Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Review

Macrolitter and microplastics along the East Pacific coasts — A homemade

problem needing local solutions
Daniela Honorato-Zimmer a, Gabriela Escobar-Sánchez b, c, Katie Deakin d, Diamela De Veer a, e,
Tamara Galloway d, Valeska Guevara-Torrejón a, Jessica Howard f, Jen Jones f, Ceri Lewis d,
Francisca Ribeiro d, Georgie Savage d, Martin Thiel a, g, h, *
a
Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile
b
Coastal and Marine Management Group, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde (IOW), Seestraße 15, 18119 Rostock, Germany
c
Marine Research Institute, Klaipeda University, Universiteto Ave. 17, LT-92294, Klaipeda, Lithuania
d
Department of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QD, UK
e
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA
f
Galapagos Conservation Trust, 7-14 Great Dover Street, London SE1 4YR, UK
g
Millennium Nucleus Ecology and Sustainable Management of Oceanic Island (ESMOI), Coquimbo, Chile
h
MarineGEO, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA

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

Keywords: The East Pacific (EP) region, especially the central and southern EP, has been fairly less studied than other
Eastern boundary currents world's regions with respect to marine litter pollution. This comprehensive literature review (257 peer-reviewed
Litter sources publications) showed that both macrolitter (mostly plastics) and microplastics tend to accumulate on EP
Plastic transport
shorelines. Moreover, they were also reported in all the other compartments investigated: sea surface, water
Beaches
Sea surface
column, seafloor and ‘others’. Mostly local, land-based sources (e.g., tourism, poor waste management) were
Prevention identified across the region, especially at continental sites from low and mid latitudes. Some sea-based sources (e.
g., fisheries, long-distance drifting) were also identified at high latitudes and on oceanic islands, likely enhanced
by the oceanographic dynamics of the EP that affect transport of floating litter. Our results suggest that effective
solutions to the problem require local and preventive strategies to significantly reduce the levels of litter along
the EP coasts.

1. Introduction
Plastic pollution is affecting all oceans, from coastal waters near
major population centers on all continents (Jambeck et al., 2015; Leb­
reton et al., 2017), deep oceans and seafloor (Chiba et al., 2018;
Zablotski and Kraak, 2019) to remote areas in the polar oceans (Hals­
band and Herzke, 2019; Rota et al., 2022) and pristine islands (Nichols
et al., 2021). In many regions of the world, plastic pollution has been
intensively studied and despite existing knowledge gaps, the scientific
community has a reasonable grasp of the main litter sources (Jambeck
et al., 2015; Lebreton et al., 2017), pathways (Miron et al., 2021), and
important sinks (Eriksen et al., 2023; Morales-Caselles et al., 2021;
Pabortsava and Lampitt, 2020). In the case of the Pacific Ocean, evi­
dence suggests that large quantities of litter come from continental
sources and either end up on nearby beaches (Rech et al., 2014) or are
pulled into the open ocean, where they are captured by the large-scale
gyre systems; there, litter further fragments into smaller pieces or
sinks into deeper water layers (Eriksen et al., 2014; Lebreton et al., 2018;
Luna-Jorquera et al., 2019; van Gennip et al., 2019).
Marine litter moves through five main oceanic and coastal com­
partments: shorelines, sea surface, seawater column, seafloor and ma­
rine organisms (GESAMP, 2016), being either directly deposited in the
respective compartment or passing through during transport between
other compartments. How plastic litter is transported between com­
partments will depend on a variety of factors. First, the type of marine
litter itself will influence the rates of sinking, fragmentation and trans­
port (ter Halle et al., 2016; van Sebille et al., 2020). Items that are
negatively buoyant (due to material type, litter size or biological
fouling) may rapidly sink and accumulate in benthic systems close to the
original source (Ryan, 2015), whereas highly buoyant items such as

* Corresponding author: MarineGEO Program, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA.
E-mail address: thielm@si.edu (M. Thiel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116440
Received 8 February 2024; Received in revised form 24 April 2024; Accepted 28 April 2024
Available online 7 May 2024
0025-326X/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

plastics may float for long time periods and, depending on their buoy­
ancy and exposure to winds, their transport direction and velocities may
vary (Maximenko et al., 2018; van Sebille et al., 2020). Second, envi­
ronmental and physical factors like wind and wave transport (Critchell
and Lambrechts, 2016), salinity, temperature and precipitation, as well
as shoreline morphology and the presence of vegetation and dunes will
influence the abundance of litter, its weathering, distribution and
accumulation hotspots (Hardesty et al., 2017; Jahnke et al., 2017).
Coastal dynamics and the oceanography of the region also play an
important role in the transport, transformation and deposition of marine
litter. Not all coastal systems are equal, and the dynamics of floating
litter in the Pacific Ocean are thought to differ in the eastern and western
boundary current systems, similar as suggested for the Indian Ocean
(Pearce et al., 2019). In eastern boundary currents, upwelling conditions
may prevent floating litter from reaching the coast (Chenillat et al.,
2021; Pereiro et al., 2019), whereas in the western boundary currents a
large proportion of marine litter floating in coastal waters might be
pushed onto the shore (Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022; Willis et al.,
2017). The currents at mid latitudes in the East Pacific (EP) Ocean are
primarily in offshore direction (Onink et al., 2019; van Gennip et al.,
2019), suggesting that marine litter will be exported from coastal waters
toward the open ocean. In contrast, at high latitudes (> 40◦ ) the main
ocean currents flow in onshore direction (Onink et al., 2019) and may
bring litter from oceanic sources to the coast (Lumpkin et al., 2012). In
the equatorial region (mainly 15◦ N–5◦ S), strong onshore currents may
be responsible for extensive strandings of oceanic litter as well (Chas­
signet et al., 2021; Onink et al., 2021), even though offshore transport
also occurs (van Sebille et al., 2019).
Most research about marine litter along the EP coast has been done in
the Northern Hemisphere, with fewer scientific studies in South America
and little to no research in Central America. For instance, high levels of
litter pollution have been reported for the Caribbean shores in Panama
(Garrity and Levings, 1993), Guatemala (Mazariegos-Ortíz et al., 2020)
and Colombia (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2019, 2020a; Gracia et al., 2018;
Williams et al., 2016), as well as on islands of Honduras (Kikaki et al.,
2020), but almost no studies have been published for the Pacific shores
of these same countries. In this sense, the abundance, composition,
distribution and sources of marine litter are not well known for many EP
countries.
The EP region hosts a diversity of ecosystems of ecological and socio-
economic importance. Given that both environmental and socio-
economic aspects are affected by and also influence marine litter, it is
of great relevance to improve knowledge about this issue. Ivar do Sul
and Costa (2007) carried out a first baseline of the marine litter problem
in Latin America, offering a complete review between 1970 and 2007.
The present, updated overview compiles currently available peer-
reviewed research on marine litter with a focus on the EP region, aim­
ing to provide knowledge on the pollution problem in this area to

Fig. 1. East Pacific (EP) region with (A) main marine and coastal ecosystems, major rivers and oceanic islands, and (B) main population centers, maritime ports,
ocean currents and gyres. Maps were made based on GIS layers (see sources in the figure and Appendix S1), from which only the data for the EP is shown. Major rivers
consider those with a Strahler number ≥ 5, whereas population centers are shown only for cities with >0.25 million inhabitants and located <100 km from the coast.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

2
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
identify common patterns and trends regarding abundance, sources and
transport. Based on the above-described background, we hypothesize
that (1) continental shorelines of the EP are sinks and hotspots for litter
coming from land-based sources, (2) at mid latitudes of both hemi­
spheres, most transport of buoyant litter is in offshore direction, and so
litter tends to leave the coastal waters toward the open ocean, whereas
at high and low latitudes the opposite occurs, and (3) EP oceanic islands
and the open ocean receive litter that is mainly coming from sea-based
sources, as well as from distant land-based sources via long-distance
drift (van Gennip et al., 2019). The findings and conclusions of this re­
view should serve researchers, policy-makers and conservationists to
access the available data, address knowledge gaps, as well as design and
implement prevention and mitigation measures to reduce marine litter
in the region.
2. Methods
2.1. Study area: the EP region
2.1.1. Geomorphology, climate and coastal ecosystems
The EP region comprises 13 countries from north to south (Canada,
United States of America, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile).
These countries differ mainly in their oceanography, geomorphology
and climatic conditions, which strongly affect the dynamics of litter and
which, together with socio-economic aspects of each country, may in­
fluence the types, sources and sinks of litter.
The EP is characterized by intense upwelling along large extensions
of the American coast, within two major eastern boundary current sys­
tems: the California Current in the Northern Hemisphere and the
Humboldt Current in the Southern Hemisphere (Fig. 1). These currents
move cold water masses from high to lower latitudes where they are
deflected to the west and join the Equatorial Current system (Fig. 1). The
coastal waters of the EP are highly productive due to the intense up­
welling, bringing cooler and nutrient-rich subsurface waters (from 100
to 400 m depth) to the surface and sustaining large populations of fish,
seabirds and mammals (McClatchie, 2014; Thiel et al., 2007). As seen in
the EP and other eastern boundary current systems, upwelling also af­
fects the dynamics of floating litter, influencing its spatial and temporal
patterns of transport (Pereiro et al., 2019; Ribic et al., 2012a; Uhrin
et al., 2020).
The geomorphology of the EP coast is highly variable, with varying
shoreline types at low latitudes, relative straight stretches of shoreline at
mid latitudes, and fragmented coasts with deep channels and fjords at
high latitudes (Fig. 1), with abundant freshwater inputs. The region is
also shaped by some of the most tectonically active margins of the world,
where the oceanic plates are moving to the east, being subducted
beneath the continental plates (Martinod et al., 2010; Sigloch and
Mihalynuk, 2013). Where this occurs, the oceanic bathymetry is char­
acterized by steep and narrow continental slopes, reaching into deep
trenches of 5000 to 8000 m depth (Lacey et al., 2016). On the conti­
nental plates, this process creates high mountain chains (Rocky Moun­
tains, Andes Mountains) and comparatively narrow watersheds, where
rainwater is rapidly flushed into coastal waters (carrying land-based
litter, see e.g., Gaibor et al., 2020; Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2021).
Consequently, rivers flowing into the Pacific Ocean in Central America
are relatively short (Andreani and Gloaguen, 2016), similar to rivers in
South America whose lengths are limited by the presence of the Andes
Mountains and the low rainfall between Ecuador and central Chile
(Adler et al., 2003; Amador et al., 2006; Sear et al., 2020). Rivers
running into the northern EP are slightly longer but they are heavily
fragmented by dams, whereas along the central and southern EP coasts
the rivers (albeit shorter) are more free-flowing (Grill et al., 2019;
Opperman et al., 2021). However, the pattern of dam construction and
river alteration is increasing in the global south as well (Zarfl et al.,
2015), and the presence of dams heavily impacts the transport of litter
3
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
flowing in the rivers, be it by trapping it (Zhang et al., 2015) or by
contributing to its deposition in bottom sediments (Watkins et al.,
2019).
Climate along the EP is variable and encompasses all five Köppen-
Geiger climatic zones (tropical, arid, temperate, continental and polar;
Beck et al., 2018). The EP's climate is also influenced by trade winds, the
Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), upwelling and cold-water
currents, and by the Andes Mountains, which act as an important bar­
rier by trapping precipitation (Insel et al., 2010). The convective action
of the ITCZ causes high precipitation patterns between the Equator and
10◦ N, with over 3000 mm per year (Sear et al., 2020) and a high like­
lihood of land-based litter being frequently flushed to the sea by urban
runoff and tropical rivers (e.g., Gaibor et al., 2020). Along the cold
California and Humboldt Current systems, precipitation levels are below
1000 mm per year and can be even <200 mm per year in the Baja
California Peninsula and the Atacama Desert (Adler et al., 2003; Amador
et al., 2006; Sear et al., 2020), leading only to sporadic flushing of litter
into coastal waters (e.g., Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2021). At high lati­
tudes (>40◦ N and >40◦ S), precipitation again increases above 1000 mm
(Adler et al., 2003; Amador et al., 2006). In addition, the El Niño
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle also influences precipitation, tem­
perature and wind patterns, causing irregular cycles of warmer/drier or
colder/wetter periods across the EP, and influencing the dynamics of
floating marine litter as well (Ribic et al., 2012a).
EP oceanic islands and archipelagos (e.g., Hawaii, Coco Island,
Galápagos, Rapa Nui and Juan Fernández) host important coastal eco­
systems with a high diversity and number of endemic species, pristine
coral reefs, wetlands, mangroves and important habitats for migratory
seabirds, mammals and sea turtles (Baine et al., 2007; Cortés, 2012;
Friedlander et al., 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2009). All these islands are
within Marine Protected Areas, according to the UNEP-WCMC and IUCN
(2021) (Fig. 1).
2.1.2. Socio-economic activities
The productivity and variety of ecosystems in the EP region support
important economic activities. Tourism is one of them, especially in
Central and South American countries. Although the Caribbean tends to
be a more popular tourist destination, the EP countries have experienced
a constant and rapid increase in number of visitors per year since 2005
(World Bank, 2023). Tourism is also the main economic activity on
oceanic islands, and the one that causes most pressure on coastal eco­
systems, in addition to steadily increasing urbanization (Barragán and
de Andrés, 2016; Wilkinson et al., 2009).
The EP region is subject to intense urban development with large
population centers located along the coast (Fig. 1). In the northern EP,
estuaries and deltas have experienced growing urbanization and main
rivers serve as important harbors, where wastewater discharges, fishing,
industry and tourism are the main stressors (Wilkinson et al., 2009). In
the central EP, urban development also has increased (Barragán and de
Andrés, 2016), which together with agriculture and shipping cause the
pollution of rivers, estuaries and mangroves (Wilkinson et al., 2009).
The largest population centers at or near the coast of the EP (> 1 million
inhabitants and within 100 km from the coast, Fig. 1) include the San
Francisco-San José conurbation (USA), Los Angeles (USA), San Diego
(USA), Guatemala City (Guatemala), San Salvador (El Salvador), Teg­
ucigalpa (Honduras), Managua (Nicaragua), Cali (Colombia), Guayaquil
(Ecuador), Lima (Peru), Arequipa (Peru) and Santiago (Chile; Fig. 1);
although many of these are not located directly on the coast, their in­
habitants frequently visit the nearby beaches.
Fishing and aquaculture are important activities throughout the EP
(FAO, 2022). For instance, marine captures are higher in the Pacific area
of the Americas than in its Atlantic counterpart (FAO, 2022). Particu­
larly in Latin America, fisheries production has consistently been several
times larger in the Central and South EP than in the Caribbean and South
West Atlantic since at least the 1980s (Tambutti and Gómez, 2022).
While industrial fishing constitutes an important fraction of the activity
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
in the region, fishing is also carried out at the artisanal scale for local
food consumption, mainly in Central America and on oceanic islands
(Aburto and Gaymer, 2018; Cavole et al., 2020; Lemay, 1998). Aqua­
culture activities in the EP focus on finfish (e.g., salmon) and mollusks
(e.g., oyster, clam, mussel), and are concentrated at high latitudes in
both hemispheres, mainly in British Columbia and Washington (Wil­
kinson et al., 2009) and in southern Chile (FAO, 2022). Shrimp farming
has also become increasingly relevant in Central American countries
(Wurmann et al., 2004).
Shipping is mainly carried out across the North Pacific, as seen by the
higher density of shipping routes (Erol, 2016) and the presence of some
of the world's busiest ports, such as Vancouver (Canada), Seattle, San
Francisco, Los Angeles and Long Beach (USA; Fig. 1). Nevertheless, there
are also important maritime ports along the central and southern EP
(Fig. 1), including Manzanillo (Mexico), Buenaventura (Colombia),
Guayaquil (Ecuador), Callao (Peru) and Valparaiso (Chile). In Central
America, the Panama Canal is an important route of commerce for ships
from the USA, Europe and Asia.
2.2. Literature search
For this review we conducted literature searches within the Web of
Science and Google Scholar databases, using the keywords marine litter,
marine debris, marine plastics, macrolitter, microlitter, debris, macrodebris,
microdebris, plastics, macroplastic, microplastic, anthropogenic litter and
anthropogenic debris together with the names of the EP countries. In the
case of the USA and Canada, the names of the states located at the Pacific
coast were also used. Additionally, we searched for literature in Spanish
with the keywords basura marina, macroplástico and microplástico. The
database Litterbase from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) was also
considered for identifying additional references.
We selected publications that complied with four criteria: the study
(1) contains at least one of the keywords listed above, (2) provides in­
formation on either abundance, composition, distribution or sources of
marine litter in the EP region, (3) was peer-reviewed, and (4) was
published before the end of 2023. Studies were included if they reported
marine litter data in any marine compartment (i.e., shoreline, sea sur­
face, water column or seafloor) or in rivers draining to the Pacific Ocean.
For this review, we defined the EP as the region delimited by the
American continent to the east, the longitude of the Northwestern Ha­
waiian Islands to the west in the Northern Hemisphere (178◦ W), the
longitude of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) to the west in the Southern
Hemisphere (109◦ W), the Bering Strait to the north (65◦ N), and the
latitude of Diego Ramírez Islands to the south (56◦ S; Fig. 1).
In the case of microplastic studies, we did not consider the spectral
identification of polymers as a criterion for inclusion of studies, because
spectral analyses are not widely used in the central and southern EP,
likely due to economic limitations (see Section 3.1.4 and Section 3.1.5).
Also, given the relatively low number of published marine litter studies
in the region, especially in Latin America, studies focusing on topics
outside the marine litter discipline but which mentioned the presence of
marine litter (quantitatively or qualitatively) were also considered (e.g.,
Corrales-Ugalde and Sibaja-Cordero, 2015; Lizarbe-Palacios et al., 2022;
Soto et al., 2021). Furthermore, to ensure that we identified all pertinent
studies for this review, potentially relevant references cited within the
eligible publications were also checked, as well as references cited in
other papers reviewing marine litter studies; the studies identified in this
way and that complied with the criteria 2–4 listed above were also
reviewed and included in the literature database.
Publications reviewing other studies on marine litter, as well as
publications on other aspects (such as the effects of marine litter under
experimental conditions, the presence of Persistent Organic Pollutants
[POPs] on plastic litter, microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Plants
[WWTPs] or stormwater runoff, modelling of litter distribution and
transport, the interaction of marine litter with organisms, and socio-
economic aspects) were not analyzed and are used here only as
4
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
complementary material for discussion, where suitable. Similarly, we
did not include data based on identification/characterization/quantifi­
cation of marine litter from satellite images due to their usually low
resolution, disparate scale and their need for automated techniques for
analysis. Based on these criteria, a total of 257 publications were chosen
as eligible, which reported data on the abundance, composition, distri­
bution and/or sources of marine litter in the EP region (Table S1).
2.3. Analysis of selected publications
For this literature analysis, we gathered data relating to country and
locality of research, coordinates and latitude (divided into six latitudinal
zones from north to south: 60◦ N–40◦ N, 40◦ N–20◦ N, 20◦ N–0◦ , 0◦ –20◦ S,
20◦ S–40◦ S, 40◦ S–60◦ S), sampling frequency (according to the categories
defined in Table S2), size of targeted litter (divided into Macrolitter and
Microplastic studies following the criteria defined in Table S3), and type
of compartment sampled (Shoreline, Sea surface, Water column, Seafloor
and Others, defined in Table S4).
For each publication we recorded the abundance of litter found in
each compartment, and the presence/absence of different types of
macrolitter/microplastics and the polymer they are composed of. All
these data were extracted from anywhere within the publications,
including the main text, tables, figures, datasets (if available), and the
supplementary materials. When abundance data were only included in
figures and exact values were not entirely clear, they were estimated as
precisely as possible from the figures. For the studies that covered more
than one latitudinal zone (as defined herein), data were extracted for
each of them; in the case of abundance data, a mean value was extracted
(or calculated) for all sampling sites contained within a given latitudinal
zone. For plotting the abundance data, only studies that considered all
types of macrolitter/microplastics were included, whereas abundance
for specific types of items (e.g., units of fishing gear, units of COVID-19
PPE, microfibers) were excluded. Given the variety of reporting units
used for macrolitter and microplastic abundance (see Section 3.1.6 and
Appendix S2), and to ensure comparability within this review and with
other studies elsewhere, here we only present abundance data reported
and expressed in terms of items per linear distance, per unit area, and
per volume. Thus, whenever necessary and possible, numerical abun­
dance data were standardized to the same unit, within the same type of
unit: to items 100 m− 1 or items km− 2 for macrolitter, and to items m− 2
or items m− 3 for microplastics. For instance, if a study reported a mac­
rolitter abundance of 8.5 items m− 2, here it was reported as 8,500,000
items km− 2.
The types of macrolitter (according to material) and microplastics
(according to shape) identified in the studies were classified herein ac­
cording to the categories in Table S5. Identified polymers were recorded
only for microplastic studies (Table S5), and only if they had been
confirmed using spectral analysis (e.g., FTIR, Raman) to avoid their
overestimation. The studies that identified types/polymers used these
same categories (Table S5) or similar; in the latter case, we harmonized
them to those used here (e.g., ‘spheres’ and ‘nurdles’ were considered
‘pellets’). For the classification of types/polymers, we only recorded
presence/absence (i.e., even if only one type/polymer was identified, it
was marked as ‘present’ and the rest as ‘absent’). Proportions of presence
were not considered because proportions with different bases cannot be
averaged for plotting.
Lastly, for all studies that identified any potential sources of marine
litter, these were categorized into land-based (Coastal Tourism, Urban
Areas, Industry, Wastewater, Rivers and Others) and sea-based (Fisheries,
Aquaculture, Shipping, Maritime Recreation and Others), using the defini­
tions in Table S6. Potential sources were recorded herein only if they had
been identified or suggested in the studies (i.e., we did not make de­
ductions based on the study site or the results). Environmental drivers
influencing the distribution of litter (e.g., wind, waves, tides, etc.) were
considered as transport forces and not as sources of pollution, except for
long-distance drift (i.e., transport of litter across the open ocean via
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

A
45 North Hemisphere South Hemisphere
40
35

Number of studies
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Year of publicaon

B
13% One-time event
Daily
9% Weekly
Monthly
5% Seasonal
0% 51% Yearly
3%
Decadal
Mixed approach
13%
Other frequency
Not clear
3% 1%
2%
C
10000%
Shoreline Sea surface Seafloor
Percentage of initial litter abundance (%)

1000%

100%
222.1 items km-1
615.4
193.2 items km-1 -2
0.00565 184.7 36.9 45.5 fishing items km 1.4 0.002
items m-3 items km-2 items km-2 gear items km -2
items m-2 items m-2
10%
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Year of sampling

Fig. 2. (A) Number of studies on marine litter in the East Pacific (EP) region throughout time, classified by hemisphere. It only considers the literature included in the
review and analysis. Studies from Ecuador (1◦ N–4◦ S) were considered for the Southern Hemisphere only. (B) Sampling frequencies of the studies included in this
review, according to the classification described in Table S2. (C) Temporal variability of macrolitter and microplastic abundance in the EP region. Each line rep­
resents one study in a given compartment, and only studies that sampled and reported annual abundance (at least three datapoints) are included (n = 9 studies).
Abundance values were taken as given by the studies, or were calculated from the available data. Values are shown in relation to the initial abundance recorded by
each study (which is indicated for each initial point [dashed arrows] and which corresponds to 100 %), expressed in logarithmic scale. The sea surface studies
correspond to microplastics, whereas all shoreline and seafloor studies correspond to macrolitter. In each case, the sampling method used was consistent throughout
years. For additional details about (A), (B) and (C), see Appendix S3. (For interpretation of the references to colour in the figure legends, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

oceanic currents and gyres), which was included in ‘other’ sea-based mainland coast and on nearshore islands were grouped together as
sources to classify litter that is coming from the sea, but not neces­ ‘Continental’, whereas sites on oceanic islands and in the open ocean
sarily from fisheries, aquaculture, shipping or maritime recreational were recorded as ‘Oceanic’. The analysis of the data, and hence the
activities. counting of studies, was carried out separately for each research ques­
The data for abundance, types/polymers and sources were separated tion (see figure captions and Appendix S3 for details).
according to whether sampling sites were located along the mainland
coast, on nearshore islands (within 150 km from the mainland), on
oceanic islands, or in the open ocean. To report the results, sites on the

5
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

A Number of studies per compartment B Number of studies per lier size

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

60°N–40°N

40°N–20°N
Latudinal zone

20°N–0°

0°–20°S

20°S–40°S

40°S–60°S

Shoreline Sea surface Water column Seafloor Other Macrolier Microplascs

Fig. 3. (A) Distribution of marine litter studies in the East Pacific (EP) per latitudinal zone and compartment. Studies that covered more than one compartment (31
studies) were counted once for each compartment (which explains that the percentages mentioned in Section 3.1.3 do not add up to 100 %). (B) Distribution of
marine litter studies in the EP per latitudinal zone and size category (as defined following the criteria described in Table S3). For additional details about how studies
were counted in each case, see Appendix S3. (For interpretation of the references to colour in the figure legends, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

Number of studies per country

0 20 40 60 80 100

Canada
America
North

123

USA
Mexico
Guatemala
Central America

El Salvador
Honduras
23

Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama
Colombia
South America

Ecuador
96

Peru
Chile
North Pacific
Ocean
Pacific

36

South Pacific

Fig. 4. Distribution of marine litter studies per country of the East Pacific region. Studies were counted only once per country, without distinction of latitudinal
zones, compartments or sizes. When a study reported data from more than one country, it was counted for each of them. Studies sampling open ocean areas beyond
national jurisdiction were categorized as “Pacific Ocean”.

3. Results and discussion between the years 1973 and 2023. There was a growing trend in studies
published annually, with a sporadic and rather low number of studies (<
3.1. Bibliometric analysis and findings 6 per year) between the years 1973 and 2010, and a rapid increase in
number and publication frequency from 2011 until 2023, reaching a
3.1.1. Temporal coverage and sampling frequency maximum of 40 studies published in 2023 (Fig. 2A). Studies published
Following our selection criteria, a total of 257 publications reporting before 2009 covered mainly the Northern Hemisphere, whereas after­
data on marine litter in the EP region were found, which were published ward there was an increase in studies reporting data from the Southern

6
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

Hemisphere (Fig. 2A).
Half (51 %) of the studies consisted of a one-time sampling event
(Fig. 2B), thus not allowing for temporal analyses within the studies.
Among the studies that conducted repeat-samplings, seasonal studies
were the most common, whereas other long-term monitoring studies
were very few (Fig. 2B) and temporally spaced apart (Fig. 2C). In 13 % of
the studies, it was not possible to identify the sampling frequency
(Fig. 2B). Consequently, it is not yet clear how spatiotemporal vari­
ability plays a role in marine litter abundance in the EP region. First
indications suggest an overall increasing abundance, especially for
microplastics at the sea surface, but these come from very few long-term
studies (Fig. 2C). Notably, this lack of spatiotemporal information ex­
tends to all the North Pacific basin (Uhrin et al., 2022). In contrast, in
other world regions long-term monitoring and accumulation studies
date back 40–50 years and/or have been conducted more consistently
(e.g., Nelms et al., 2020; Ribic et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2015; Wilcox
et al., 2019). As more frequent and longer-term monitoring yields more
reliable and representative results than one-time sampling events (e.g.,
Nelms et al., 2020; Ryan et al., 2014; Schulz et al., 2019), greater
temporal monitoring needs to be conducted in the EP (see also Uhrin
et al., 2022). This is especially important considering that this region is
regularly affected by the ENSO cycle and thus interannual and seasonal
variabilities in marine litter dynamics should be expected (see e.g., Ribic
et al., 2012a).
3.1.2. Geographical coverage
In general, studies took place across all of the EP region, but rather
heterogeneously. The most covered latitudinal zone was by far
40◦ N–20◦ N, which corresponds to the area of the US coast and the North
Pacific Gyre (Fig. 3A and B). The latitudinal zones 60◦ N–40◦ N, 20◦ N–0◦ ,
0◦ –20◦ S and 20◦ S–40◦ S have been fairly equally studied, whereas the
austral zone (40◦ S–60◦ S) has been poorly covered (Fig. 3A and B).
In terms of countries, the USA and Chile accounted for 46 % of the
studies, whereas in Central America studies reporting marine litter were
very scarce (Fig. 4), which hinders litter assessment in the equatorial
region; most of the studies there were conducted in Costa Rica (12
studies), while the other countries from Guatemala to Panama had none
(Honduras, Nicaragua) or, at most, only five studies each (Fig. 4). This

Macrolitter
Microplastics

Sea surface
Shoreline

column
Water
Other

Seafloor

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Litter size [mm] Litter size [mm]

Fig. 5. Size ranges of marine litter investigated per study and compartment, as described by the authors in the methodology, or deduced from the mesh size (of nets
or sieves) or from the size categories used to report the results. Size range limits (lower/upper) that could be clearly identified in the studies are indicated with dots,
whereas unclear limits (e.g., studies that mention “> 0.333 mm”, in which the upper limit is unknown) are shown with arrows (also, for details about the dashed
arrows, see Appendix S3). The black and white dots on the left side indicate whether the respective study was classified as ‘macrolitter’ or ‘microplastic’, respectively,
in this review according to criteria in Table S3 (special cases are detailed in Appendix S3). The vertical red dashed line marks 5 mm, which is the most common cut-
off size for microplastics. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

7
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
difference is likely due to the higher GDP (Gross Domestic Product),
research expenditure (% of GDP), and HDI (Human Development Index)
of the USA and Chile (compared to the other Latin American countries,
especially from Central America; see Table S7), which might drive dif­
ferences in the countries' capacities for research and conservation, as
already discussed by De Veer et al. (2023).
Marine litter was also studied in and around oceanic islands of the
EP, with a total of 10 oceanic islands or archipelagos investigated
(Fig. S1). Most studies were carried out in the Hawaiian Islands
(including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) and in the system
formed by Rapa Nui and the Salas & Gómez Island, followed by Gal­
apagos (Fig. S1).
3.1.3. Marine compartments covered
From the total number of studies carried out at different latitudes, 52
% provided information about marine litter on shorelines, 33 % at the
sea surface (both coastal and offshore), only 5 % in the water column,
16 % in benthic environments (both nearshore and deep seafloor), and 8
% in ‘other’ compartments (rivers, riversides, riverbeds, urban canals;
Fig. 3A). Of the studies conducted on shorelines (133), 77 % included
samplings on sandy beaches, while far fewer reported data on rocky
shores (14 %), mangroves (5 %), or other types of beaches or shorelines
(e.g., pebble/cobble/gravel beaches, estuaries, coastal wetlands, artifi­
cial structures). This bias toward sampling sandy beaches is reflective of
similar work in other regions (e.g., Western Indian Ocean; Honorato-
Zimmer et al., 2022) and worldwide (Melvin et al., 2021). This affects
the representation and understanding of litter dynamics and accumu­
lation in other compartments and other types of shorelines, as these may
behave very differently to sandy beaches. For instance, varying types
and sizes of litter items fragment and accumulate differently on sandy
beaches than on rocky shores (Thiel et al., 2013; Weideman et al., 2020).
Other types of shorelines, such as mangroves and artificial breakwaters,
are known to trap and accumulate marine litter (e.g., Aguilera et al.,
2016, 2023; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2023; Riascos et al., 2019). These
differences need to be further studied in the EP region, considering that
here rocky shores and mangroves are as abundant as sandy beaches
(Nyberg and Howell, 2016; Whitfield and Elliott, 2011), but they are
completely underrepresented in sampling. Also, considering that the
water column and the seafloor accumulate different types and sizes of
marine litter (Pabortsava and Lampitt, 2020; Pham et al., 2014) and that
rivers transport litter to the coastal zone (Lebreton et al., 2017; Rech
et al., 2014), further investigating these compartments is fundamental.
3.1.4. Litter size categories and ranges
Macrolitter and microplastic studies (>25 mm and <5 mm, respec­
tively, but see their expanded definitions in Table S3) were conducted
across all latitudinal zones (Fig. 3B), and a few studies (22) investigated
both size categories. As no study focused exclusively on mesolitter
(5–25 mm) and only three studies reported this size category separately
(Fig. 5; see also Shi et al., 2023; Shim et al., 2022; Uhrin et al., 2022),
that category was included in either macrolitter or microplastic studies,
depending on the predominant size of litter targeted, sampling meth­
odology and/or main results (Table S3). Macrolitter was investigated in
higher proportions in the Southern Hemisphere, whereas microplastic
studies were more frequent in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 3B), likely
because researching microplastics requires more sophisticated in­
struments (e.g., FTIR or Raman Spectroscopy) and associated financial
resources that are more limiting in Latin American countries and in­
stitutions (see also Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2023).
The marine litter investigated covered sizes from <0.63 μm (Kaz­
miruk et al., 2018) to 48 m (Corniuk et al., 2023; Royer et al., 2023), and
the sizes targeted per compartment varied (Fig. 5). Considering the
studies that did specify the investigated size range(s) or at least the
lower or upper size limit (160 studies, Fig. 5), macrolitter and micro­
plastics were equally investigated on shorelines and the seafloor, while
at the sea surface, the water column and ‘other’ compartments studies
8
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
focused mainly on microplastics (indicated by the black/white dots on
the left side in Fig. 5). A very similar pattern was reported for the studies
conducted in the Western Indian Ocean region (Honorato-Zimmer et al.,
2022), possibly due to the easiness and accessibility to sample macro­
litter on shorelines, which allows for wider groups of people (including
citizen scientists, Kawabe et al., 2022) to participate in such research,
whereas for other compartments accessibility is more difficult.
3.1.5. Identification of types and polymers of litter
From the total number of macrolitter studies (145), 94 % identified
at least one macrolitter type (according to material, Table S5), whereas
86 % out of 134 microplastic studies identified at least one microplastic
type (according to shape, Table S5). Some studies (45) focused on only
one type of litter (such as only plastics, e.g., Day and Shaw, 1987;
cigarette butts, e.g., Currie and Stack, 2021; or microplastic fibers, e.g.,
Browne et al., 2011), or even on only one use-type of litter (such as only
fishing gear, e.g., Good et al., 2010; or COVID-19 PPE, e.g., Thiel et al.,
2021). Six microplastic studies purposely excluded fibers due to the
possibility of sample contamination (Castillo et al., 2020; Cózar et al.,
2014; Gallardo et al., 2021; Galli et al., 2023; Honorato-Zimmer et al.,
2021; Ory et al., 2017). Moreover, in several cases in which we recorded
types of macrolitter/microplastic as ‘absent’, it was not entirely clear
whether these were indeed not found, or whether they were simply not
recorded (i.e., not considered in the study) or were included in another
category. This heterogeneity and uncertainty about the studied litter
have also been reported for the entire North Pacific basin (Uhrin et al.,
2022) and highlight the need for harmonization of research methods
and for a clearer reporting of the data and results (see also e.g., Browne
et al., 2015; Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022; Serra-Gonçalves et al., 2019;
Shim et al., 2022).
From the total number of microplastic studies (134), only 49 %
identified microplastic polymers, which implies that our results and
interpretations based on microplastic data should be treated with
caution. Of these studies, most (52) used Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy (FTIR) techniques, whereas 10 studies used Raman Spec­
troscopy, and four studies used both. Most of these studies applied these
spectral analyses to a subsample of all microparticles collected. While
this is a regular and accepted practice, only 11 studies analyzed at least
50 % of particles, which is the minimum recommended by Brandt et al.
(2021) to accept a maximum subsampling-error of 20 %. Moreover, in
19 studies the proportion of particles analyzed was unclear, whereas in
another 10 it was unclear whether subsamples or entire samples were
analyzed. Given that an important proportion of microparticles in the
marine environment are actually of natural origin (e.g., cellulosic fibers,
Suaria et al., 2020), more studies in the EP region need to conduct
spectral analyses in representative subsamples (ideally ≥50 %) to tell
plastics apart from other particles. Nevertheless, when this is not
possible due to limiting financial or other resources (see Section 3.1.4),
more accessible methods, such as visual identification following estab­
lished guidelines combined with the ‘hot needle test’ (see e.g., Kapp and
Yeatman, 2018), can be used as a first approach to identify plastic
particles (see also Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022).
3.1.6. Limitations of sampling and monitoring methods used
A wide variety of methods have been used for sampling in the
different compartments of the EP region, although for each compart­
ment and litter size category there was usually one preferred sampling
method (see Appendix S4 for details). In the case of microplastics, the
use of different mesh sizes has yielded large discrepancies in the abun­
dances reported, even within the same latitudinal zone (see Section
3.2.2). These differences give rise to the question of whether they are
actually due to different factors and processes affecting marine litter
dynamics, or due to these methodological discrepancies (see also Haarr
et al., 2022; Shim et al., 2022). Furthermore, given the wide variety of
sampling methods used (Appendix S4), the reporting units of macrolitter
and microplastic abundance also differed greatly among studies (Fig. 6,
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

A. Macrolitter

10,000 1,000,000,000

1,000
10,000,000

items 100m-1
100

items km-2
10 100,000

1 1,000
0.1
10
0.01

0.001 0.1
° °S °
N
0°
N
–0 °S °S N N
–0 °S 0°
S
0°
S
0° N 20 40 60 0° 0° 20
–4 –2 0° °– S– S– –4 –2 0°
N
°– S–4 S–6
°N °N 2 0 ° ° °N °N 2 0 ° °
60 40 20 40 60 40 20 40

B. Microplastics

100,000 100,000,000

1,000
1,000,000
items m-2

items m-3
10,000
10
100
0.1
1
0.001 0.01

0.00001 0.0001
N N ° S S S N N ° S S S
0° 0° –0 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° –0 0° 0° 0°
–4 –2 0°N °–2 –4 –6 –4 –2 0°N °–2 –4 –6
°N °N 2 0 °S °S °N °N 2 0 °S °S
60 40 20 40 60 40 20 40

Shoreline Sea surface Water column Seafloor Other

Continental Oceanic

Fig. 6. Marine litter abundance of (A) macrolitter and (B) microplastics found per compartment in continental (circles) and oceanic (triangles) sites at different
latitudinal zones of the East Pacific. Abundance units are expressed in logarithmic scale. The figure includes only data on mean abundance of litter calculated for each
study and latitudinal zone (but see Appendix S3 for exceptions reporting the median). Thus, points could represent one site or several sites averaged for one lat­
itudinal zone per study. For simplicity, temporal and small-scale spatial assessments were not accounted for in this figure (see Appendix S3 for details). (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Tables S8 and S9, Appendix S2), hindering their comparability (see also
Uhrin et al., 2022).
All these issues reinforce previous recommendations to harmonize
research methods and units regionally (Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022;
Uhrin et al., 2022) and even globally (Serra-Gonçalves et al., 2019).
Notwithstanding this difficulty, which mainly affects comparability of
abundance at the local level, we present and discuss the main abun­
dance, distribution and composition findings along the EP region at the
compartmental, latitudinal and continental/oceanic levels, to identify
common regional patterns and trends.
3.2. Abundance and distribution of marine litter in the EP region
3.2.1. Macrolitter
Macrolitter was mainly investigated on continental shorelines, fol­
lowed by the sea surface at both continental and oceanic sites (Fig. 6A);
far fewer studies reported macrolitter abundance on the seafloor and in
‘other’ compartments (almost exclusively at continental locations), and
none in the water column. Notably, studies reporting macrolitter
abundance in terms of items per unit area (Fig. 6A right) were consid­
erably more common across hemispheres and compartments than those
standardizing per linear distance (Fig. 6A left; see also Haarr et al., 2022
and Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022).
Mean macrolitter abundance on the EP shorelines ranged from 2.1 to
430 items 100 m− 1 (overall mean 114 ± 43 [SE] items 100 m− 1; Fig. 6A
left), and from 1000 to 161,000,000 items km− 2 (overall mean
5,311,627 ± 2,855,795 [SE] items km− 2; Fig. 6A right). While these
values were relatively similar to those reported in other regions such as
the Western Indian Ocean (Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022), they were
considerably lower than abundances registered on shorelines along
Southern and Eastern Asia (Haarr et al., 2022), likely associated to the
larger inputs of mismanaged plastic waste estimated for those areas
(Lebreton and Andrady, 2019).
Within the EP, macrolitter was generally more abundant (by several
orders of magnitude) on the shorelines than in the other compartments
(Fig. 6A left and right). While the reviewed studies showed an important
bias in sampling effort among compartments (i.e., shorelines were more
frequently sampled than other compartments, as discussed in Section
3.1.3), 93 % of all macrolitter abundance values recorded on shorelines
(as items per unit area) were higher than the highest macrolitter
abundance recorded on the seafloor or at the sea surface (Fig. 6A right).
A similar pattern has also been reported elsewhere (Haarr et al., 2022;
Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022), and suggests that shorelines are
important sinks and hotspots of marine litter (Onink et al., 2021; Uhrin
et al., 2022). Considering this and their accessible nature (especially
sandy beaches), beach cleanups are regarded as important actions to
prevent litter turnover and redistribution in the marine environment, as
opposed to spending efforts and resources cleaning the sea surface and
the seafloor (Haarr et al., 2022).
Among continental sites, shoreline macrolitter was overall most

9
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
abundant (as items per unit area) along Latin American coasts (roughly
from central Mexico to central Chile, 20◦ N–40◦ S; Fig. 6A right). Notably,
the highest abundance values were recorded on shorelines different than
sandy beaches, namely in mangrove forests in Colombia (20◦ N–0◦ ,
Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2023; Riascos et al., 2019) and in artificial
breakwaters in northern and central Chile (0◦ –20◦ S and 20◦ S–40◦ S,
Aguilera et al., 2016, 2023). These findings indicate that these natural
and artificial structures effectively accumulate litter. High mean abun­
dance values were also reported for sandy beaches in northern Chile
(20◦ S–40◦ S, Fig. 6A right; Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2018; Honorato-Zimmer
et al., 2019; Kiessling et al., 2017). This has been attributed to several
socioeconomic and political factors, such as high levels of beach
tourism, but also a lack of education/awareness/interest on environ­
mental issues, of both the local government and residents (Kiessling
et al., 2017). Due to the relatively similar socioeconomic and political
conditions of Latin American countries (compared to high-income
countries; Table S7), these factors might affect marine litter abun­
dance in all these countries, as well as in other low- and middle-income
regions (see also e.g., Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022).
In terms of items per linear meter (Fig. 6A left), the highest shoreline
macrolitter abundances were registered on oceanic islands at mid lati­
tudes of both hemispheres (40◦ N–20◦ N and 20◦ S–40◦ S), namely Midway
Atoll (Ribic et al., 2012b) and Salas & Gómez Island (Luna-Jorquera
et al., 2019). These results agree with the role of oceanic subtropical
islands as accumulation zones of floating marine litter due to the sub­
tropical gyres, as suggested for the Pacific, Atlantic and Southern Indian
oceans (Connan et al., 2021; Eriksen et al., 2013; Law et al., 2010; Moore
et al., 2001; Ryan, 2014). Specifically, the North and the South Pacific
subtropical gyres receive litter coming from nearly anywhere along the
great Pacific basin, and even from other ocean basins (Chenillat et al.,
2021; Maes et al., 2018). Interestingly, the North Pacific Gyre accu­
mulates more plastic litter and at a faster pace than the South Pacific
Gyre (Chenillat et al., 2021; Lebreton et al., 2012), which might explain
the considerably higher abundance of macrolitter registered on shore­
lines in Hawaii (18.1 plastic items m− 2, Brignac et al., 2019) than in the
Juan Fernandez Archipelago (0.7 items m− 2, Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2018)
and Rapa Nui (0.5 items m− 2, De Veer et al., 2023; Hidalgo-Ruz et al.,
2018; Kiessling et al., 2017).
Further supporting this, the highest mean abundances of macrolitter
floating at the sea surface (5123 and 1981 items km− 2) were reported at
mid latitudes in the northern EP (~40◦ N–20◦ N), within the North Pa­
cific Gyre (Egger et al., 2020a, 2020b; Fig. 6A right), in contrast to the
much lower abundance reported in the southern EP (0.99 items km− 2,
Miranda-Urbina et al., 2015; Fig. 6A right). Nevertheless, it should be
noted that most macrolitter estimates for the sea surface are from visual
transect surveys from ships, whereas the data reported by Egger et al.
(2020a) and (2020b) were collected with net trawls and also include
mesoplastics from 1.5 to 2.5 cm in size. Considering all oceanic and
continental sites in the EP, mean macrolitter abundance at the sea sur­
face ranged from 0.44 to 5123 items km− 2 (overall mean 525 ± 277 [SE]
items km− 2; Fig. 6A right). These magnitudes are well within the ma­
jority of values recorded at the sea surface at a global scale (Morales-
Caselles et al., 2021).
In the case of macrolitter on the seafloor, mean abundance values
ranged from 41 to 36,520 items km− 2 (overall mean 5112 ± 4498 [SE]
items km− 2; Fig. 6A right). These magnitudes appear to be fairly similar
to those reported for the Gulf of Mexico, but considerably lower than
macrolitter abundance on the seafloor of the enclosed Mediterranean
Sea and the Western Pacific (Canals et al., 2021). The seafloor is globally
one of the least studied marine compartments, so robust comparisons are
still difficult to make; however, it is increasingly clear that the seafloor is
a major sink for marine litter (Canals et al., 2021), and thus more
research is urgently needed.
In ‘other’ compartments, high abundances of macrolitter were
registered at riversides of two tributaries of the Guayas River in Ecuador
(4,540,000 items km− 2, Talbot et al., 2022) and at riversides of Chilean
10
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
rivers all along the country (1,800,000 items km− 2, Honorato-Zimmer
et al., 2021), which were fairly similar to the highest litter abundances
found on shorelines (Fig. 6A right). These findings agree with previous
suggestions that the Guayas River in particular and Chilean rivers in
general contribute important shares of litter to the coastal zone (Gaibor
et al., 2020; Rech et al., 2014), especially during periods of high river
discharge (Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2021). This further supports the
importance of conducting more seasonal and longer-term monitoring
efforts, in order to better cover and understand this temporal variability.
3.2.2. Microplastics
Microplastic abundance was reported mainly for the sea surface,
followed by shorelines, ‘other’ compartments and the water column
(Fig. 6B); only one study reported the abundance of microplastics on the
seafloor, once again highlighting the need for more studies in that
compartment, especially considering the high mean abundance reported
(4720 items m− 2, Ramírez-Álvarez et al., 2020; Fig. 6B left). While
microplastic abundance on shorelines was reported for all latitudinal
zones (although mostly at low and mid latitudes), most sea surface and
water column studies were conducted in the Northern Hemisphere
(Fig. 6B).
Similar to macrolitter, microplastics were generally much more
abundant on shorelines than in the other compartments (as items m− 2
and items m− 3, Fig. 6B left and right), suggesting that EP shorelines are
hotspots for microplastic pollution as well (see also Honorato-Zimmer
et al., 2022). This apparent correlation between macrolitter and
microplastic hotspots makes sense since most microplastics likely orig­
inate from larger plastic items (Eriksen et al., 2023), and suggests that
macrolitter abundance might be used as a proxy to identify potential
microplastic pollution hotspots. However, macrolitter and microplastic
abundances do not always correlate, as they may present different
sources and underlying processes (Palatinus et al., 2019).
Mean microplastic abundance on EP shorelines ranged from 3 to 805
items m− 2 (overall mean 141 ± 37 [SE] items m− 2; Fig. 6B left), and
from 23,840 to 195,300 items m− 3 (overall mean 87,928 ± 30,965 [SE]
items m− 3; Fig. 6B right). In terms of items per unit area, even the
highest magnitudes recorded in the EP region were lower than those
reported in other regions, such as the Western Pacific (e.g., Korea, China,
Taiwan) and Brazil (as reviewed in Shim et al., 2018). Within the EP,
there were no large variations in microplastic abundance on shorelines,
as well as no clear latitudinal trends (Fig. 6B left). On the contrary, a
clearer trend was visible between continental and oceanic sites at mid
latitudes, as the latter presented higher values (Fig. 6B left) due to the
accumulation of fragmented microlitter on oceanic islands near the
center of subtropical gyres (Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2013), and espe­
cially on high-wave-energy beaches on those islands (Rey et al., 2021).
Likewise, microplastic abundance at the sea surface of oceanic sites
at 40◦ N–20◦ N were also rather high (Fig. 6B left and right), especially
within the North Pacific Gyre (Egger et al., 2020a, 2020b; Moore et al.,
2001) and between the gyre and the coastal waters of the US and Mexico
(Brandon et al., 2020; Carson et al., 2013; Cózar et al., 2014; Egger et al.,
2021; Eriksen et al., 2014; Goldstein et al., 2013; Law et al., 2014).
Compared to macrolitter (discussed above), microplastics might accu­
mulate even faster in the North Pacific Gyre versus the South Pacific
Gyre, since differences in microplastic abundances at the sea surface of
the two gyres were even larger than for macrolitter. For instance, as
items per unit volume (Fig. 6B right), microplastic abundances were
about eight orders of magnitude higher in the North Pacific Gyre and
surrounding waters (8,277,000 items m− 3, Brandon et al., 2020) than
around Rapa Nui (0.06 items m− 3, Ory et al., 2017; 0.27 items m− 3,
Gallardo et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the different mesh sizes used for
sampling microplastics likely contribute to these large differences (see
also Section 3.1.6), as the latter studies used 300 μm nets, whereas
Brandon et al. (2020) sampled microplastics 5–333 μm in size.
Furthermore, considering continental and oceanic sites, there was a
large variability in microplastic abundances recorded at both the sea
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
Studies reporting macrolitter types [%]
Plastic & Styrofoam Cigarette butts Paper & Cardboard
60°N–40°N
40°N–20°N
20°N–0°
0°–20°S
20°S–40°S
40°S–60°S
Oceanic sites
0% 50% 100%
Fig. 7. Percentages of studies that reported the presence of different types of macrolitter in the East Pacific region, in continental sites per latitudinal zone (black)
and in oceanic sites across all latitudinal zones (blue). The figure includes only studies that did identify any type(s) of macrolitter, and the total number of studies per
zone (100 %) is shown in parentheses (for additional details about study count, see Appendix S3). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
surface and the water column even within the same latitudinal zone
(Fig. 6B left and right). For instance, microplastic abundance in the
water column ranged from 0 to 4183 items m− 3 (Fig. 6B right); there, the
lowest values were reported using mesh sizes of 100 μm (Choy et al.,
2019), 202 μm (Goldstein et al., 2013) and 505 μm (Doyle et al., 2011),
whereas a 62 μm mesh size yielded the highest abundances (Desforges
et al., 2014). This agrees with Shim et al. (2022), who reported a
negative relationship between microplastic abundance and mesh size
“regardless of sampling region and time”. The large variability of
microplastics in seawater may also be generated by physical processes
concentrating microplastics in oceanic fronts and eddies (Eriksen et al.,
2018; Gallardo et al., 2021; Gove et al., 2019). Additionally, fjords may
trap marine litter in a similar way as mangroves, explaining the high
microplastic abundances reported both in the water column and at the
sea surface at 60◦ N–40◦ N (Fig. 6B right). The low number of studies in
the southern EP does not allow to evaluate this for the austral fjords,
highlighting a potential area for future research.
3.3. Composition and sources of marine litter in the EP region
3.3.1. Macrolitter
Plastics and Styrofoam were ubiquitous across all continental lat­
itudinal zones and oceanic sites of the EP region, with nearly all studies
reporting these types of macrolitter items (Fig. 7), both on shorelines
and at the sea surface (Figs. S2A and S2B). Correspondingly, plastic
items have been reported as the most common type of marine macro­
litter worldwide (e.g., Morales-Caselles et al., 2021). Cigarette butts
were mostly reported on continental shorelines in the southern EP, with
very few reports in the continental northern EP and at oceanic sites
(Figs. 7 and S2A), as well as almost no reports at the sea surface (either
continental or oceanic; Fig. S2B). Non-plastic items such as paper/
cardboard, metal and glass were more prevalent along the continental
shorelines of Latin America (especially from 20◦ N to 40◦ S), whereas
fewer studies reported these types of items along the coast of the US and
Canada (Figs. 7 and S2A). Moreover, these litter types were seldom re­
ported at the sea surface, at both continental and oceanic sites
(Fig. S2B). Thus, although the studies that identified macrolitter types at
the sea surface were considerably fewer (28) than those on shorelines
(109), plastics seem to heavily dominate the sea surface, while non-
plastic items have an important presence on shorelines (Figs. S2A and
S2B).
11
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
Metal Glass Others & Unidentified
(17)
(21)
(18)
(29)
(25)
(12)
(48)
Regarding the potential sources of macrolitter identified along the EP
region, studies have reported both land- and sea-based sources, which
vary depending on the environment (continental or oceanic) and lat­
itudinal zone (Fig. 8). In general, land-based sources were mostly re­
ported at continental sites at mid and low latitudes (40◦ N–40◦ S),
whereas sea-based sources (especially fisheries and ‘other’) predomi­
nated at higher latitudes and at oceanic sites (Fig. 8). These results agree
with the findings described above, since cigarette butts and most non-
plastic items (paper/cardboard, metal and glass) do not float or float
for a very short time, and are thus indicative of local, land-based sources
(Gaibor et al., 2020; Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2018; Honorato-Zimmer et al.,
2019).
Among land-based sources, coastal tourism and urban areas were the
most reported (Fig. 8). Tourism was particularly predominant between
Ecuador and northern-central Chile (0◦ –20◦ S and 20◦ S–40◦ S, Fig. 8),
most likely due to the high prevalence of beach tourism in these areas
and its importance for economies in the equatorial region (UNWTO,
2023; see also e.g., Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2018), in contrast to
less intense beach tourism activities along the northern EP coastlines
(UNWTO, 2023). These findings agree with other studies elsewhere, in
which high levels of touristic activity coincide with high levels of marine
litter (Abelouah et al., 2021; Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020b; Grelaud and
Ziveri, 2020).
Studies reporting urban areas as a potential source of macrolitter
predominated in Central America and southern Mexico (20◦ N–0◦ ),
although they were also frequently reported at the other low and mid
latitudinal zones (Fig. 8). Given their usually high population densities
(and thus the high production of urban and domestic waste), urban areas
have been regarded as sources of marine litter in other regions as well
(Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022; Leite et al., 2014; Poeta et al., 2016). In
the EP, and especially in Latin America, the synergy between population
size and poor waste management may be particularly relevant, since the
identification of urban areas and rivers as sources of macrolitter showed
some coincidence (Fig. 8). For instance, Riascos et al. (2019) reported
significantly higher abundances of litter in two mangrove forests located
closer to Buenaventura City (Colombia) than in those located farther
away (Fig. 9). They suggested this was most likely due to their proximity
and orientation facing the city and its surrounding rivers, which act as
major drivers in the abundance and spatial variability of marine litter
within Buenaventura Bay (Riascos et al., 2019). Notably, according to
the estimates by Lebreton et al. (2017), the rivers discharging to
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

Studies reporting potential sources of macrolitter [%]

Coastal tourism Urban areas Industry Wastewater Rivers Land-other

60°N–40°N

40°N–20°N
Land-based

20°N–0°

0°–20°S

20°S–40°S

40°S–60°S

Oceanic sites

0% 50% 100%
Maritime
Fisheries Aquaculture Shipping recreation Sea-other

60°N–40°N (18 studies)

40°N–20°N (18 studies)

Sea-based

20°N–0° (14 studies)

0°–20°S (27 studies)

20°S–40°S (22 studies)

40°S–60°S (12 studies)

Oceanic sites (41 studies)

0% 50% 100%

Fig. 8. Percentages of studies that identified different potential sources of macrolitter in the East Pacific region (divided into land-based and sea-based sources), in
continental sites per latitudinal zone (black) and in oceanic sites across all latitudinal zones (blue). The figure includes only studies that did identify any potential
source(s) of macrolitter, and the total number of studies per zone (100 %) is shown in parentheses (for additional details about study count, see Appendix S3). (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Buenaventura Bay and many rivers in Central America (mainly in
Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica) transport high quantities of
plastic litter to the coastal zone (> 100 ton plastic/year). Nevertheless,
although poor waste management is a problem especially in low- and
middle-income regions (see also Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022), runoff
from urban areas is actually a global challenge (e.g., Treilles et al., 2021;
Willis et al., 2017).
Fishing was the most reported potential sea-based source for mac­
rolitter, identified at continental sites across all latitudinal zones
(especially at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere), and espe­
cially at oceanic sites (Fig. 8). Likewise, ‘other’ sea-based sources were
mostly reported on continental sites at higher latitudes in the Northern
Hemisphere and at oceanic sites (Fig. 8), mainly attributed to the 2011
Japan tsunami and to other long-distance transport (e.g., through the
North Pacific and the South Pacific gyres; Blickley et al., 2016; Brignac
et al., 2019; Kiessling et al., 2017; Rech et al., 2018). These findings
suggest that marine macrolitter at high latitudes and at oceanic sites
comes mainly from high-seas fisheries (both industrial and small-scale,
see e.g., Luna-Jorquera et al., 2019; Mecho et al., 2021) and from
other land- and sea-based sources, carried by the ocean currents (in the
case of floating litter). Aquaculture was consistently identified as a po­
tential source only at continental sites in the austral zone (40◦ S–60◦ S,
Fig. 8), where salmon and mussel farming constitute two of the major
economic activities (Camelo-Guarín et al., 2021).
Consequently, the above findings on both land- and sea-based
sources of macrolitter suggest that the specific litter sources occurring
at the different latitudinal zones and environments (continental/
oceanic) are associated with the main economic activities carried out
there. This had already been pointed out for macrolitter along the
Chilean coast (Ahrendt et al., 2021; Hinojosa and Thiel, 2009; Honorato-
Zimmer et al., 2019), and the present review suggests that this phe­
nomenon is widespread along the EP region.
3.3.2. Microplastics
Fewer studies identified microplastic types and polymers, and the
vast majority of them were conducted in the continental northern EP
and at oceanic sites (Figs. 10 and S3). Nevertheless, a few trends can be
identified regarding microplastic composition. The most commonly
identified types were fragments and fibers/filaments (Fig. 10). Frag­
ments were ubiquitous at continental sites across all latitudinal zones

12
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

Buenaventura city
Fig. 9. Abundance of macrolitter (as grams per unit area and items per unit
area) in mangrove forests at four locations within Buenaventura Bay, Colombia.
Significant differences (p < 0.05) in litter abundance among the four locations
are shown by different numbers/letters beside the boxplots. In the lower panel
map, sampled locations (circles), rivers (blue shading), and the urban area of
Buenaventura city (black shading) are shown. Source of figure and information:
Riascos et al. (2019), with permission from Elsevier. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
and at oceanic sites (Fig. 10), whereas fibers/filaments were less com­
mon in the continental southern EP and at oceanic sites, but they were
still reported by most studies in the other zones (Fig. 10). These results
strongly agree with other studies from around the world, which have
also reported fragments and fibers as the most common microplastic
types in marine compartments (Curren et al., 2021; Rezania et al.,
2018).
Regarding polymer identification, most studies identified PE and PP
at continental sites across all latitudinal zones and at oceanic sites
(Fig. S3). This is unsurprising, given that PE and PP comprise the vast
majority of plastics, especially single-use plastics, and their utilization is
widespread at both land and sea (e.g., onboard ships). Furthermore,
these polymers are less dense than seawater (0.88–0.96 versus 1.03 g
cm− 3), which causes them to float long distances and reach even the
remotest places, so they also dominate in the subtropical gyres (Morét-
Ferguson et al., 2010). In contrast, polymers denser than seawater, such
as PET, PVC and PS (1.05–1.38 g cm− 3), were less frequently reported at
both continental and oceanic sites (Fig. S3), possibly because they tend
to sink once they enter the ocean (see also Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2021;
Morét-Ferguson et al., 2010). Indeed, in the EP region PET, PVC and PS
were reported more frequently in sediments (including shorelines and
the seafloor) than at the sea surface (Fig. S4).
Compared to PE and PP, PS is present in more distinct and specific
products (e.g., food containers, construction and fishing/aquaculture
materials) and may help to more specifically pinpoint sources. In the EP
region, PS was particularly frequent around the equator (Fig. S3), where
it has been associated to short-lived (single-use) containers (e.g., for
food) mainly coming from touristic activities and household sewage
(Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2021, 2020c), as well as from fishing activities
(Asensio-Montesinos et al., 2023; see also Fig. 11). Likewise, a high
proportion of studies reported PS in the austral zone (40◦ S–60◦ S), most
likely associated with the mussel farming industry (Ahrendt et al., 2021;
Hinojosa and Thiel, 2009; Fig. 11), which uses expanded PS materials as
floats that progressively degrade and disperse in the environment (e.g.,
Davidson, 2012). Curiously, although aquaculture was regarded as a
potential microplastic source in the northernmost latitudinal zone
(60◦ N–40◦ N, Fig. 11), where intensive shellfish farming takes place, the
presence of PS microplastics was seldom reported there (Fig. S3). Some
authors argue that the shellfish industry in the Salish Sea (British
Columbia and Washington) makes use of more durable materials, such
as PE and PVC (Schoof and DeNike, 2017).
Other potential sources of microplastics in the EP region were very
similar to those reported for macrolitter (except for fisheries, discussed

Studies reporting microplastic types [%]

Fragments Pellets Films/Sheets Fibers/Filaments Line/Thread Foam Others & Unidentified

60°N–40°N (17)

40°N–20°N (24)

20°N–0° (19)

0°–20°S (14)

20°S–40°S (7)

40°S–60°S (5)

Oceanic sites (37)

0% 50% 100%

Fig. 10. Percentages of studies that reported the presence of different types of microplastics in the East Pacific region, in continental sites per latitudinal zone (black)
and in oceanic sites across all latitudinal zones (blue). The figure includes only studies that did identify any type(s) of microplastics, and the total number of studies
per zone (100 %) is shown in parentheses (for additional details about study count, see Appendix S3). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

13
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

Studies reporting potential sources of microplastics [%]

Coastal tourism Urban areas Industry Wastewater Rivers Land-other

60°N–40°N

40°N–20°N
Land-based

20°N–0°

0°–20°S

20°S–40°S

40°S–60°S

Oceanic sites

0% 50% 100%
Maritime
Fisheries Aquaculture Shipping recreation Sea-other

60°N–40°N (13 studies)

40°N–20°N (21 studies)

Sea-based

20°N–0° (18 studies)

0°–20°S (14 studies)

20°S–40°S (8 studies)

40°S–60°S (7 studies)

Oceanic sites (16 studies)

0% 50% 100%

Fig. 11. Percentages of studies that identified different potential sources of microplastics in the East Pacific region (divided into land-based and sea-based sources),
in continental sites per latitudinal zone (black) and in oceanic sites across all latitudinal zones (blue). The figure includes only studies that did identify any potential
source(s) of microplastics, and the total number of studies per zone (100 %) is shown in parentheses (for additional details about study count, see Appendix S3). (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

below). The most commonly reported microplastic sources were land- difficult to associate to specific sources (Auta et al., 2017; Rezania et al.,
based, among which urban areas and other urban-related sources (i.e., 2018).
rivers and wastewater) predominated (Fig. 11). Although wastewater is
likely an important source of marine macrolitter and microplastics in
3.4. Transport and fate of marine litter in the EP region
Chile (personal observation, see also Cowger et al., 2019), this was not
reflected in this review (Fig. 11), suggesting a lack of peer-reviewed
The results of our review indicate that shorelines of the EP region are
studies reporting this issue (but see Amenábar et al., 2024).
indeed hotspots of marine litter accumulation across latitudinal zones
Among sea-based sources, long-distance drift was reported at oceanic
and environments (continental and oceanic), as seen by the considerably
sites (‘Sea-other’ in Fig. 11), corresponding mainly to microplastic
higher abundance of macrolitter and microplastics recorded on shore­
transport via the subtropical gyres in the North Pacific (e.g., Brignac
lines compared to the other compartments. Shorelines have been iden­
et al., 2019; Doyle et al., 2011) and in Rapa Nui (e.g., Hidalgo-Ruz and
tified as pollution hotspots in other regions as well, highlighting their
Thiel, 2013). This further supports the hypothesis that oceanic islands
role as sinks of litter coming from land- and/or sea-based sources (Onink
and the open ocean of the EP region receive litter mainly coming from
et al., 2021; Uhrin et al., 2022). In the EP, our findings support the
sea-based sources, as well as from distant land-based sources via long-
hypothesis that on the continental shorelines most litter comes from
distance drift.
land-based sources, particularly from coastal tourism and urban areas
Fisheries showed a contrasting trend as a source of microplastics
(including urban runoff, wastewater effluents and rivers).
compared to macrolitter. Unexpectedly, fisheries activities were mostly
Nevertheless, this review's findings suggest that a fraction of this
reported near the equator (0◦ –20◦ S) but seldom at other continental
litter (mostly the buoyant fraction) can be transported to and from other
latitudinal zones and at oceanic sites (Fig. 11). This might be because
places through ocean currents. At mid latitudes of the EP (40◦ N–20◦ N
most microplastics recorded in the EP region corresponded to fragments
and 20◦ S–40◦ S), the low proportion of studies reporting sea-based
and fibers/filaments (Fig. 10), which, due to their level of fragmentation
sources for continental sites (Fig. 8 and Fig. 11) supports the hypothe­
and to the wide range (and distances) of possible sources, are usually
sis that litter transport in those zones is mainly in an offshore, rather

14
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

North Equatorial Current

Equatorial Counter Current

South Equatorial Current

Fig. 12. Synthetic scheme of the main oceanic current systems, the main marine litter sources, its transport dynamics and its accumulation in the East Pacific region.
The location of the main islands/archipelagos is also shown. The varying thickness of the current arrows reflects their different velocities and strengths (the thicker
the arrow and its tip, the faster and stronger the current). Main litter sources are indicated according to Fig. 8 and Fig. 11. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

than in an onshore direction. This offshore transport is mostly explained
by the eastern boundary current systems, formed by the California and
the Humboldt currents in the northern and southern EP, respectively.
Along these currents, upwelling transport pushes buoyant marine litter
(both stranded and at-sea) from the American continent toward the open
ocean (Amenábar et al., 2024; Onink et al., 2019; van Gennip et al.,
2019; see also Fig. 12), where it finally accumulates in the subtropical
gyres (mostly as microplastics due to macrolitter fragmentation along
the way; Eriksen et al., 2014). This in turn contributes to the high
abundance of macrolitter and microplastics reported at oceanic sites (see
Section 3.2 and Fig. 6), most of which were located at mid latitudes
(Fig. S1), supporting the hypothesis that these sites receive litter coming
from the surrounding continents by means of long-distance drift (in
addition to litter from high-seas fisheries, as discussed in Section 3.2 and
Section 3.3).
At higher latitudes of the EP region (> 40◦ ), evidence and modelling
studies suggest that transport of floating litter may be in an onshore
direction, resulting in litter beaching along continental coastlines (e.g.,
Lumpkin et al., 2012; see also Fig. 12). This was supported by our review
findings, as seen by the higher proportion of sea-based sources reported
for these zones (Fig. 8 and Fig. 11), as well as by the considerably higher
litter arrival rates reported by Murray et al. (2018) along British Co­
lumbia's coastline compared to lower latitudes after the Japan tsunami
in 2011 (see Table S8). In the northern EP, this is likely caused by the
bifurcation of the onshore-flowing North Pacific Current, which at about
42◦ N–52◦ N separates into the California Current flowing south and the
Alaska Current flowing north into the Gulf of Alaska (Freeland, 2006;
Sydeman et al., 2011). Along Alaska and British Columbia's coastlines,
surface currents flow in onshore direction generating slight down­
welling, in contrast to the strong upwelling occurring along the coasts of
California and Baja California (Froyland et al., 2014). In the southern
EP, the South Pacific Current in combination with the Antarctic
Circumpolar Current (West Wind Drift) also generate onshore surface
flow and downwelling along South America's southwestern tip, which is
apparently stronger than downwelling in the Gulf of Alaska (Froyland
et al., 2014). Moreover, these latitudinal zones in both hemispheres are

15
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
much less populated than lower latitudes, likely contributing to sea-
based sources outweighing land-based sources (Castillo et al., 2020).
According to modelling studies, a similar phenomenon of onshore
transport and downwelling occurs in the equatorial region (mainly
15◦ N–5◦ S; Chassignet et al., 2021; Onink et al., 2021), due to the
onshore direction of the Equatorial Counter Current. However, the
analysis of litter sources conducted in this review supported this only
slightly, given that land-based sources greatly outweighed sea-based
sources at low latitudes (Fig. 8 and Fig. 11). As equatorial currents are
very complex, presenting onshore and offshore currents adjacent to each
other that oscillate in northward or southward directions (Onink et al.,
2019), one possibility is that both onshore and offshore transport are
simultaneously occurring in this region (Fig. 12). Also, it is possible that
waste management issues in Central America generate too large an input
of litter that makes land-based sources predominate. However, the very
low number of studies conducted in Central America (Fig. 4) likely limits
the representation of the equatorial current system in our review, not
allowing to obtain a more complete picture and understanding of litter
dynamics in the equatorial region.
In addition to fragmenting into meso- and microplastics during
transport by oceanic currents and subtropical gyres, plastic litter also
fragments on land, e.g., while being transported by high-energy rivers
(Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2021), on shorelines by exposition to solar
radiation (Kalogerakis et al., 2017), in the swash zone where waves are
breaking (Efimova et al., 2018), as well as by different types of in­
teractions with marine organisms (e.g., Davidson, 2012; Ryan, 2016; So
et al., 2022). Besides horizontal transport, other types of transport exist
and need to be considered when studying marine litter. For instance,
motile marine organisms may ingest litter somewhere, but egest it in
very different and distant places, and even in different compartments (e.
g., Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2021; Perold et al., 2020; Ryan, 2020). Further­
more, macrolitter and microplastics may undergo vertical transport
through the water column due to biofouling (Ryan, 2020), as well as due
to the differential sinking/floating capacity of different materials or
polymers (see above and Morét-Ferguson et al., 2010).
In summary, the findings of this review support the three main hy­
potheses (see Section 1) regarding sources and transport of marine litter
in the EP region, which is an eastern boundary current system (Fig. 12).
Our findings also suggested bidirectional transport of litter in the
equatorial region, but the limited number of studies from Central
America did not allow to clearly identify these dynamics. Importantly,
Table 1
Main gaps on marine litter research in the East Pacific region and a proposal of
how to address them.
Main research gap Action(s) to address research gap
Spatial coverage Implement marine litter studies in less studied
countries and areas, such as Central America.
Conduct more marine litter research on
shorelines other than sandy beaches (e.g., rocky
shores, mangroves, saltmarshes) and in other
marine compartments (e.g., water column,
seafloor).
Temporal coverage Establish more long-term monitoring programs
to understand the variability of marine litter at
different temporal scales (e.g., daily, seasonal,
interannual).
Understanding of marine litter Study the dynamics of marine litter (e.g., how it
dynamics and processes is exchanged) between compartments.
Assess fragmentation rates of macrolitter into
meso- and microplastics.
Methodological issues Harmonize the methods and reporting units
used in marine litter research and monitoring
(e.g., GESAMP, 2019; Uhrin et al., 2022).
Determine whether variation is due to different
methods or due to actual factors and processes
affecting marine litter.
Whenever possible, microplastic studies should
include the spectral identification of polymers.
16
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
while the transport dynamics identified in this review correspond to
preliminary suggestions (as more studies are still needed in the less
covered latitudinal zones), our findings coincide with the outcomes from
previous modelling studies (Lumpkin et al., 2012; Onink et al., 2019;
van Gennip et al., 2019). Moreover, although our findings may be
affected by a differential sampling intensity and/or focus (e.g., studies
targeting litter hotspots), most studies (~80 %) reviewed herein used a
random and/or opportunistic sampling design and focus on hotspots or
accumulation zones was generally not mentioned (except for micro­
plastic studies sampling over the high tide line, which is a common
practice to capture microplastics). The results are thus consistent with
the oceanographic and topographic characteristics of eastern boundary
current systems, suggesting that similar conditions of marine litter
transport may be found in other eastern boundary current systems, such
as in Western Africa and Western Australia.
3.5. Level of knowledge and main research gaps of marine litter studies in
the EP
Although research and knowledge on marine litter in the EP region
have considerably increased during recent years (Fig. 2A), there are still
several research gaps that need to be addressed (Table 1). First and
foremost, studies conducted across the EP show important geographic
and spatial gaps, in terms of the countries/areas and the compartments
covered. Nearly half of all reviewed studies were conducted in either the
USA or Chile, showing a high geographic bias of research findings,
which undoubtedly affects the understanding of marine litter dynamics
at the regional and local levels. For instance, the lack of studies in
Central America hindered a more complete comprehension of marine
litter sources and transport in that area. In terms of compartments, most
studies reported data on shorelines, particularly sandy beaches, whereas
other compartments and other types of shorelines (e.g., rocky shores,
mangroves and saltmarshes) were seldom investigated. Consequently,
marine litter research in the EP region urgently needs to cover more
countries/areas (especially Central America) and more compartments
(especially the water column, the seafloor, and shorelines other than
sandy beaches).
Most studies in the EP focus on only one or two compartments,
without investigating how these compartments interact with each other.
Thus, further research is needed to understand the dynamics of marine
litter between compartments (e.g., exchange rate of litter between the
sea surface and the water column, and between the water column and
the seafloor), as well as to assess the fragmentation of macrolitter into
meso- and microplastics to evaluate the effect of particle size in litter
movement and transport between compartments.
The research available in the EP region also shows a strong temporal
gap, given that most studies are based on single sampling events and far
fewer have done long-term monitoring of marine litter. In a region
regularly affected by climatic and oceanographic phenomena, such as
the annual cycles and the ENSO cycle (which generate dry/wet seasons
and years, respectively), marine litter abundance, sources and dynamics
are expected to vary at seasonal and interannual scales. These variations
must be better understood at the relevant temporal scales in order to
design adequate management strategies to reduce marine litter. To
achieve this, long-term monitoring programs are urgently needed in the
EP.
It is also important to acknowledge that the different methods used in
the EP region (e.g., different approaches, mesh sizes and reporting units)
give rise to a large variability of results and even impede comparability
among studies. Thus, it should be explored whether large differences
(even within a same area) result from variables affecting litter deposi­
tion and/or accumulation, such as sources, site geomorphology, currents
and transport, as well as other processes influencing macrolitter and
microplastic dynamics (e.g., litter fragmentation, vertical migration,
removal by biota). Variability in abundance and composition due to
different sampling methods has frequently been reported elsewhere
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
(Lindeque et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2021), highlighting the need for
harmonized methodological approaches for investigating and moni­
toring marine litter.
3.6. Recommendations on action and policy
The findings of the present review allow offering some recommen­
dations to tackle marine litter in the EP region. First of all, even though
there is an important and urgent need to address several gaps regarding
the research and understanding of marine litter in the region (see Sec­
tion 3.5), the available information allows identifying and describing
patterns of abundance, distribution, sources and transport of marine
litter across the EP. This knowledge improves our understanding of litter
dynamics in eastern boundary current systems, upon which recom­
mendations on action and policy can also be made.
Since the continental coastlines of the EP region are important sinks
for litter coming from land-based sources, which are mostly related to
tourism, urban activities, poor waste management and a general lack of
environmental awareness, education and preventive measures need to
be prioritized to curb the production and distribution of marine litter.
Specifically, single-use plastic regulations and better waste management
systems are urgently needed in Latin American cities. Furthermore,
given that rivers in the EP are relevant conduits for litter from inland
areas to the coastal zone, measures aimed at preventing the generation
and distribution of litter should consider entire watersheds.
Importantly, given the widespread and transboundary nature of
marine litter, actions and policy must be taken at the international level.
In this regard, international and legally-binding efforts, such as the
Global Plastic Treaty that is currently being discussed and negotiated by
UN member states (UNEP, 2022), are fundamental to effectively reduce
plastic pollution.
Lastly, to achieve the above recommendations, it is pivotal that
marine litter research and monitoring are made accessible for the
different stakeholders (e.g., policy-makers and citizens), and that such
stakeholders are engaged and aware of their own responsibilities in
reducing marine litter.
4. Conclusions and outlook
This review sought to gather and analyze all the available peer-
reviewed information on marine litter abundance, distribution,
composition and sources in the EP region, to understand the current
status of marine litter, as well as its transport and fate. Studies in the EP
are still rather scarce and biased toward certain countries, areas and
compartments, and there is a need for harmonization of methodologies
and reporting units among studies. Nevertheless, the available infor­
mation still allowed identifying and comprehending patterns of sources,
transport and fate of marine macrolitter and microplastics in the EP
region.
The main findings of this review suggest that continental shorelines
of the EP region act as sinks for marine litter mainly coming from land-
based sources, and that these sources are mostly related to touristic
activities and urban issues (e.g., improper waste management). In
addition, sea-based sources (mainly fisheries) dominated at oceanic
sites, where subtropical gyres also played a role as a transport force
accumulating litter. Moreover, this review allowed identifying transport
patterns of floating litter along the principal eastern boundary current
systems in the EP. Here, most litter comes from local, land-based sour­
ces, and almost no litter arrives from the ocean at mid latitudes (along
the California and the Humboldt current systems), given the dominant
offshore transport. In contrast, in western boundary currents (e.g.,
Western Indian Ocean), while a lot of litter comes from land-based
sources as well, an important fraction also arrives from the ocean due
to onshore currents, even bringing litter from very distant sources (e.g.,
Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2022). However, at high latitudes of the EP
(40◦ –55◦ in both hemispheres), onshore transport does occur and
17
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
contributes to the beaching of litter coming from oceanic sources.
These different litter dynamics have important implications on ma­
rine litter management. Given that in the EP region most litter is
generated by local, land-based activities, measures to effectively reduce
marine litter should mostly be taken at the local level, prioritizing ed­
ucation, prevention, and the improvement of waste management sys­
tems. Additionally, since rivers transport litter from inland areas to the
coastal zone, a watershed-scale approach should be considered for all
prevention and mitigation measures. We suggest that sources, transport
and fate of marine litter in the EP region may be similar to those in other
eastern boundary current systems, thus similar approaches might be
undertaken to combat and give solutions to marine litter, such as taking
actions aimed at curbing the production and disposal of single-use
plastics.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Daniela Honorato-Zimmer: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Project adminis­
tration, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualiza­
tion. Gabriela Escobar-Sánchez: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal anal­
ysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Katie Deakin: Writing – review
& editing, Investigation, Data curation. Diamela De Veer: Writing –
review & editing, Methodology. Tamara Galloway: Writing – review &
editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Valeska Guevara-
Torrejón: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Data curation.
Jessica Howard: Writing – review & editing, Project administration,
Investigation, Data curation. Jen Jones: Writing – review & editing,
Project administration. Ceri Lewis: Writing – review & editing, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Francisca Ribeiro: Writing – re­
view & editing, Investigation, Data curation. Georgie Savage: Writing –
review & editing, Investigation, Data curation. Martin Thiel: Writing –
review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision,
Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition,
Conceptualization.
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
All data extracted from the reviewed literature and used for the
preparation of this manuscript are openly accessible at Zenodo.org
(https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10038359).
Acknowledgements
This review was conducted in the context of the international project
“Reducing plastic waste in the Eastern Pacific Ocean” through the grant
GCRF NE/V005448/1 (initiative “Pacific Plastics: Science to Solutions”,
https://www.pacificplasticssciencetosolutions.com/), which brings
together scientists and institutions from Europe and Latin America to
research and reduce marine litter in the East Pacific region. DHZ and MT
received additional support during the preparation of the manuscript
through EU-H2020-MINKE ref. 101008724.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116440.
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440

References methods and future prospects. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 023001 https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/abc6d4.
Carson, H.S., Nerheim, M.S., Carroll, K.A., Eriksen, M., 2013. The plastic-associated
Abelouah, M.R., Ben-Haddad, M., Alla, A.A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., 2021. Marine litter in
microorganisms of the North Pacific Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 75 (1–2), 126–132.
the central Atlantic coast of Morocco. Ocean Coast. Manag. 214, 105940 https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.054.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105940.
Castillo, C., Fernández, C., Gutiérrez, M.H., Aranda, M., Urbina, M.A., Yáñez, J.,
Aburto, J.A., Gaymer, C.F., 2018. Struggling with social-ecological mismatches in marine
Álvarez, A., Pantoja-Gutiérrez, S., 2020. Water column circulation drives
management and conservation at Easter Island. Mar. Policy 92, 21–29. https://doi.
microplastic distribution in the Martínez-Baker channels; a large fjord ecosystem in
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.012.
Chilean Patagonia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111591 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Adler, R.F., Huffman, G.J., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P.-P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B.,
marpolbul.2020.111591.
Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., Nelkin, E.,
Cavole, L.M., Andrade-Vera, S., Marin Jarrin, J.R., Faggiani Dias, D., Aburto-Oropeza, O.,
2003. The version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly
Barrágan-Paladines, M.J., 2020. Using local ecological knowledge of fishers to infer
precipitation analysis (1979–present). J. Hydrometeorol. 4 (6), 1147–1167. https://
the impact of climate variability in Galápagos’ small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 121,
doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004%3C1147:TVGPCP%3E2.0.CO;2.
104195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104195.
Aguilera, M.A., Broitman, B.R., Thiel, M., 2016. Artificial breakwaters as garbage bins:
Chassignet, E.P., Xu, X., Zavala-Romero, O., 2021. Tracking marine litter with a global
structural complexity enhances anthropogenic litter accumulation in marine
ocean model: where does it go? Where does it come from? Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 667591
intertidal habitats. Environ. Pollut. 214, 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.667591.
envpol.2016.04.058.
Chenillat, F., Huck, T., Maes, C., Grima, N., Blanke, B., 2021. Fate of floating plastic
Aguilera, M.A., Castro, A., Thiel, M., 2023. Fast accumulation of anthropogenic litter on
debris released along the coasts in a global ocean model. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 165,
upgraded breakwaters: a persistent and hidden threat to coastal habitats. Mar.
112116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112116.
Pollut. Bull. 188, 114731 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114731.
Chiba, S., Saito, H., Fletcher, R., Yogi, T., Kayo, M., Miyagi, S., Ogido, M., Fujikura, K.,
Ahrendt, C., DeCoite, M., Pulgar, J., Pozo, K., Galbán-Malagón, C., Hinojosa, I.A., 2021.
2018. Human footprint in the abyss: 30 year records of deep-sea plastic debris. Mar.
A decade later, reviewing floating marine debris in Northern Chilean Patagonia.
Policy 96, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.022.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 168, 112372 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112372.
Choy, C.A., Robison, B.H., Gagne, T.O., Erwin, B., Firl, E., Halden, R.U., Hamilton, J.A.,
Amador, J.A., Alfaro, E.J., Lizano, O.G., Magaña, V.O., 2006. Atmospheric forcing of the
Katija, K., Lisin, S.E., Rolsky, C., Van Houtan, K.S., 2019. The vertical distribution
eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Prog. Oceanogr. 69 (2–4), 101–142. https://doi.
and biological transport of marine microplastics across the epipelagic and
org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.03.007.
mesopelagic water column. Sci. Rep. 9, 7843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-
Amenábar, M., Aguilera, M.A., Gallardo, C., Moore, C., De Vine, R., Lattin, G., Gamba, A.,
44117-2.
Luna-Acosta, A., Thiel, M., 2024. Spatial distribution of microplastics in a coastal
Connan, M., Perold, V., Dilley, B.J., Barbraud, C., Cherel, Y., Ryan, P.G., 2021. The
upwelling region: offshore dispersal from urban sources in the Humboldt Current
Indian Ocean ‘garbage patch’: empirical evidence from floating macro-litter. Mar.
System. Environ. Pollut. 343, 123157 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Pollut. Bull. 169, 112559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112559.
envpol.2023.123157.
Corniuk, R.N., Shaw, K.R., McWhirter, A., Lynch IV, H.W., Royer, S.-J., Lynch, J.M.,
Andreani, L., Gloaguen, R., 2016. Geomorphic analysis of transient landscapes in the
2023. Polymer identification of floating derelict fishing gear from O’ahu, Hawai’i.
Sierra Madre de Chiapas and Maya Mountains (northern Central America):
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 196, 115570 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115570.
implications for the North American–Caribbean–Cocos plate boundary. Earth Surf.
Corrales-Ugalde, M., Sibaja-Cordero, J.A., 2015. Macrofauna bentónica de las playas de
Dyn. 4 (1), 71–102. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-71-2016.
arena del Área de Conservación Osa, Puntarenas, Pacífico Sur de Costa Rica. Rev.
Asensio-Montesinos, F., López-Rodríguez, F., Anfuso, G., 2023. Marine litter impacting
Biol. Trop. 63 (S1), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v63i1.23107.
beaches and mangrove forests: a characterization and assessment within the
Cortés, J., 2012. Marine biodiversity of an Eastern Tropical Pacific oceanic island, Isla del
Archipelago of Jambelí, Ecuador. J. Coast. Res. 39 (3), 431–441. https://doi.org/
Coco, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 60 (S3), 131–185. https://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.
10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-22A-00014.1.
php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-77442012000800009.
Auta, H.S., Emenike, C.U., Fauziah, S.H., 2017. Distribution and importance of
Cowger, W., Gray, A.B., Eriksen, M., Moore, C., Thiel, M., 2019. Evaluating wastewater
microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and
effluent as a source of microplastics in environmental samples. In: Karapanagioti, H.,
potential solutions. Environ. Int. 102, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kalavrouziotis, I.K. (Eds.), Microplastics in Water and Wastewater. IWA Publishing,
envint.2017.02.013.
pp. 109–131. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781789060034_0109.
Baine, M., Howard, M., Kerr, S., Edgar, G., Toral, V., 2007. Coastal and marine resource
Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., Hernández-
management in the Galapagos Islands and the Archipelago of San Andres: issues,
León, S., Palma, A.T., Navarro, S., García-de-Lomas, J., Ruiz, A., Fernández-de-
problems and opportunities. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (3–4), 148–173. https://doi.
Puelles, M.L., Duarte, C.M., 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean. PNAS 111 (28),
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.04.001.
10239–10244. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314705111.
Barragán, J.M., de Andrés, M., 2016. Expansión urbana en las áreas litorales de América
Critchell, K., Lambrechts, J., 2016. Modelling accumulation of marine plastics in the
Latina y Caribe. Rev. Geogr. Norte Gd. 64, 129–149. https://doi.org/10.4067/
coastal zone; what are the dominant physical processes? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.
S0718-34022016000200009.
171, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.01.036.
Beck, H.E., Zimmermann, N.E., McVicar, T.R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Wood, E.F.,
Curren, E., Kuwahara, V.S., Yoshida, T., Leong, S.C.Y., 2021. Marine microplastics in the
2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km
ASEAN region: a review of the current state of knowledge. Environ. Pollut. 288,
resolution. Sci. Data 5, 180214. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214.
117776 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117776.
Blickley, L.C., Currie, J.J., Kaufman, G.D., 2016. Trends and drivers of debris
Currie, J.J., Stack, S.H., 2021. Getting butts off the beach: policy alone is not effective at
accumulation on Maui shorelines: implications for local mitigation strategies. Mar.
reducing cigarette filter litter on beaches in Maui, Hawai’i. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 173
Pollut. Bull. 105 (1), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.02.007.
(Part A), 112937 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112937.
Brandon, J.A., Freibott, A., Sala, L.M., 2020. Patterns of suspended and salp-ingested
Davidson, T.M., 2012. Boring crustaceans damage polystyrene floats under docks
microplastic debris in the North Pacific investigated with epifluorescence
polluting marine waters with microplastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (9), 1821–1828.
microscopy. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 5 (1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.06.005.
lol2.10127.
Day, R.H., Shaw, D.G., 1987. Patterns in the abundance of pelagic plastic and tar in the
Brandt, J., Fischer, F., Kanaki, E., Enders, K., Labrenz, M., Fischer, D., 2021. Assessment
North Pacific Ocean, 1976-1985. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18 (6), 311–316. https://doi.org/
of subsampling strategies in microspectroscopy of environmental microplastic
10.1016/S0025-326X(87)80017-6.
samples. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 579676 https://doi.org/10.3389/
De Veer, D., Baeza-Álvarez, J., Bolaños, S., Cavour Araya, S., Darquea, J.J., Díaz
fenvs.2020.579676.
Poblete, M.A., Domínguez, G., Holtmann-Ahumada, G., Honorato-Zimmer, D.,
Brignac, K.C., Jung, M.R., King, C., Royer, S.-J., Blickley, L., Lamson, M.R., Potemra, J.T.,
Gaibor, N., Gallardo, M.A., Guevara Torrejón, V., León Chumpitaz, A., Marcús
Lynch, J.M., 2019. Marine debris polymers on Main Hawaiian Island beaches, sea
Zamora, L., Mora, V., Muñoz Araya, J.M., Pernía, B., Purca, S., Rivadeneira, M.M.,
surface, and seafloor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (21), 12218–12226. https://doi.org/
Sánchez, O.A., Sepúlveda, J.M., Urbina, M., Vásquez, N., Vélez Tacuri, J.,
10.1021/acs.est.9b03561.
Villalobos, V., Villanueva Brücher, B., Thiel, M., 2023. Citizen scientists study beach
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R.,
litter along 12,000 km of the East Pacific coast: a baseline for the International
2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks.
Plastic Treaty. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 196, 115481 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9175–9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s.
marpolbul.2023.115481.
Browne, M.A., Chapman, M.G., Thompson, R.C., Amaral Zettler, L.A., Jambeck, J.,
Desforges, J.W., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N., Ross, P.S., 2014. Widespread distribution
Mallos, N.J., 2015. Spatial and temporal patterns of stranded intertidal marine
of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79
debris: is there a picture of global change? Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (12),
(1–2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.035.
7082–7094. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5060572.
Doyle, M.J., Watson, W., Bowlin, N.M., Sheavly, S.B., 2011. Plastic particles in coastal
Camelo-Guarín, S., Molinet, C., Soto, D., 2021. Recommendations for implementing
pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 71 (1), 41–52.
integrated multitrophic aquaculture in commercial farms at the landscape scale in
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.10.001.
southern Chile. Aquaculture 544, 737116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Efimova, I., Bagaeva, M., Bagaev, A., Kileso, A., Chubarenko, I.P., 2018. Secondary
aquaculture.2021.737116.
microplastics generation in the sea swash zone with coarse bottom sediments:
Canals, M., Pham, C.K., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Hanke, G., van Sebille, E.,
laboratory experiments. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/
Angiolillo, M., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Cau, A., Ioakeimidis, C., Kammann, U.,
fmars.2018.00313.
Lundsten, L., Papatheodorou, G., Purser, A., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Schulz, M., Vinci, M.,
Egger, M., Nijhof, R., Quiros, L., Leone, G., Royer, S.-J., McWhirter, A.C., Kantakov, G.A.,
Chiba, S., Galgani, F., Langenkämper, D., Möller, T., Nattkemper, T.W., Ruiz, M.,
Radchenko, V.I., Pakhomov, E.A., Hunt, B.P.V., Lebreton, L., 2020a. A spatially
Suikkanen, S., Woodall, L., Fakiris, E., Molina Jack, M.E., Giorgetti, A., 2021. The
variable scarcity of floating microplastics in the eastern North Pacific Ocean.
quest for seafloor macrolitter: a critical review of background knowledge, current
Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 114056 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbb4f.

18
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
Egger, M., Sulu-Gambari, F., Lebreton, L., 2020b. First evidence of plastic fallout from
the North Pacific Garbage Patch. Sci. Rep. 10, 7495. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-020-64465-8.
Egger, M., Quiros, L., Leone, G., Ferrari, F., Boerger, C.M., Tishler, M., 2021. Relative
abundance of floating plastic debris and neuston in the Eastern North Pacific Ocean.
Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 626026 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.626026.
Eriksen, M., Maximenko, N., Thiel, M., Cummins, A., Lattin, G., Wilson, S., Hafner, J.,
Zellers, A., Rifman, S., 2013. Plastic pollution in the South Pacific subtropical gyre.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 68 (1–2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2012.12.021.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., Borerro, J.C.,
Galgani, F., Ryan, P.G., Reisser, J., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans:
more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS One
9 (12), e111913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913.
Eriksen, M., Liboiron, M., Kiessling, T., Charron, L., Alling, A., Lebreton, L., Richards, H.,
Roth, B., Ory, N.C., Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Meerhoff, E., Box, C., Cummins, A., Thiel, M.,
2018. Microplastic sampling with the AVANI trawl compared to two neuston trawls
in the Bay of Bengal and South Pacific. Environ. Pollut. 232, 430–439. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.058.
Eriksen, M., Cowger, W., Erdle, L.M., Coffin, S., Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Moore, C.J.,
Carpenter, E.J., Day, R.H., Thiel, M., Wilcox, C., 2023. A growing plastic smog, now
estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s
oceans—urgent solutions required. PloS One 18 (3), e0281596. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0281596.
Erol, S., 2016. The impact of distance and narrow waterway on voyage cost: cost
formulation and implementation on a dry bulk carrier. J. ETA Maritime Sci. 4 (1),
49–59. https://doi.org/10.5505/jems.2016.00719.
FAO, 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. FAO, Rome, Towards
Blue Transformation. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en.
Freeland, H.J., 2006. What proportion of the North Pacific current finds its way into the
Gulf of Alaska? Atmos. Ocean 44 (4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.3137/ao.440401.
Friedlander, A.M., Ballesteros, E., Beets, J., Berkenpas, E., Gaymer, C.F., Gorny, M.,
Sala, E., 2013. Effects of isolation and fishing on the marine ecosystems of Easter
Island and Salas y Gómez, Chile. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23 (4),
515–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2333.
Froyland, G., Stuart, R.M., van Sebille, E., 2014. How well-connected is the surface of the
global ocean? Chaos 24 (3), 033126. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4892530.
Gaibor, N., Condo-Espinel, V., Cornejo-Rodríguez, M.H., Darquea, J.J., Pernia, B.,
Domínguez, G.A., Briz, M.E., Márquez, L., Laaz, E., Alemán-Dyer, C., Avendaño, U.,
Guerrero, J., Preciado, M., Honorato-Zimmer, D., Thiel, M., 2020. Composition,
abundance and sources of anthropogenic marine debris on the beaches from Ecuador
– a volunteer-supported study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 154, 111068 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111068.
Gallardo, C., Ory, N.C., Gallardo, M.A., Ramos, M., Bravo, L., Thiel, M., 2021. Sea-surface
slicks and their effect on the concentration of plastics and zooplankton in the coastal
waters of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 688224 https://doi.org/
10.3389/fmars.2021.688224.
Galli, M., Olavarrieta Garcia, T., Baini, M., Urbán, J., Ramírez-Macías, D., Viloria-
Gómora, L., Panti, C., Martellini, T., Cincinelli, A., Fossi, M.C., 2023. Microplastic
occurrence and phthalate ester levels in neuston samples and skin biopsies of filter-
feeding megafauna from La Paz Bay (Mexico). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 192, 115086
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115086.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Castillo-Olaya, V.A., Granados-Briceño, A.F., Blandón García, L.M.,
Espinosa Díaz, L.F., 2019. Marine litter and microplastic pollution on mangrove soils
of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombian Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 145,
455–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.058.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Mejía-Esquivia, K.A., Sierra-Labastidas, T., Patiño, A., Blandón, L.
M., Espinosa Díaz, L.F., 2020a. Prevalence of microplastic contamination in the
digestive tract of fishes from mangrove ecosystem in Cispata, Colombian Caribbean.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 154, 111085 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111085.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa-Díaz, L.F., Pereira Cardoso, R., Costa Muniz, M., 2020b.
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., Pereira Cardoso, R., Issa Cardozo, B.B., Meigikos dos
Anjos, R., 2020c. Plastic litter pollution along sandy beaches in the Caribbean and
Pacific coast of Colombia. Environ. Pollut. 267, 115495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115495.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa, L.F., Costa Muniz, M., Borba Salles Pereira, L., Meigikos
dos Anjos, R., 2021. Abundance, distribution, and characteristics of microplastics in
coastal surface waters of the Colombian Caribbean and Pacific. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 28, 43431–43442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13723-x.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Castillo-Olaya, V., Espinosa-Díaz, L.F., Canals, M., 2023. Seasonal
variation in plastic litter pollution in mangroves from two remote tropical estuaries
of the Colombian Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 193, 115210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2023.115210.
Garrity, S.D., Levings, S.C., 1993. Marine debris along the Caribbean coast of Panama.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26 (6), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(93)90574-
4.
GESAMP, 2016. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment:
part two of a global assessment. In: Kershaw, P.J., et al. (Eds.), IMO/FAO/UNESCO-
IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 93, 220 pp.
http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1275/sources-fate-and-effects-of-micr
oplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2-of-a-global-assessment-en.pdf.
19
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
GESAMP, 2019. Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter in the
ocean. In: Kershaw, P.J., et al. (Eds.), IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/
UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 99, 130p. http://www.gesamp.
org/publications/guidelines-for-the-monitoring-and-assessment-of-plastic-litter-i
n-the-ocean.
Goldstein, M.C., Titmus, A.J., Ford, M., 2013. Scales of spatial heterogeneity of plastic
marine debris in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. PloS One 8 (11), e80020. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080020.
Good, T.P., June, J.A., Etnier, M.A., Broadhurst, G., 2010. Derelict fishing nets in Puget
Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 60 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.005.
Gove, J.M., Whitney, J.L., McManus, M.A., Lecky, J., Carvalho, F.C., Lynch, J.M., Li, J.,
Neubauer, P., Smith, K.A., Phipps, J.E., Kobayashi, D.R., Balagso, K.B., Contreras, E.
A., Manuel, M.E., Merrifield, M.A., Polovina, J.J., Asner, G.P., Maynard, J.A.,
Williams, G.J., 2019. Prey-size plastics are invading larval fish nurseries. PNAS 116
(48), 24143–24149. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907496116.
Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Flórez, P., 2018. Beach litter and woody-debris
colonizers on the Atlantico department Caribbean coastline, Colombia. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 128, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.017.
Grelaud, M., Ziveri, P., 2020. The generation of marine litter in Mediterranean island
beaches as an effect of tourism and its mitigation. Sci. Rep. 10, 20326 https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-020-77225-5.
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Thieme, M., Geenen, B., Tickner, D., Antonelli, F., Babu, S.,
Borrelli, P., Cheng, L., Crochetiere, H., Ehalt Macedo, H., Filgueiras, R., Goichot, M.,
Higgins, J., Hogan, Z., Lip, B., McClain, M.E., Meng, J., Mulligan, M., Nilsson, C.,
Olden, J.D., Opperman, J.J., Petry, P., Reidy Liermann, C., Sáenz, L., Salinas-
Rodríguez, S., Schelle, P., Schmitt, R.J.P., Snider, J., Tan, F., Tockner, K., Valdujo, P.
H., van Soesbergen, A., Zarfl, C., 2019. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers.
Nature 569, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9.
Haarr, M.L., Falk-Andersson, J., Fabres, J., 2022. Global marine litter research
2015–2020: geographical and methodological trends. Sci. Total Environ. 820,
153162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153162.
Halsband, C., Herzke, D., 2019. Plastic litter in the European Arctic: what do we know?
Emerg. Contam. 5, 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2019.11.001.
Hardesty, B.D., Lawson, T.J., van der Velde, T., Lansdell, M., Wilcox, C., 2017.
Estimating quantities and sources of marine debris at a continental scale. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 15 (1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1447.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Thiel, M., 2013. Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on
beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen science project. Mar.
Environ. Res. 87-88, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2013.02.015.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Honorato-Zimmer, D., Gatta-Rosemary, M., Nuñez, P., Hinojosa, I.A.,
Thiel, M., 2018. Spatio-temporal variation of anthropogenic marine debris on
Chilean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 126, 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.11.014.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Luna-Jorquera, G., Eriksen, M., Frick, H., Miranda-Urbina, D., Portflitt-
Toro, M., Rivadeneira, M.M., Robertson, C.J.R., Scofield, R.P., Serratosa, J.,
Suazo, C.G., Thiel, M., 2021. Factors (type, colour, density, and shape) determining
the removal of marine plastic debris by seabirds from the South Pacific Ocean: is
there a pattern? Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31 (2), 389–407. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aqc.3453.
Hinojosa, I.A., Thiel, M., 2009. Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels of
southern Chile. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2008.10.020.
Honorato-Zimmer, D., Kruse, K., Knickmeier, K., Weinmann, A., Hinojosa, I.A., Thiel, M.,
2019. Inter-hemispherical shoreline surveys of anthropogenic marine debris – a
binational citizen science project with schoolchildren. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138,
464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.048.
Honorato-Zimmer, D., Kiessling, T., Gatta-Rosemary, M., Kroeger Campodónico, C.,
Núñez-Farías, P., Rech, S., Thiel, M., 2021. Mountain streams flushing litter to the
sea – Andean rivers as conduits for plastic pollution. Environ. Pollut. 291, 118166
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118166.
Honorato-Zimmer, D., Weideman, E.A., Ryan, P.G., Thiel, M., 2022. Amounts, sources,
fates and ecological impacts of marine litter and microplastics in the Western Indian
Ocean region: a review and recommendations for actions. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 60,
533–590. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003288602-11.
Insel, N., Poulsen, C.J., Ehlers, T.A., 2010. Influence of the Andes Mountains on South
American moisture transport, convection, and precipitation. Climate Dynam. 35,
1477–1492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-009-0637-1.
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.
Jahnke, A., Arp, H.P.H., Escher, B.I., Gewert, B., Gorokhova, E., Kühnel, D.,
Ogonowski, M., Potthoff, A., Rummel, C., Schmitt-Jansen, M., Toorman, E.,
MacLeod, M., 2017. Reducing uncertainty and confronting ignorance about the
possible impacts of weathering plastic in the marine environment. Environ. Sci.
Technol. Lett. 4 (3), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00008.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,
Narayan, R., Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science
347, 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Kalogerakis, N., Karkanorachaki, K., Kalogerakis, G.C., Triantafyllidi, E.I., Gotsis, A.D.,
Partsinevelos, P., Fava, F., 2017. Microplastics generation: onset of fragmentation of
polyethylene films in marine environment mesocosms. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 84.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00084.
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
Kapp, K.J., Yeatman, E., 2018. Microplastic hotspots in the Snake and Lower Columbia
rivers: a journey from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the Pacific Ocean.
Environ. Pollut. 241, 1082–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.033.
Kawabe, L.A., Ghilardi-Lopes, N.P., Turra, A., Wyles, K.J., 2022. Citizen science in
marine litter research: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 182, 114011 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114011.
Kazmiruk, T.N., Kazmiruk, V.D., Bendell, L.I., 2018. Abundance and distribution of
microplastics within surface sediments of a key shellfish growing region of Canada.
PloS One 13 (5), e0196005. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196005.
Kiessling, T., Salas, S., Mutafoglu, K., Thiel, M., 2017. Who cares about dirty beaches?
Evaluating environmental awareness and action on coastal litter in Chile. Ocean
Coast. Manag. 137, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.029.
Kikaki, A., Karantzalos, K., Power, C.A., Raitsos, D.E., 2020. Remotely sensing the source
and transport of marine plastic debris in Bay Islands of Honduras (Caribbean Sea).
Remote Sens. (Basel) 12 (11), 1727. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111727.
Lacey, N.C., Rowden, A.A., Clark, M.R., Kilgallen, N.M., Linley, T., Mayor, D.J.,
Jamieson, A.J., 2016. Community structure and diversity of scavenging amphipods
from bathyal to hadal depths in three South Pacific Trenches. Deep-Sea Res. I
Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 111, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.02.014.
Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S.E., Maximenko, N.A., Proskurowski, G., Peacock, E.E.,
Hafner, J., Reddy, C.M., 2010. Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical
Gyre. Science 329 (5996), 1185–1188. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192321.
Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S.E., Goodwin, D.S., Zettler, E.R., DeForce, E., Kukulka, T.,
Proskurowski, G., 2014. Distribution of surface plastic debris in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean from an 11-year data set. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (9), 4732–4738. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es4053076.
Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and
disposal. Palgrave Commun. 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7.
Lebreton, L.C.M., Greer, S.D., Borrero, J.C., 2012. Numerical modelling of floating debris
in the world’s ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (3), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2011.10.027.
Lebreton, L.C.M., 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.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., Hajbane, S.,
Cunsolo, S., Schwarz, A., Levivier, A., Noble, K., Debeljak, P., Maral, H., Schoeneich-
Argent, R., Brambini, R., Reisser, J., 2018. Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage
Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. 8, 4666. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-018-22939-w.
Leite, A.S., Santos, L.L., Costa, Y., Hatje, V., 2014. Influence of proximity to an urban
center in the pattern of contamination by marine debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81 (1),
242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.032.
Lemay, M.H., 1998. Manejo de los recursos costeros y marinos en América Latina y el
Caribe. In: Informe Técnico N◦ ENV-128. Washington, D.C. https://publications.iadb.
org/es/publicacion/15941/manejo-de-los-recursos-costeros-y-marinos-en-america-
latina-y-el-caribe.
Lindeque, P.K., Cole, M., Coppock, R.L., Lewis, C.N., Miller, R.Z., Watts, A.J.R., Wilson-
McNeal, A., Wright, S.L., Galloway, T.S., 2020. Are we underestimating microplastic
abundance in the marine environment? A comparison of microplastic capture with
nets of different mesh-size. Environ. Pollut. 265 (Part A), 114721 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114721.
Lizarbe-Palacios, M., Aponte, H., Botero, C.M., 2022. Multitemporal scenic evaluation of
urban coastal sites: a Peruvian case study. Water 14 (15), 2336. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w14152336.
Lumpkin, R., Maximenko, N., Pazos, M., 2012. Evaluating where and why drifters die.
J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 29 (2), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-
00100.1.
Luna-Jorquera, G., Thiel, M., Portflitt-Toro, M., Dewitte, B., 2019. Marine protected
areas invaded by floating anthropogenic litter: an example from the South Pacific.
Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29 (S2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aqc.3095.
Maes, C., Grima, N., Blanke, B., Martinez, E., Paviet-Salomon, T., Huck, T., 2018.
A surface “superconvergence” pathway connecting the South Indian Ocean to the
subtropical South Pacific gyre. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 (4), 1915–1922. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2017GL076366.
Martinod, J., Husson, L., Roperch, P., Guillaume, B., Espurt, N., 2010. Horizontal
subduction zones, convergence velocity and the building of the Andes. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 299 (3–4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2010.09.010.
Maximenko, N., Hafner, J., Kamachi, M., MacFadyen, A., 2018. Numerical simulations of
debris drift from the Great Japan Tsunami of 2011 and their verification with
observational reports. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 132, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.03.056.
Mazariegos-Ortíz, C., Rosales, M.A., Carrillo-Ovalle, L., Pereira Cardoso, R., Costa
Muniz, M., Meigikos dos Anjos, R., 2020. First evidence of microplastic pollution in
the El Quetzalito sand beach of the Guatemalan Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 156,
111220 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111220.
McClatchie, S., 2014. Oceanography of the Southern California Current System relevant
to fisheries. In: Regional Fisheries Oceanography of the California Current System.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 13–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7223-6_2.
Mecho, A., Sellanes, J., Aguzzi, J., 2021. Seafloor litter at oceanic islands and seamounts
of the southeastern Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 170, 112641 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2021.112641.
Melvin, J., Bury, M., Ammendolia, J., Mather, C., Liboiron, M., 2021. Critical gaps in
shoreline plastics pollution research. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 689108 https://doi.org/
10.3389/fmars.2021.689108.
20
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
Miranda-Urbina, D., Thiel, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., 2015. Litter and seabirds found across
a longitudinal gradient in the South Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96 (1–2),
235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.021.
Miron, P., Beron-Vera, F.J., Helfmann, L., Koltai, P., 2021. Transition paths of marine
debris and the stability of the garbage patches. Chaos 31 (3), 033101. https://doi.
org/10.1063/5.0030535.
Moore, C.J., Moore, S.L., Leecaster, M.K., Weisberg, S.B., 2001. A comparison of plastic
and plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42 (12),
1297–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00114-X.
Morales-Caselles, C., Viejo, J., Martí, E., González-Fernández, D., Pragnell-Raasch, H.,
González-Gordillo, J.I., Montero, E., Arroyo, G.M., Hanke, G., Salvo, V.S.,
Basurko, O.C., Mallos, N., Lebreton, L., Echevarría, F., van Emmerik, T., Duarte, C.
M., Gálvez, J.A., van Sebille, E., Galgani, F., García, C.M., Ross, P.S., Bartual, A.,
Ioakeimidis, C., Markalain, G., Isobe, A., Cózar, A., 2021. An inshore–offshore
sorting system revealed from global classification of ocean litter. Nat. Sustain. 4,
484–493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00720-8.
Morét-Ferguson, S., Law, K.L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E.K., Peacock, E.E., Reddy, C.
M., 2010. The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western North
Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (10), 1873–1878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2010.07.020.
Murray, C.C., Maximenko, N., Lippiatt, S., 2018. The influx of marine debris from the
Great Japan Tsunami of 2011 to North American shorelines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 132,
26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.004.
Nelms, S.E., Eyles, L., Godley, B.J., Richardson, P.B., Selley, H., Solandt, J.L., Witt, M.J.,
2020. Investigating the distribution and regional occurrence of anthropogenic litter
in English marine protected areas using 25 years of citizen-science beach clean data.
Environ. Pollut. 263 (Part B), 114365 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.114365.
Nichols, E.C., Lavers, J.L., Archer-Rand, S., Bond, A.L., 2021. Assessing plastic size
distribution and quantity on a remote island in the South Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
167, 112366 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112366.
Nyberg, B., Howell, J.A., 2016. Global distribution of modern shallow marine shorelines.
Implications for exploration and reservoir analogue studies. Mar. Pet. Geol. 71,
83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.11.025.
Onink, V., Wichmann, D., Delandmeter, P., van Sebille, E., 2019. The role of Ekman
currents, geostrophy, and Stokes drift in the accumulation of floating microplastic.
J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 124 (3), 1474–1490. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JC014547.
Onink, V., Jongedijk, C.E., Hoffman, M.J., van Sebille, E., 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.
Opperman, J.J., Shahbol, N., Maynard, J., Grill, G., Higgins, J., Tracey, D., Thieme, M.,
2021. Safeguarding free-flowing rivers: the global extent of free-flowing rivers in
protected areas. Sustainability 13 (5), 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052805.
Ory, N.C., Sobral, P., Ferreira, J.L., Thiel, M., 2017. Amberstripe scad Decapterus
muroadsi (Carangidae) fish ingest blue microplastics resembling their copepod prey
along the coast of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Sci.
Total Environ. 586, 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.175.
Pabortsava, K., Lampitt, R.S., 2020. High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the
surface of the Atlantic Ocean. Nat. Commun. 11, 4073. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-17932-9.
Palatinus, A., Kovač Viršek, M., Robič, U., Grego, M., Bajt, O., Šiljić, J., Suaria, G.,
Liubartseva, S., Coppini, G., Peterlin, M., 2019. Marine litter in the Croatian part of
the middle Adriatic Sea: simultaneous assessment of floating and seabed macro and
micro litter abundance and composition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 139, 427–439. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.038.
Pearce, A., Jackson, G., Cresswell, G.R., 2019. Marine debris pathways across the
southern Indian Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 166, 34–42. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2018.06.009.
Pereiro, D., Souto, C., Gago, J., 2019. Dynamics of floating marine debris in the northern
Iberian waters: a model approach. J. Sea Res. 144, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.seares.2018.11.007.
Perold, V., Schoombie, S., Ryan, P.G., 2020. Decadal changes in plastic litter regurgitated
by albatrosses and giant petrels at sub-Antarctic Marion Island. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
159, 111471 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111471.
Pham, C.K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C.H.S., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M., Canals, M.,
Company, J.B., Davies, J., Duineveld, G., Galgani, F., Howell, K.L., Huvenne, V.A.I.,
Isidro, E., Jones, D.O.B., Lastras, G., Morato, T., Gomes-Pereira, J.N., Purser, A.,
Stewart, H., Tojeira, I., Tubau, X., van Rooij, D., Tyler, P.A., 2014. Marine litter
distribution and density in European seas, from the shelves to deep basins. PloS One
9 (4), e95839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095839.
Poeta, G., Conti, L., Malavasi, M., Battisti, C., Acosta, A.T.R., 2016. Beach litter
occurrence in sandy littorals: the potential role of urban areas, rivers and beach users
in central Italy. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 181, 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecss.2016.08.041.
Ramírez-Álvarez, N., Rios Mendoza, L.M., Macías-Zamora, J.V., Oregel-Vázquez, L.,
Alvarez-Aguilar, A., Hernández-Guzmán, F.A., Sánchez-Osorio, J.L., Moore, C.J.,
Silva-Jiménez, H., Navarro-Olache, L.F., 2020. Microplastics: sources and
distribution in surface waters and sediments of Todos Santos Bay, Mexico. Sci. Total
Environ. 703, 134838 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134838.
Rech, S., Macaya-Caquilpán, V., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., Jofre Madariaga, D.,
Thiel, M., 2014. Rivers as a source of marine litter - a study from the SE Pacific. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 82 (1–2), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.019.
Rech, S., Thiel, M., Borrell Pichs, Y.J., García-Vazquez, E., 2018. Travelling light: fouling
biota on macroplastics arriving on beaches of remote Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
South Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 119–128. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.015.
Rey, S.F., Franklin, J., Rey, S.J., 2021. Microplastic pollution on island beaches, Oahu,
Hawai’i. PloS One 16 (2), e0247224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0247224.
Rezania, S., Park, J., Din, M.F., Taib, S.M., Talaiekhozani, A., Yadav, K.K., Kamyab, H.,
2018. Microplastics pollution in different aquatic environments and biota: a review
of recent studies. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.05.022.
Riascos, J.M., Valencia, N., Peña, E.J., Cantera, J.R., 2019. Inhabiting the technosphere:
the encroachment of anthropogenic marine litter in Neotropical mangrove forests
and its use as habitat by macrobenthic biota. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 559–568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.010.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., 2010. Trends and drivers of marine
debris on the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (8),
1231–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.021.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., 2012a. Trends in marine debris
along the U.S. Pacific Coast and Hawai'i 1998-2007. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (5),
994–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.02.008.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Klavitter, J., 2012b. Baseline for beached marine debris on
Sand Island, Midway Atoll. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64 (8), 1726–1729. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.04.001.
Rota, E., Bergami, E., Corsi, I., Bargagli, R., 2022. Macro- and microplastics in the
Antarctic environment: ongoing assessment and perspectives. Environments 9 (7),
93. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9070093.
Royer, S.-J., Corniuk, R.N., McWhirter, A., Lynch IV, H.W., Pollock, K., O'Brien, K.,
Escalle, L., Stevens, K.A., Moreno, G., Lynch, J.M., 2023. Large floating abandoned,
lost or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is frequent marine pollution in the Hawaiian
Islands and Palmyra Atoll. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 196, 115585 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2023.115585.
Ryan, P.G., 2014. Litter survey detects the South Atlantic ‘garbage patch’. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 79 (1–2), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.010.
Ryan, P.G., 2015. Does size and buoyancy affect the long-distance transport of floating
debris? Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084019 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/
084019.
Ryan, P.G., 2016. Ingestion of plastics by marine organisms. In: Takada, H.,
Karapanagioti, H. (Eds.), Hazardous Chemicals Associated with Plastics in the
Marine Environment. Springer, Cham, pp. 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_
2016_21.
Ryan, P.G., 2020. The transport and fate of marine plastics in South Africa and adjacent
oceans. S. Afr. J. Sci. 116 (5/6), 7677. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/7677.
Ryan, P.G., Lamprecht, A., Swanepoel, D., Moloney, C.L., 2014. The effect of fine-scale
sampling frequency on estimates of beach litter accumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 88
(1–2), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.036.
Schoof, R.A., DeNike, J., 2017. Microplastics in the context of regulation of commercial
shellfish aquaculture operations. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 13 (3), 522–527.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1905.
Schulz, M., Clemens, T., Förster, H., Harder, T., Fleet, D., Gaus, S., Grave, C., Flegel, I.,
Schrey, E., Hartwig, E., 2015. Statistical analyses of the results of 25 years of beach
litter surveys on the south-eastern North Sea coast. Mar. Environ. Res. 109, 21–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.04.007.
Schulz, M., Walvoort, D.J.J., Barry, J., Fleet, D.M., van Loon, W.M.G.M., 2019. Baseline
and power analyses for the assessment of beach litter reductions in the European
OSPAR region. Environ. Pollut. 248, 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2019.02.030.
Sear, D.A., Allen, M.S., Hassall, J.D., Maloney, A.E., Langdon, P.G., Morrison, A.E.,
Henderson, A.C.G., Mackay, H., Croudace, I.W., Clarke, C., Sachs, J.P.,
Macdonald, G., Chiverrell, R.C., Leng, M.J., Cisneros-Dozal, L.M., Fonville, T.,
Pearson, E., 2020. Human settlement of East Polynesia earlier, incremental, and
coincident with prolonged South Pacific drought. PNAS 117 (16), 8813–8819.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920975117.
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.
Shi, H., Frias, J., Sayed, A.E.-D.H., De-la-Torre, G.E., Jong, M.-C., Uddin, S.A.,
Rajaram, R., Chavanich, S., Najii, A., Fernández-Severini, M.D., Ibrahim, Y.S., Su, L.,
2023. Small plastic fragments: a bridge between large plastic debris and micro- &
nano-plastics. Trends Anal. Chem. 168, 117308 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trac.2023.117308.
Shim, W.J., Hong, S.H., Eo, S., 2018. Marine microplastics: abundance, distribution, and
composition. In: Zeng, E.Y. (Ed.), Microplastic Contamination in Aquatic
Environments: An Emerging Matter of Environmental Urgency. Elsevier, pp. 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813747-5.00001-1.
Shim, W.J., Kim, S.-K., Lee, J., Eo, S., Kim, J.-S., Sun, C., 2022. Toward a long-term
monitoring program for seawater plastic pollution in the north Pacific Ocean: review
and global comparison. Environ. Pollut. 311, 119911 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2022.119911.
Sigloch, K., Mihalynuk, M.G., 2013. Intra-oceanic subduction shaped the assembly of
Cordilleran North America. Nature 496, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature12019.
So, M.W.K., Vorsatz, L.D., Cannicci, S., Not, C., 2022. Fate of plastic in the environment:
from macro to nano by macrofauna. Environ. Pollut. 300, 118920 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118920.
Soto, E.H., Botero, C.M., Milanés, C.B., Rodríguez-Santiago, A., Palacios-Moreno, M.,
Díaz-Ferguson, E., Velázquez, Y.R., Abbehusen, A., Guerra-Castro, E., Simoes, N.,
Muciño-Reyes, M., Souza Filho, J.R., 2021. How does the beach ecosystem change
21
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
without tourists during COVID-19 lockdown? Biol. Conserv. 255, 108972 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108972.
Suaria, G., Achtypi, A., Perold, V., Lee, J.R., Pierucci, A., Bornman, T.G., Aliani, S.,
Ryan, P.G., 2020. Microfibers in oceanic surface waters: a global characterization.
Sci. Adv. 6, eaay8493 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay8493.
Sydeman, W.J., Thompson, S.A., Field, J.C., Peterson, W.T., Tanasichuk, R.W.,
Freeland, H.J., Bograd, S.J., Rykaczewski, R.R., 2011. Does positioning of the North
Pacific Current affect downstream ecosystem productivity? Geophys. Res. Lett. 38
(12), L12606 https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047212.
Talbot, R., Cárdenas-Calle, M., Mair, J.M., López, F., Cárdenas, G., Pernía, B., Hartl, M.G.
J., Uyaguari, M., 2022. Macroplastics and microplastics in intertidal sediment of
Vinces and Los Tintos Rivers, Guayas Province, Ecuador. Microplastics 1 (4),
651–668. https://doi.org/10.3390/microplastics1040045.
Tambutti, M., Gómez, J.J., 2022. Panorama de los océanos, los mares y los recursos
marinos en América Latina y el Caribe: conservación, desarrollo sostenible y
mitigación del cambio climático. In: Documentos de Proyectos (LC/TS.2020/167/
Rev.1), Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Santiago.
https://repositorio.cepal.org/items/c0c19f82-63ea-488d-a81b-7781dfe609f1.
ter Halle, A., Ladirat, L., Gendre, X., Goudounèche, D., Pusineri, C., Routaboul, C.,
Tenailleau, C., Duployer, B., Perez, E., 2016. Understanding the fragmentation
pattern of marine plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (11), 5668–5675. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00594.
Thiel, M., Macaya, E.C., Acuña, E., Arntz, W.E., Bastias, H., Brokordt, K., Camus, P.A.,
Castilla, J.C., Castro, L.B., Cortés, M., Dumont, C.P., Escribano, R., Fernandez, M.,
Gajardo, J.A., Gaymer, C.F., Gomez, I., González, A.E., González, H.E., Haye, P.A.,
Illanes, J.E., Iriarte, J.L., Lancellotti, D.A., Luna-Jorquera, G., Luxoro, C.,
Manriquez, P.H., Marín, V., Muñoz, P., Navarrete, S.A., Perez, E., Poulin, E.,
Sellanes, J., Sepúlveda, H.H., Stotz, W., Tala, F., Thomas, A., Vargas, C.A.,
Vásquez, J.A., Vega, J.M.A., 2007. The Humboldt Current System of Northern and
Central Chile: oceanographic processes, ecological interactions and socioeconomic
feedback. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 45, 195–344. https://doi.org/10.1201/
9781420050943.ch6.
Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., Vásquez, N.,
2013. Anthropogenic marine debris in the coastal environment: a multi-year
comparison between coastal waters and local shores. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71 (1–2),
307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.005.
Thiel, M., De Veer, D., Espinoza-Fuenzalida, N.L., Espinoza, C., Gallardo, C., Hinojosa, I.
A., Kiessling, T., Rojas, J., Sánchez, A., Sotomayor, F., Vásquez, N., Villablanca, R.,
2021. COVID lessons from the global south – face masks invading tourist beaches
and recommendations for the outdoor seasons. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147486
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147486.
Treilles, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Tramoy, R., Breton, J., Rabier, A., Tassin, B., 2021.
Abundance, composition and fluxes of plastic debris and other macrolitter in urban
runoff in a suburban catchment of Greater Paris. Water Res. 192, 116847 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.116847.
Uhrin, A.V., Lippiatt, S., Herring, C.E., Dettloff, K., Bimrose, K., Butler-Minor, C., 2020.
Temporal trends and potential drivers of stranded marine debris on beaches within
two US National Marine Sanctuaries using citizen science data. Front. Environ. Sci.
8, 604927 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.604927.
Uhrin, A.V., Hong, S., Burgess, H.K., Lim, S., Dettloff, K., 2022. Towards a North Pacific
long-term monitoring program for ocean plastic pollution: a systematic review and
recommendations for shorelines. Environ. Pollut. 310, 119862 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119862.
UNEP, 2022. UNEA resolution 5/14 entitled “End plastic pollution: towards an
international legally binding instrument”. Online. https://wedocs.unep.org/bits
tream/handle/20.500.11822/39812/OEWG_PP_1_INF_1_UNEA%20resolution.pdf.
(Accessed December 2023).
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, 2021. Protected planet: the world database on protected areas
(WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures
(WD-OECM). Online. https://www.protectedplanet.net/region/SA. (Accessed July
2021).
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), 2023. Tourism statistics
database: tourism direct GDP as a proportion of total GDP (indicator 8.9.1). Online.
https://www.unwto.org/tourism-statistics/economic-contribution-SDG. (Accessed
20 July 2023).
van Gennip, S.J., Dewitte, B., Garçon, V., Thiel, M., Popova, E., Drillet, Y., Ramos, M.,
Yannicelli, B., Bravo, L., Ory, N., Luna-Jorquera, G., Gaymer, C.F., 2019. In search
for the sources of plastic marine litter that contaminates the Easter Island ecoregion.
Sci. Rep. 9, 19662 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56012-x.
van Sebille, E., Delandmeter, P., Schofield, J., Hardesty, B.D., Jones, J., Donnelly, A.,
2019. Basin-scale sources and pathways of microplastic that ends up in the
Galápagos Archipelago. Ocean Sci. 15 (5), 1341–1349. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-
15-1341-2019.
van Sebille, E., Aliani, S., Law, K.L., Maximenko, N., Alsina, J.M., Bagaev, A.,
Bergmann, M., Chapron, B., Chubarenko, I., Cózar, A., Delandmeter, P., Egger, M.,
Fox-Kemper, B., Garaba, S.P., Goddijn-Murphy, L., Hardesty, B.D., Hoffman, M.J.,
Isobe, A., Jongedijk, C.E., Kaandorp, M.L.A., Khatmullina, L., Koelmans, A.A.,
Kukulka, T., Laufkötter, C., Lebreton, L., Lobelle, D., Maes, C., Martinez-Vicente, V.,
Morales Maqueda, M.A., Poulain-Zarcos, M., Rodríguez, E., Ryan, P.G., Shanks, A.L.,
Shim, W.J., Suaria, G., Thiel, M., van den Bremer, T.S., Wichmann, D., 2020. The
physical oceanography of the transport of floating marine debris. Environ. Res. Lett.
15 (2), 023003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7d.
Watkins, L., McGrattan, S., Sullivan, P.J., Walter, M.T., 2019. The effect of dams on river
transport of microplastic pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 664, 834–840. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.028.
D. Honorato-Zimmer et al.
Weideman, E.A., Perold, V., Omardien, A., Smyth, L.K., Ryan, P.G., 2020. Quantifying
temporal trends in anthropogenic litter in a rocky intertidal habitat. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 160, 111543 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111543.
Whitfield, A., Elliott, M., 2011. Ecosystem and biotic classifications of estuaries and
coasts. In: Wolanski, E., McLusky, D. (Eds.), Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal
Science. Academic Press, pp. 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-
2.00108-X.
Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B.D., Law, K.L., 2019. Abundance of floating plastic particles is
increasing in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (2),
790–796. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04812.
Wilkinson, T., Wiken, E., Bezaury-Creel, J., Hourigan, T., Agardy, T., Herrmann, H.,
Janishevski, L., Madden, C., Morgan, L., Padilla, M., 2009. Marine Ecoregions of
North America. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada, 200
pp. http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/3256-marine-ecoregions-n
orth-america-en.pdf.
Williams, A.T., Rangel-Buitrago, N.G., Anfuso, G., Cervantes, O., Botero, C.M., 2016.
Litter impacts on scenery and tourism on the Colombian north Caribbean coast.
Tour. Manag. 55, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.008.
Willis, K., Hardesty, B.D., Kriwoken, L., Wilcox, C., 2017. Differentiating littering, urban
runoff and marine transport as sources of marine debris in coastal and estuarine
environments. Sci. Rep. 7, 44479 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44479.
World Bank, 2023. International tourism, number of arrivals (World Tourism
Organization, Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, Compendium of Tourism Statistics and
22
Marine Pollution Bulletin 203 (2024) 116440
data files). Online. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL. (Accessed
13 July 2023).
Wurmann, C.G., Madrid, R.M., Brugger, A.M., 2004. Shrimp farming in Latin America:
current status, opportunities, challenges and strategies for sustainable development.
Aquac. Econ. Manag. 8 (3–4), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13657300409380358.
Zablotski, Y., Kraak, S.B.M., 2019. Marine litter on the Baltic seafloor collected by the
international fish-trawl survey. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 448–461. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.014.
Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A., Silva-Zambrano, C.A., Ruano, M.A., 2018. The economic
value of natural protected areas in Ecuador: a case of Villamil Beach National
Recreation Area. Ocean Coast. Manag. 157, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2018.02.020.
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., Tockner, K., 2015. A global boom in
hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00027-014-0377-0.
Zhang, K., Gong, W., Lv, J., Xiong, X., Wu, C., 2015. Accumulation of floating
microplastics behind the three gorges dam. Environ. Pollut. 204, 117–123. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.04.023.
Zheng, Y., Li, J., Sun, C., Cao, W., Wang, M., Jiang, F., Ju, P., 2021. Comparative study of
three sampling methods for microplastics analysis in seawater. Sci. Total Environ.
765, 144495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144495.