in the April as compared
to March (Fig. 2). The concentration of debris items was calculated
from NOAA method and was found to be 1.37 items/m2 . This value
is small when compared with other studies and could be attributed
to the patchy occurrence of the debris (Rees and Pond, 1995; Kusui
and Noda, 2003; Edyvane et al., 2004; Oigman-Pszczol and Creed,
2007).
The standard deviation when applied on the individual average
of the quantities showed lumber to vary maximum with different
 Arun Kumar A. et al. / Regional Studies in Marine Science 5 (2016) 35–40 37

Fig. 1. The study area, showing the transect lines.

Table 1
Abundance (A, number of items) and weight (B, Kg) of debris collected on Marina beach by category.
Survey Debris type
Survey Id Sampling date Plastic Metal Glass Rubber Lumber Cloth Others Total

A: Number of items (count)

1 14 Mar 15’ 751 26 21 24 497 11 132 1462
2 29 Mar 15’ 507 26 26 22 415 22 343 1361
3 12 Apr 15’ 656 62 28 27 526 19 436 1754
4 28 Apr 15’ 1171 48 17 37 551 19 452 2295
Total 3085 162 92 110 1989 71 1363 6872
Average 771.25 40.5 23 27.5 497.25 17.75 340.75 1718
Std. deviation 284.79 17.69 4.97 6.66 59.11 4.72 147.23 419.21

B: Weight of items (kg)

1 14 Mar 15’ 6.89 0.68 1.82 4.34 5.05 2.82 5.04 26.64
2 29 Mar 15’ 3.61 0.97 0.93 6.12 4.26 3.43 9.63 28.95
3 12 Apr 15’ 4.97 1.03 1.10 6.82 5.20 2.20 11.10 32.42
4 28 Apr 15’ 9.93 0.46 2.30 9.34 4.77 1.80 13.06 41.66
Total 25.40 3.14 6.15 26.62 19.28 10.25 38.83 129.67
Average 6.35 0.79 1.54 6.66 4.82 2.56 9.71 32.42
Std. deviation 2.74 0.27 0.64 2.07 0.41 0.71 3.41 6.60

Table 2 sampling dates according to its weight. While lumber showed the
Quantities of beach debris in abundance and weight per 100 m.
maximum standard deviation on the sampling days.
S. no Debris type Abundance (Count/100 m) Weight (kg/100 m)

1 Plastic 77.13 0.63

2 Metal 4.05 0.08
3.2. Composition of beach debris
3 Glass 2.30 0.15
4 Rubber 2.75 0.67
5 Lumber 49.73 0.48
6 Cloth 1.78 0.26 Plastic items formed the majority of all the debris items
7 Others 34.08 0.97 (44.89%) collected on the beach during the survey period (Fig. 4),
Total/100 m 171.8 3.24 followed by lumber and processed wood (28.94%) and others
(19.83%). Of the plastic debris, plastic bags (33.26% of all plastics)
sampling dates. Whereas debris like metal showed near constant were the most common debris found on Marina beach followed
values significantly despite different sampling dates and to vary at by food wrappers (17.50%) and plastic cups (15.92%) (Table 3).
a minimum rate (Fig. 3). The standard deviation on number of items The corn stalk and food waste were the most abundant material
of each debris type reveals lumber to show the highest value on in terms of weight, occupying 29.96% of the total weight (Fig. 4),
the sampling days, which shows its abundance on the beach varies followed by rubber (20.54%) and plastics (19.59%). In terms of
and is not constant. Metal shows the lowest standard deviation
number, the corn stalks were the most abundant debris item
depicting it to be present uniformly on all the 4 sampling days.
on the survey beach (Fig. 5), comprising 19.44% of the total
The average weight and their standard deviations are plotted on
a separate graph which depicts that the debris categorized under number, followed by paper (15.22%), plastic bags (14.93%), paper
the ‘others’ category together weigh the highest. Plastic shows the bags (12.21%), and food wrappers (7.86%) and the plastic cups
least standard deviation showing that it varies the least on the four comprising more than 7.14%.
38 Arun Kumar A. et al. / Regional Studies in Marine Science 5 (2016) 35–40
Fig. 2. Quantities of marine debris in terms of number and weight on the survey
beach.
Fig. 3. Average and standard deviation of each marine debris type collected on the
survey beach.
3.3. Sources of beach debris
The collected debris items were further categorized into shore-
line/recreational, ocean/waterway, smoking related, dumping, and
medical/personal hygiene activities based on ICC Report, 2009
Fig. 4. Composition of marine debris/100 m collected on the survey beach.
Fig. 5. Top-10 of debris items collected during the sampling period.
(Fig. 6). Shoreline/recreational activities that produce debris, such
as corn stalks, plastic and paper bags, food wrappers, plastic cups,
etc. were the largest source of debris (74.46%) in Marina beach.
These were followed by dumping activities (21.07%) which in-
clude items such as paper/cardboard, glass and metal fragments,
building material, fabric pieces, etc. The rest of the beach debris
(4.47%) was from smoking related activities, ocean/waterway ac-
tivities and medical/personal hygiene.
4. Discussions
Since this was a preliminary study and was conducted on a
small area of Marina beach for a period of two months, no statistical
tests were performed on the data collected. The results of the
study highlight the significant quantity of debris in the recreational
beach environment in an urban area. Although this study had the
sole objective of quantifying the different types of accumulated
debris, it is nevertheless instructive to examine the likely pathways
through which debris is getting into or lost from the system. Beach
visitors, coastal inhabitants and recreational activities contribute
to the major sources of debris pollution on beaches in developing
countries due to their littering behaviour and high usage of plastics
 Arun Kumar A. et al. / Regional Studies in Marine Science 5 (2016) 35–40 39

Table 3
Percent frequency composition of plastic debris items.
S. no Plastic debris type Count Occurrence %

1 Food wrappers 540 17.50

2 Beverage bottles 16 0.52
3 Containers 30 0.97
4 Bottle and caps 233 7.55
5 Cigar tips 167 5.41
6 Cigarettes 7 0.23
7 Cig. lighters 0 0.00
8 6-pack ring 0 0.00
9 Plastic bags 1026 33.26
10 Plastic rope/Net 28 0.91
11 Buoys 0 0.00
12 Fishing line 8 0.26
13 Cups 491 15.92
14 Utensils 45 1.46
15 Straws 206 6.68
16 Balloons 199 6.45
17 Thermocol/Styrofoam 57 1.85
18 Personal care prod 9 0.29
19 Others 23 0.75
Total 3085 100.00

Fig. 7. Composition of marine debris collected from the survey beach.

The ICC methodology was used in identifying the sources. This

Fig. 6. Sources of beach debris inferred by the International Coastal Cleanup (ICC).
(Jayasiri et al., 2013). In this regard, Marina beach represents an
area with high beach usage as compared to the other beaches
in Chennai, reason being that it is easily accessible through road
and rail network resulting in it being the most crowded beach in
the country. Barnes (2005) reported that the abundance of debris
correlates very strongly with human population. Although, we
have not correlated debris abundance with the population.
The majority of the debris recovered emanates from domes-
tic and recreational activities which indicates very high anthro-
pogenic pressure on the beach. Most of the debris accumulated
is of local origin and indicates its inflow due to human activities
and through storm rather than the ocean deposition. Marine de-
bris could have impacts on marine organisms, habitats, and hu-
man economies (Derraik, 2002; McDermid and McMullen, 2004;
Sheavly and Register, 2007; Moore, 2008; Hinojosa and Thiel,
2009; Santos et al., 2009). The result of the present study is in
unison with other studies as most of the beach litter surveys con-
firmed the predominance of plastic litter in terms of the number
of items (Golik and Gertner, 1992; Madzena and Lasiak, 1997; Der-
raik, 2002; Santos et al., 2009; Ganesapandian et al., 2011; Jayasiri
et al., 2013).
The plastic debris abundance on Marina beach was higher than
that reported in other beaches in India (Nigam, 1982; Dharani et al.,
2003; Reddy et al., 2006; Sridhar et al., 2007; Ganesapandian et al.,
2011; Kaladharan et al., 2012; Jayasiri et al., 2013) (Table 4). Strong
temporal trend in debris concentration between two month data
set is observed with 41.07% of the debris occurring during March
and 58.92% occurring during April (Fig. 7). This correlates well with
the number of beach visitors as April and May are the months of
summer vacations in India.
is the most widely used way of assigning sources of debris, as it
allows comparison with the data from other global regions. This
methodology proves to be a powerful tool when considering the
lack of standardized monitoring methodologies for beach debris
(Cheshire et al., 2009). The main sources of beach debris in this
study were shoreline/recreational activities (74.46%) and dumping
activities (21.07%). Also, the proportion of shoreline/recreational
activity was much higher than that of the international data (Ocean
Conservancy, 2014).
Since most of the litter appears to be of recreational origin,
provision of adequate numbers of litter bins adjacent to prime
recreational areas could help reduce the quantity of litter discarded
by beach users. Alternative suggestions like preventing or reducing
the plastic usage through the use of biodegradable plastics, safe
disposal of debris and periodical monitoring of accumulation of
plastics and other debris in beaches and coastal waters can reduce
the impact of debris pollution on beaches. Despite the efforts of
a number of researches in the past, it is clear that we still have
a long way to go to generate realistic models for the dynamics
of marine debris on beaches (Smith and Markic, 2013). This is
the first study on debris quantification in the Marina beach and
the deleterious impacts of the accumulation of marine debris
on marine ecosystems are not fully understood. Comprehensive
studies including large-scale and long-term monitoring processes
are needed to address the existing knowledge gap to quantify the
effects of marine debris along Indian coastline.
5. Conclusion
Debris accumulation was quantitatively assessed in Marina
beach, an urban beach of Chennai and showed significantly high
temporal variations. Since the majority of marine litter originates
from land-based sources and activities, the primary emphasis on
controlling marine litter should focus on preventing the inflow
of litter to the sea. Though regular beach clean-ups can be an
40 Arun Kumar A. et al. / Regional Studies in Marine Science 5 (2016) 35–40
Table 4
Comparison with other studies along Indian Coastline.
Location of sample site Year Number of visits
Caranzalem Beach, Goa 1981 1 50–300/m2
Andaman and Nicobar 2003 1 NA
Gulf of Cambay 2004 Monthly, 3
Karnataka 2005 1 99.7/m2
Gulf of Mannar 2006–2008 Monthly, 24
Peninsular Indian Coast 2007–2009 1 NA
Mumbai 2011–2012 Monthly, 11
Marina Beach, Chennai 2015 Bimonthly, 4
effective solution, it is pointless if it does not address the issues
of prevention at the source. Instead of expensive and intensive
beach clean-ups, if we could make the community aware of the
environmental consequences of marine debris, it would actually
make a significant difference. This pilot survey can be taken as a
baseline for furthering extensive studies in the Marina beach apart
from the other beaches of our country. Another good idea could be
the comparison of the debris found on the commercial and non-
commercial beaches in this area. Such a comparative study could
help focus on the anthropogenic effects on the beach environment.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the Director (E&T), SRM University
for his encouragement and motivation. A.A.K thanks R.S and Dr.
S. Ramesh (National Institute of Ocean Science and Technology,
Chennai) for their valuable suggestions in improvising the
methodology and sample collection procedures. A.A.K wishes to
thank Shatarup Bhattacharyya and Nitish Yeluri for volunteering
to undertake sample collection for this study and Aashna for her
support all throughout in writing this paper.
References
Barnes, D.K.A., 2002. Biodiversity: invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature
416, 808–809.
Barnes, D.K.A., 2005. Remote islands reveal rapid rise of Southern Hemisphere sea
debris. Dir. Sci. 5, 915–921.
Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L.,
Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira,
M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G., 2009.
UNEP/IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine Litter. UNEP Regional
Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186, IOC Technical Series No. 83, 120.
Cunningham, D.J., Wilson, S.P., 2003. Marine debris on beaches of the greater
Sydney region. J. Coast. Res. 19 (2), 421–430.
Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852.
Dharani, G., Nazar, A.K.A., Ventakesan, R., Ravindran, M., 2003. Marine debris in
Great Nicobar. Current Sci. 85, 574–575.
Donohue, M.J., Boland, R.C., Sramek, C.M., Antonelis, G.A., 2001. Derelict fishing gear
in the North-western Hawaiian Islands: diving surveys and debris removal in
1999 confirm threat to coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1301–1312.
Edyvane, K.S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P.W., Higman, J.S., Wace, N.M., 2004. Long-term
marine litter monitoring in the remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48, 1060–1075.
Frost, A., Cullen, M., 1997. Marine debris on Northern New South Wales beaches
(Australia): sources and the role of beach usage. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34 (5),
348–352.
Ganesapandian, S., Manikandan, S., Kumaraguru, A.K., 2011. Marine litter in the
northern part of Gulf of Mannar, southeast coast of India. Res. J. Environ. Sci.
5 (5), 471–478.
Golik, A., Gertner, Y., 1992. Litter on the Israeli coastline. Mar. Environ. Res. 33 (1),
1–15.
Hall, K., 2000. Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil: Economic and Social Costs to
Coastal Communities. Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon.
Hinojosa, I.A., Thiel, M., 2009. Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels
of southern Chile. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 341–350.
Hong, S., Lee, J., Jang, Y.C., Kim, Y.J., Kim, H.J., Han, D., Hong, S.H., Kang, D., Shim, W.J.,
2013. Impacts of marine debris on wild animals in the coastal area of Korea.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 66, 117–124.
Quantity Reference
Count Weight
NA Nigam (1982)
NA Dharani et al. (2003)
NA 81.43 mg/kg Reddy et al. (2006)
NA Sridhar et al. (2007)
68.5/100 m 4.34 kg/100 m Ganesapandian et al. (2011)
5.49 g/m2 Kaladharan et al. (2012)
11.67 ± 8.83/m2 3.24 ± 0.92 g/m2 Jayasiri et al. (2013)
171.8/100 m 3.24 kg/100 m Present study
Hong, S., Lee, J., Kang, D., Choi, H.W., Ko, S.H., 2014. Quantities, composition, and
sources of beach debris in Korea from the results of nationwide monitoring.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 84 (1), 27–34.
Jayasiri, H.B., Purushothaman, C.S., Vennila, A., 2013. Quantitative analysis of plastic
debris on recreational beaches in Mumbai, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1),
107–112.
Kaladharan, P., Vijayakumaran, K., Singh, V.V., Asha, P.S., Sulochanan, Bindu,
Asokan, P.K., Valsala, K.K., Veena, S., Jayasankaran, L., Bhint, H.M., 2012.
Assessment of certain Anthropogenic Interventions and their Impacts along the
Indian Coastline. Fish. Technol. 49, 32–37.
Kumar, A. Arun, Kunte, Pravin D., 2012. Coastal vulnerability assessment for
Chennai, east coast of India using geospatial techniques. Nat. Hazards 64 (1),
853–872.
Kusui, T., Noda, M., 2003. International survey on the distribution of stranded and
buried litter on beaches along the Sea of Japan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47, 175–179.
Lidia, S.I., Fischer, D.W., 2003. Quantification and classification of marine litter on
the municipal beaches of Ensenada, Baja California. Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
46, 132–138.
Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., Arthur, C., 2013. Marine debris monitoring and assessment.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46.
Madzena, A., Lasiak, T., 1997. Spatial and temporal variations in beach litter on the
Transkey coast of South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34 (11), 900–907.
Martinez-Ribes, L., Basterretxea, G., Palmer, M., Tintoré, J., 2007. Origin and
abundance of beach debris in the Balearic Islands. Sci. Mar. 71 (2), 305–314.
McDermid, K.J., McMullen, T.L., 2004. Quantitative analysis of small-plastic debris
on beaches in the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48, 790–794.
Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly
increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108, 131–139.
Moore, C.J., Lattin, G.L., Zellers, A.F., 2011. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing
from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. J.
Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 11 (1), 65–73.
Nigam, R.A.I.I.V., 1982. Plastic pellets on the Caranzalem beach sands, Goa, India.
Mahasagar 15 (2), 125–127.
NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2011. Information on marine debris. Office of
Response and Restoration: NOAA’s National Ocean Service.
(http://marinedebris.noaa.gov).
Ocean Conservancy, 2014. Turning the tide on trash. Report from the 2013
International Coastal Cleanup. Washington, DC, USA.
Oigman-Pszczol, S.S., Creed, J.C., 2007. Quantification and classification of marine
litter on beaches along Armacao dos Buzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. Coast. Res.
23 (2), 421–428.
Reddy, M.S., Basha, Shaik, Adimurthy, A., Ramachandraiah, G., 2006. Description of
the small plastics fragments in marine sediments along the Alang-Sosiya ship-
breaking yard, India. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 68 (3), 656–660.
Rees, G., Pond, K., 1995. Marine Litter monitoring programmes—a review of
methods with special references to national surveys. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30 (2),
103–108.
Rochman, C.M., Hot, E., Kurobe, T., The, S.J., 2013. Ingested plastic transfer hazardous
chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Rep. 3, Article number: 3263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep03263.
Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Do Sul, J.A.I., 2009. Marine debris contamination along
undeveloped tropical beaches from northeast Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess.
148 (1–4), 455–462.
Sheavly, S.B., Register, K.M., 2007. Marine debris & plastics: Environmental
concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J. Polym. Environ. 15 (4), 301–305.
Smith, S.D.A., Markic, A., 2013. Estimates of marine debris accumulation on beaches
are strongly affected by the temporal scale of sampling. PLoS One 8 (12), e83694.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083694.
Sridhar, K.R., Deviprasad, B., Karamchand, K.S., Bhat, Rajeev, 2007. Plastic debris
along the Beaches of Karnataka, Southwest Coast of India. Asian J. Water
Environ. Pollut. 6 (2), 87–93.
Storrier, K.L., McGlashan, D.J., Bonellie, S., Velander, K., 2007. Beach litter deposition
at a selection of beaches in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. J. Coast. Res. 23 (4),
813–822.
Velander, K.A., Mocogni, M., 1998. Maritime litter and sewage contamination
at Cramond Beach Edinburgh a comparative study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 3 (5),
385–389.