Marine Pollution Bulletin 113 (2016) 266–270

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

The cotton buds beach: Marine litter assessment along the Tyrrhenian
coast of central Italy following the marine strategy framework
directive criteria
Gianluca Poeta a,⁎, Corrado Battisti b, Manuele Bazzichetto c, Alicia T.R. Acosta a
a
Department of Sciences, University of Rome Tre, Viale Marconi, 446, 00146 Rome, Italy
b
“Torre Flavia Natural Monument” LTER (Long Term Environmental Research) Research Site, Servizio Aree protette – parchi regionali, Province of Rome, via Tiburtina, 691, 00159 Rome, Italy
c
Dipartimento di Bioscienze e Territorio, Università degli Studi del Molise, C.da Fonte Lappone, 86090 Pesche, IS, Italy

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

Article history: We assessed the annual accumulation rates of beach litter on the Tyrrhenian coast of central Italy, providing the
Received 23 June 2016 characterization of litter following European standardized guidelines. Three different sites of a beach were sam-
Received in revised form 16 September 2016 pled seasonally from spring 2014 to winter 2015. A total of 31,739 items were removed and classified into 103
Accepted 18 September 2016
categories. Plastic represented the majority (94.4%) of the collected items. We detected temporal and spatial dif-
Available online 22 September 2016
ferences in the abundance and composition of litter between seasons and between sites. Furthermore, we found
Keywords:
that plastic cotton bud sticks composed N30% of the total amount of litter and, together with plastic and polysty-
Marine debris rene pieces, made up N70% of the total items. Finally, our results led us to propose that the most effective strategy
Plastic to reduce litter pollution is to devise specific management procedures focusing on the most abundant items.
Marine strategy © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Litter sampling
Accumulation rates
Beach litter

1. Introduction recommendations needed to commence the monitoring of the MSFD

Marine litter is observed worldwide and is a threat to fresh-water,
marine and coastal systems (Bouwman et al., 2016; Deudero and
Alomar, 2015; Gall and Thompson, 2015; Poeta et al., 2015). In recent
years, marine litter has become a significant environmental concern
for governments, scientists, non-governmental organizations, and
members of the public worldwide (Seltenrich, 2015). Marine litter is de-
fined as “any manufactured or processed solid waste material that en-
ters the marine environment from any source” (Coe and Rogers,
1997); in 2008 it was included in the European Marine Strategy Frame-
work Directive (2008/56/EC MSFD; EEC, 2008) as one of the 11 descrip-
tors (descriptor 10) of Good Environmental Status. On the basis of an
assessment of what could be defined as Good Environmental Status
(MSFD GES Task group, Galgani et al., 2010), the Commission Decision
(2010/477/EU) identified four different indicators for the descriptor
10: i) trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or deposited
on coastlines (10.1.1: beach litter); ii) trends in the amount of litter in
the water column (10.1.2: floating litter and sea-floor litter); iii) trends
in the amount, distribution and, where possible, composition of micro-
particles (10.1.3: microplastics); iv) trends in the amount and
composition of litter ingested by marine animals (10.2.1). Moreover, a
technical (non-legally binding) document was also provided with
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gianluca.poeta@uniroma3.it (G. Poeta).
Descriptor 10 (“Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European
Seas” - GMML, Galgani et al., 2013). This document was developed to
enhance the standardization of the methods and to facilitate compara-
bility of monitoring results. It describes specific protocols and consider-
ations for collecting, reporting and assessing data on marine litter, in
particular beach litter, floating litter, seafloor litter, litter in biota and
micro-litter. Moreover, it contains a standardized list, based on the cat-
egories of items used in a series of other programs, including specific
names and codes for each litter category.
Litter washed ashore on the coastline is one of the most obvious
signs of marine litter pollution (Cheshire et al., 2009). Among the for-
mer proposed indicators, surveys of beach litter also have the lowest es-
timated costs and the lowest required level of expertise for monitoring
the load of litter in the marine environment (Galgani et al., 2013). How-
ever, to our knowledge, there are still very few scientific publications
dealing with beach litter in Mediterranean coasts, and only three
being conducted on Italian sandy beaches (Gabrielides et al., 1991;
Poeta et al., 2014; Munari et al., 2016). Furthermore, none of the previ-
ous studies follows the GMML, making comparison of litter categories
very difficult. Finally, previous works are based on standing stock sur-
veys, where the total load of litter is assessed during a one-off count.
For these reasons, no comparable data on the assessment of accumula-
tion rates along Italian coasts are currently available.
The analysis of annual patterns and composition of litter is the first
step for revealing the main sources of litter. Furthermore, it represents

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.035
0025-326X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 113 (2016) 266–270
basic information useful for developing adequate management strate-
gies aimed at reducing this worldwide threat.
On this basis, the main aim of this work is to perform an initial as-
sessment of the annual accumulation rates of beach litter using Europe-
an standardized guidelines along the Italian Mediterranean coast. To
achieve this, we address the following questions:
i) What is the quantity and the composition of beach litter?
ii) Which are the differences in litter composition between seasons?
iii) Which are the spatial differences in the study area?
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
A suitable study area was chosen following the criteria suggested in
the GMML. We selected a fine-grained sandy beach on the North side of
the Lazio region (Central Tyrrhenian Italy) (Fig. 1A, B) near Montalto
Marina (Viterbo). This area is among the least disturbed coastal zones
in Central Italy. It is characterized by a relatively good conservation sta-
tus, as supported by previous ecological investigations (Carboni et al.,
2009; Fenu et al., 2013).
The beach is characterized by a mean slope value that ranges from 5
to 9 degrees (Bazzichetto et al., 2016) with a South-West orientation. It
is 8.5 km long and is naturally delimited to the South by the Fiora river
and to the North by a small creek, both characterized by varying season-
al discharge rates. The Fiora river flows mainly across cultivated lands
and its riverbanks are also used as docks. The study area is protected in-
land by a power plant and a privately owned natural area. Therefore,
human visitors are limited, throughout the year, to fishermen and a
few beach tourists who visit the northern part of the beach during the
summer. Moreover, the area is not subject to litter collection activities
(except in the case of this survey).
2.2. Litter sampling and analyses
We followed the standardized approach proposed by Galgani et al.
(2013) in order to assess accumulation of beach litter throughout the
Fig. 1. Study area. A = Italy. B = Lazio region. C = Study area with the 3 different sampling units (red dots, numbers 1, 2, 3).
267
year. To do this, we created 3 equally distanced survey units (Fig. 1C).
Each sampling unit was 100 m long and was situated between the sea
line and the back dune's woody vegetation. The start and end points
of each sampling unit were georeferenced using a GPS (Garmin GPSmap
60CSx) in order to ensure that the same sites were monitored for all
surveys.
Initially, all beach litter was removed at the end of March 2014. Then,
we repeated data collection and litter removal activities every 3 months
over the year (spring – end of June, summer – end of September, au-
tumn – end of December, winter – end of March 2015). We sampled
and removed litter items ≥2.5 cm, according to GMML.
During each survey, all litter items were removed and taken to the
laboratory for sorting, classification and counting. For identification
and classification we used the “Master List of Categories of Litter
Items”, considering only the categories referring to beach litter (165 cat-
egories), this allowing us to assign each litter item to a standard General
Code (hereafter GC) and providing comparable results over a wide re-
gion (Galgani et al., 2013). Large items which could not be removed
were registered in situ, marked and photographed to avoid pseudo-rep-
lication. The items without a specific GC were included in the category
of “other identifiable items” (G124, G134, G145, G158, G173, G197,
G210) (see Table 1 and Supplementary material). To reduce bias of de-
tectability, litter removal was carried out by the same individual with
the help of a maximum of three trained volunteer surveyors. In addition,
data collection and classification of items were both carried out by the
same operator. The total number of litter items in each sampling unit
was registered and reported using the density of items per meter of
shoreline (Bouwman et al., 2016).
We evaluated the differences between seasons and between sur-
vey units in the composition and quantity of litter categories by
using a one-way non-parametric (permutational) multivariate anal-
ysis of variance (PERMANOVA, 9999 runs). Since some of the catego-
ries of litter occurred on a very large relative scale of abundance,
data were transformed by taking double-square roots before the
analysis (Anderson, 2001). To identify which categories of litter
were primarily responsible of the differences between seasons and
survey units, we used a similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER).
Analyses were carried out using the PAST software v. 3.10
(Hammer et al., 2001).
268 G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 113 (2016) 266–270

Table 1
Categories of litter items with General Code (GC), General name, Material type (MT) and total abundance. (Galgani et al., 2013). APM = Artificial Polymer Material; P = Paper/Cardboard;
C = Cloth/textile; M = Metal; R = Rubber; G = Glass/Ceramics; W = Processed/Worked Wood. For the complete list see Supplementary material.

GC General name MT No GC General name MT No

G95 Cotton bud sticks APM 9994 G90 Plastic flower pots APM 65
G79 Plastic pieces 2.5 cm N b50 cm APM 8376 G125 Balloons and balloon sticks R 62
G82 Polystyrene pieces 2.5 cm N b50 cm APM 4601 G200 Bottles incl. pieces G 62
G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks APM 1201 G100 Medical/pharmaceuticals containers/tubes APM 60
G23 Plastic caps/lids unidentified APM 670 G60 Light sticks (tubes with fluid) incl. packaging APM 58
G124 Other plastic/polystyrene items (identifiable) APM 661 G66 Strapping bands APM 55
G70 Shotgun cartridges APM 656 G96 Sanitary towels/panty liners/backing strips APM 55
G73 Foam sponge APM 511 G62 Floats for fishing nets APM 54
G24 Plastic rings from bottle caps/lids APM 370 G210 Other glass items G 51
G8 Drink bottles N0.5 l APM 312 G208 Glass or ceramic fragments N2.5 cm G 48
G30 Crisps packets/sweets wrappers APM 293 G34 Cutlery and trays APM 44
G35 Straws and stirrers APM 246 G102 Flip-flops APM 43
G31 Lolly sticks APM 206 G59 Fishing line/monofilament (angling) APM 29
G33 Cups and cup lids APM 174 G65 Buckets APM 28
G7 Drink bottles b =0.5 l APM 161 G4 Small plastic bags, e.g. freezer bags incl. pieces APM 27
G27 Cigarette butts and filters APM 152 G18 Crates and containers/baskets APM 27
G50 String and cord (diameter less than 1 cm) APM 147 G58 Fish boxes - expanded polystyrene APM 27
G158 Other paper items P 146 G152 Cigarette packets P 25
G28 Pens and pen lids APM 137 G97 Toilet fresheners APM 24
G45 Mussels nets, Oyster nets APM 131 G13 Other bottles & containers (drums) APM 23
G32 Toys and party poppers APM 124 G159 Corks W 23
G26 Cigarette lighters APM 121 G67 Sheets, industrial packaging, plastic sheeting APM 22
G10 Food containers incl. fast food containers APM 117 G16 Jerry cans (square plastic containers with handle) APM 19
G92 Bait containers/packaging APM 106 G49 Rope (diameter more than 1 cm) APM 18
G3 Bags/shopping bags incl. pieces APM 104 G134 Other rubber pieces R 17
G12 Other cosmetics bottles & containers APM 89 G198 Other (metal) M 17
G99 Syringes/needles APM 88 G145 Other textiles (incl. Rags) C 15
G71-G138 Shoes APM 88 G126 Balls R 13
C
G89 Plastic construction waste APM 86 G178 Bottle caps, lids & pull tabs M 13
G9 Cleaner bottles & containers APM 85 G176 Cans (food) M 12
G175 Cans (beverage) M 79 G43 Tags (fishing and industry) APM 11
G177 Foil wrappers, aluminium foil M 79 G156 Paper P 11
G61 Other fishing related APM 78 G174 Aerosol/spray cans industry M 10
G25 Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box packaging APM 76 G202 Light bulbs G 10

3. Results
Overall, we removed, counted and classified 31,739 litter items
(105.8 items m−1). The highest abundance of litter was recorded at
the end of the winter (Fig. 2) and in the northern sampling unit (num-
ber 1 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 3). We registered 105 different litter categories,
assigning a GC to 31,682 items (Table 1 and Supplementary material).
Since we were not able to assign univocally a category and a GC to 57
items, these items were excluded for further analyses. Artificial polymer
material composed 94.4% (29,903 items) of the items found (79.4% Plas-
tic, 15% Polystyrene).
The 10 litter categories of highest abundance accounted for N85% of
the total amount of beach litter (26,935 items in total); among these
categories, Plastic cotton bud sticks (GC: G95) represented N30%
(9994 items) of the total sampled litter. Cotton bud sticks, together
with Plastic pieces (GC: G79) and Polystyrene pieces (GC: G82) made
up N70% of total items representing the most abundant categories for
the study area. The category G124 “Other plastic/polystyrene items (iden-
tifiable)” represented 2% of the total amount of litter (661 items) and
was composed of 48 different objects that we were unable to assign to
an appropriate litter category and to the correct GC.
Spring showed the highest number of litter categories (91) followed
by summer (84), winter (80) and autumn (79). The proportion of litter
categories was significantly different between seasons (PERMANOVA
test, F = 1.613, p b 0.05).
The similarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) identified 7 categories
which were consistently responsible for a large percentage (N 80%) of
the overall differences: G95 cotton bud sticks, G79 plastic pieces

Fig. 2. Total amount of litter in each season. In spring we sampled 21.3 items m−1, in
summer 14.9 m−1, in autumn 27.7 m−1 and 41.7 m−1 in winter. Fig. 3. Total amount of litter in each sampling unit.
 G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 113 (2016) 266–270 269

2.5 N b 50 cm, G82 polystyrene pieces 2.5–50 cm, G21 plastic caps/lids Table 3
drinks, G70 shotgun cartridges, G23 plastic caps/lids unidentified, Frequency of the 7 litter categories, identified by the SIMPER test, in each sampling unit. In
bold the major value for each litter category.
G158 other paper items.
The proportion of litter categories was also significantly different be- GC code General name 1 2 3
tween the sampling units (PERMANOVA test, F = 2.152, p b 0.01); the G95 Cotton bud sticks 0.59 0.29 0.12
similarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) identified the same 7 catego- G79 Plastic pieces 2,5 N b50 cm 0.51 0.31 0.18
ries which were consistently responsible for a large percentage G82 Polystyrene pieces 2,5 N b50 cm 0.13 0.27 0.60
G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks 0.49 0.28 0.23
(N80%) of the overall differences. The frequency of these categories in
G70 Shotgun cartridge 0.49 0.30 0.21
different seasons and in different sampling units is shown in Table 2 G158 Other paper items 0.76 0.02 0.22
and Table 3. We excluded from these two analyses (PERMANOVA and G23 Plastic caps/lids unidentified 0.46 0.32 0.22
SIMPER) the G124 category because it was composed of items that can-
not be assigned to a single GC.
depending on the sources and the dynamics in the sea (sea currents,
4. Discussion waves, wind), the temporal patterns of beach litter can be highly vari-
able (Thiel et al., 2013). Similar results were found in a beach of the Ga-
Counting the number of individual items provides the best and lician coast (Gago et al., 2014).
cheapest information for formulation of management measures at all The differences in litter composition and quantity between seasons
levels; it is also the most practical method (MSFD GES Technical are probably due to the seasonality of the local activities (fishing, agri-
Subgroup on Marine Litter, 2011). Unfortunately, the high number of lit- culture, etc.) and the varying discharge of the river, which is assumed
ter items and categories sampled in this study make the definition of as the main source (i.e. carrier) of litter. Thus, cotton bud sticks are
general management strategy difficult. most frequent during autumn and winter (high river discharge), poly-
Moreover, comparisons with other Mediterranean studies, with dif- styrene pieces are more frequent in spring when local fishing and agri-
ferent methodologies, raise complications (Ryan et al., 2014), and could cultural activities are more intense, while paper items (mainly paper
lead to spurious conclusions. Nevertheless our own study demonstrates towels) are most frequent during summer (likely due to beach users),
that the material composition reflects the global trend with plastic and shotgun cartridges are most frequent during the hunting seasons
representing the majority of collected items (Moore et al., 2001; (autumn and winter).
Derraik, 2002; Ivar and Costa, 2007; Eriksson et al., 2013; Poeta et al., The differences in litter composition between sampling sites are
2014; Bouwman et al., 2016; Munari et al., 2016; Williams et al., probably related to the size, shape and mainly, to the buoyancy of
2016) and that, as in recent studies, few litter categories constitute the each different litter category (as already highlighted by Fazey and
majority of the total amount of litter (Munari et al., 2016: cigarette Ryan, 2016): cotton bud sticks, plastic caps/lids and shotgun cartridge
butts and plastic pieces; Bouwman et al., 2016: flip-flop; Williams et have the same degree of buoyancy (floating on the surface or just
al., 2016: plastic pieces, foil wrappers, cigarette butts). The most com- below) and are more frequent in the sampling unit 1; polystyrene
mon litter category was cotton bud sticks (G95); the high number of pieces (floating above the surface) are more frequent in the sampling
this item during Autumn and Winter seasons (Table 2) (high river dis- unit 3. Considering the Fiora river as the main source of litter for this
charge) suggests that cotton bud sticks are commonly thrown into do- beach, items are distributed at different distances from the river
mestic sewage, reaching the marine and coastal environment due to mouth according to their buoyancy. However, further analyses, consid-
the inefficiency of the sewage treatment plants in the study area. In ad- ering the effects of size, shape buoyancy of each litter category, are still
dition, the National Law 152/2006, which has abrogated the article 19 of needed.
the National Law 93/01 (banning the production and sale of plastic cot- To conclude, the higher frequency of paper items (GC: G158) in the
ton bud sticks), has allowed this plastic item to reappear in local shops sampling unit 1, with the highest occurrence of beach users, confirms
and stores. In fact only the large supermarket chains have completely that this category is linked more to beach users rather than river flow
replaced the plastic cotton buds with the biodegradable ones. Thus, if rate. Moreover, this result suggests that beach tourism does not consti-
the appropriate legal instruments are established/restored, sewage tute a significant source of litter for this beach, its being the only catego-
treatment systems are improved and local awareness about the prob- ry related to beach users and to the summer season.
lem is enhanced, then the number of litter items would be reduced By using the “Master List of Categories of Litter Items” (Galgani et al.,
consistently. 2013) the classification was relatively fast and easy; categories are clear
Unfortunately, it is difficult to attribute a specific source to the other and comprehensive, including almost all the items that can be found
most common items (plastic and polystyrene pieces), however polysty- along the coast. In fact, we were not able to assign a General Code to
rene ones are likely related to local fisheries and agriculture. Thus, fur- only 2% of the total amount of the sampled items, as these were uncom-
ther studies focusing on this issue are still needed. mon items such as plastic tissues packaging, beach umbrellas, plastic
The higher litter amounts were sampled at the end of winter proba- clothespins, food or bottle labels, clothes hangers, smoking-related,
bly because of the higher rainfall and river's flow rate (Blasi, 1994). By etc. Although the standardized survey approach applied in this study
contrast, summer showed the lowest level of pollution. In fact, is relatively economical, we recognize that it is quite heavy in terms of
fieldwork (N300 h in 1 year, using 4 operators during litter removal
and one operator during classification activities).
Table 2
Seasonal frequency of the 7 litter categories identified by the SIMPER test as the most re-
sponsible of the overall differences between seasons. In bold the major value for each litter 5. Conclusions
category.
Surveys of beach litter are a primary tool for monitoring the load of
GC code General name Spring Summer Autumn Winter
litter in the marine environment and have been used world-wide to
G95 Cotton bud sticks 0.17 0.09 0.26 0.48
quantify and describe marine litter (Gago et al., 2014). To our knowl-
G79 Plastic pieces 2,5 N b50 cm 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.46
G82 Polystyrene pieces 2,5 N b50 cm 0.38 0.12 0.27 0.23 edge this study represents the first assessment of annual accumulation
G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks 0.19 0.16 0.23 0.42 of beach litter in Italy and is the first application of the GMML, including
G70 Shotgun cartridge 0.12 0.11 0.28 0.49 the standardized classification of litter. The temporal replication among
G158 Other paper items 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.03 different seasons allowed a more detailed characterization of the beach
G23 Plastic caps/lids unidentified 0.15 0.12 0.27 0.46
litter; in particular, the standardized classification will allow further
270 G. Poeta et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 113 (2016) 266–270
accurate comparison with other study areas, both in the Mediterranean
or on oceanic coasts. In this sense, the GMML provided a consistent
support.
The study area shows high levels of pollution, a marked seasonality
in terms of amount and composition of litter and a distribution pattern
probably related to the litter's buoyancy. The high number of litter cat-
egories is probably due to different potential sources and, together with
the seasonal differences in composition and abundance of litter, makes
it impossible to propose a general management strategy to reduce pol-
lution in this beach. Therefore, the best strategy is probably to focus on
the most abundant items, particularly cotton bud sticks and the various
already clearly established causes of their presence. Law enforcement,
sewage treatment, local awareness could all be brought to bear to root
out this single litter item, and so reduce beach litter in a more consistent
way. Finally, the seasonality of litter abundance and composition high-
lights the variability of the accumulation rates preventing suitable com-
parisons of standing stock surveys in different seasons.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.035.
Acknowledgments
We thank Arianna Bellingeri, Davide Bergamaschi, Luisa Conti,
Lucilla D'Orsi, Alessia Di Gennaro, Vittoria Gnetti, Marco Malavasi,
Marco Molfini, Chiara Nicolafrancesco, Enrico Pantosti, Irene Prisco,
Federico Romiti, Flavio Rotolo, Giulia Scarparo, Andrea Scolastri, for
their commitment in collecting and removing beach litter.
References
Anderson, M.J., 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance.
Austral Ecol. 26, 32–46.
Bazzichetto, M., Malavasi, M., Acosta, A.T.R., Carranza, M.L., 2016. How does dune mor-
phology shape coastal EC habitats occurrence? A remote sensing approach using air-
borne LiDAR on the Mediterranean coast. Ecol. Indic. 71, 618–626. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.044.
Blasi, C., 1994. Fitoclimatologia de1 Lazio. Università La Sapienza, Regione Lazio 56 pp.
Bouwman, H., Evans, S.W., Cole, N., Choong Kwet Yive, N.S., Kylin, H., 2016. The flip-or-
flop boutique: marine debris on the shores of St Brandon's rock, an isolated tropical
atoll in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 114, 58–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marenvres.2015.12.013.
Carboni, M., Carranza, M.L., Acosta, A.T.R., 2009. Assessing conservation status on coastal
dunes: a multiscale approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91 (1), 17–25.
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 xii + 120 p.
Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B., 1997. Marine debris: sources, impacts and solutions. Springer Se-
ries on Environmental Management. Springer-Verlac, New York 432 pp.
Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852.
Deudero, S., Alomar, C., 2015. Mediterranean marine biodiversity under threat: reviewing
influence of marine litter on species. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 98, 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.012.
Eriksson, C., Burton, H., Fitch, S., Schulz, M., van den Hoff, J., 2013. Daily accumulation rates
of marine debris on sub-Antarctic island beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 66, 199–208.
Fazey, F.M.C., Ryan, P.G., 2016. Debris size and buoyancy influence the dispersal distance
of stranded litter. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 110 (1), 371–377.
Fenu, G., Carboni, M., Acosta, A.T.R., Bacchetta, G., 2013. Environmental factors influencing
coastal vegetation pattern: new insights from the Mediterranean Basin. Folia
Geobotanica 48 (4), 493–508.
Gabrielides, G.P., Golik, A., Loizides, L., Marino, M.G., Bingel, F., Torregrossa, M.V., 1991.
Man-made garbage pollution on the Mediterranean coastline. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 23,
437–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(91)90713-3.
Gago, J., Lahuerta, F., Antelo, P., 2014. Characteristics (abundance, type and origin) of
beach litter on the Galician coast (NW Spain) from 2001 to 2010. Sci. Mar. 78 (1),
125–134.
Galgani, F., Fleet, D., Van Franeker, J., Katsavenakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J., Oosterbaan, L.,
Poitou, I., Hanke, G., Thompson, R., Amato, E., Birkun, A., Janssen, C., 2010. In:
Zampoukas, N. (Ed.), Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 10 Report
Marine litter, JRC Scientific and Technical Report, ICES/JRC/IFREMER Joint Report
(no 31210 – 2009/2010) (57 pp).
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., McKinsey, S.,
Thompson, R., VanFraneker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Mira, V.J., Palatinus, A.,
Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H., Gago, J., Liebezeit, G., 2013.
MSFD technical group on Marine Litter, Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in
European Seas. JRC Scientific and Policy rep483-490orts, SJRC83985, EUR 26113
ENI, SBN 978-92-79-32709-4. ISSN: 1831-9424. http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/99475
128.
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92,
170–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D., 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software
package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4 (1) 9pp.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2007. Marine debris in the Wider Caribbean Region: from the
1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 1087–1104.
Moore, S.L., Gregorio, D., Carreon, M., Weisberg, S.B., Leecaster, M.K., 2001. Composition
and distribution of beach debris in Orange County, California. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42,
241–245.
MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter, 2011. Marine Litter - Technical Recom-
mendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2788/92438.
Munari, C., Corbau, C., Simeoni, U., Mistri, M., 2016. Marine litter on Mediterranean
shores: analysis of composition, spatial distribution and sources in north-western
Adriatic beaches. Waste Manag. 49, 483–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2015.12.010.
Poeta, G., Battisti, C., Acosta, A.T.R., 2014. Marine litter in Mediterranean sandy littorals:
spatial distribution patterns along central Italy coastal dunes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89
(1), 168–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.011.
Poeta, G., Romiti, F., Battisti, C., 2015. Discarded bottles in sandy coastal dunes as threat for
macro-invertebrate populations: first evidence of a trap effect. Vie et milieu - Life En-
viron. 65 (3), 125–127.
Ryan, P.G., Lamprecht, A., Swanepoel, D., Moloney, C.L., 2014. The effect of fine-scale sam-
pling frequency on estimates of beach litter accumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 88,
249–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.036.
Seltenrich, N., 2015. New link in the food chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood
safety. Environ. Health Perspect. 123 (2), A34–A41.
Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., Vásquez, N., 2013. An-
thropogenic marine debris in the coastal environment: a multi-year comparison be-
tween coastal waters and local shores. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71, 307–316. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.005.
Williams, A.T., Randerson, P., Di Giacomo, C., Anfuso, G., Macias, A., Perales, J.A., 2016. Dis-
tribution of beach litter along the coastline of Cádiz, Spain. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 107 (1),
77–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.015.