Plastic pollution on eight beaches of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain): An annual study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110847Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Marine debris along eight beaches of Tenerife (Canary Islands) was documented over an annual cycle.

  • Plastic pollution showed differences between beaches with highest amounts on Poris.

  • No seasonal pattern was found.

  • Every beach presented consistent accumulation zones.

  • Plastic debris of white and transparent color was dominating on most locations.

Abstract

Stranded marine debris from eight beaches of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain) was analyzed.

Sampling was conducted along the high tide line every 35 m over the whole lengths in periods of 5 weeks for one year. Evaluated particles included all materials bigger than 2 mm, which were subdivided in Mesoparticles (2–10 mm) and Macroparticles (>10 mm). There was a great variability of plastic abundance regarding the locations and the sampling dates. In contrast, the occurrence of debris along the beaches showed consistency and even zones of high and low accumulation. The most polluted beach was Poris, which is indeed infrequently visited, but highly affected by the main current.

Plastic particles were principally mesoparticles and white/transparent color. This study not only confirms, that the Canary Islands are highly affected by the marine plastic pollution, but also for the first time shows, that stranded plastic accumulates in restricted areas of sandy coastlines.

Introduction

Since the beginning of the use of plastic, the possibilities of its application grew constantly. Today these organic polymers are present all over and it became almost impossible to live a plastic-free life. The possibility of this wide range of use and cost-effective fabrication led to a worldwide production of 335 million tons of plastic in 2016, with an upwelling trend (PlasticsEurope, 2018). But what if the plastics after its use cannot be recycled properly and end up as waste in the environment?

Until 2015 humankind produced already 6300 million metric tons of plastic waste, of which approximately only 9% were recycled (Geyer et al., 2017). Around 60% of all ever produced plastics are accumulating in landfills or in the natural environment (Geyer et al., 2017). According to Barnes et al. (2009) the major release of plastics to the environment is the result of improper human behavior, e.g. littering. The litter can originate from domestic, agricultural and industrial activities (Koutsodendris et al., 2008). Randomly disposed waste in landscape can be easily wind-blown and thus reach any water body (Barnes et al., 2009). On the other hand, synthetic fibers of clothing discharged from washing machines as well as microbeads from personal care products can enter the aquatic environment via sewage treatment plants (Browne et al., 2011; Rochman et al., 2015a).

The most frequently definition of microplastics are particles >5 mm as it was recommended by NOAA in 2008. Nevertheless a common definition for the size of plastic debris is still missing, but control of plastic emission will depend on an international agreed definition (GESAMP, 2015; Hartmann et al., 2019⁠). Here we used the size classification for plastic debris based on the SI nomenclature as suggested by Hartmann et al. (2019).

Already since the early 70s it is known that plastic pollutes the oceans and is ingested by marine biota (Carpenter and Smith, 1972; Colton et al., 1974). At first mainly seen as an aesthetic problem and basically insignificant for research (Derraik, 2002), this subject gained relevance in recent years. Plastic is now considered the most common type of marine debris and represents a growing environmental problem (Barnes et al., 2009; Cole et al., 2011; Derraik, 2002; Moore, 2008; Thiel et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2009) and aquatic pollution is reported from all over the world. Low density particles form garbage patches on the oceans' surface in the world's gyres (Eriksen et al., 2014, Eriksen et al., 2013; Law et al., 2010; Lebreton et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2001).Plastics with a higher density or because of fouling processes are reaching the deep sea (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2013). Beaches of every continent have been reported to suffer plastic pollution of marine origin (Iñiguez et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016)⁠, even in the polar regions (Bergmann and Klages, 2012; Munari et al., 2017) or on remote islands (Barnes, 2005; Monteiro et al., 2018)⁠. This shows that plastic has the potential to drift far away from the original entry point.

The North Atlantic Gyre shows a high concentration of plastic waste (Eriksen et al., 2010; Law et al., 2010)⁠ and its main current passing over the Azores and Portugal stream into the Canary stream brings plastic waste to the Canarian Archipelago (Fig. 1). This not only leads to pollution of the islands, but eventually biota, which is hitch-hiking on the plastic particles, can pose a threat as invasive species (Gregory, 2009). Another entry source is the trade winds, which can bring waste from the nearby African continent to the Canary Islands.

The Canary Islands, because of their volcanic origin, their location and the topography have a sensitive ecosystem, which among other things also includes some endemic species and can therefore easily been disturbed.

For the Canary Islands, plastic pollution has been reported along the beaches of Fuerteventura, Lanzarote and La Graciosa (Baztan et al., 2014; Edo et al., 2019; Herrera et al., 2018). For Tenerife, the largest and most visited island in the archipelago and, therefore potentially more susceptible to pollution, studies are very scarce (Álvarez-Hernández et al., 2019; Villanova Solano et al., 2018). Both studies suggested a very low occurrence of plastic particles, except for Playa Grande (Poris). Sampling was conducted only one time per beach, in February 2018 and in October, November and December 2018, respectively. While Álvarez-Hernández et al. (2019) sampled approximately every 10 m along the high tide line of every beach, Villanova Solano et al. (2018)⁠ sampled only in one spot of each beach.

This study was conducted in 2016/2017 and thus represents the first investigation about marine debris stranded on beaches of Tenerife. For the first time the evolution of plastic accumulation on eight strandlines of the island along one year was assessed. The main objective of the present study is the determination of beach pollution along the coastline of Tenerife. Therefore, the temporal variability of debris accumulation during one year was studied. Furthermore the study aimed to analyze the spatial variability, not only between sampling sites, but also alongside each beach. This information not only is necessary to establish future monitoring protocols, but also to expand the data network in Europe, which in turn is crucial to help advise policymakers in their decisions (Rochman et al., 2016). Hence it is possible to invoke positive changes to mitigate environmental accumulation of plastic (Rochman et al., 2016).

Section snippets

Research area

A total of eight beaches of Tenerife were surveyed in intervals of five weeks between July 2016 and June 2017, two on the northern coastline and three on the southern and western coastline, respectively (Fig. 2). Strandlines hereafter were referred to as Almaciga, Arena, Cristianos, Gaviotas, Poris, Puertito, Socorro and Tejita. Beaches were chosen based on their accessibility, their orientation towards the main currents and their touristic pressure (Table 1).

Sampling

Based on the methods of previous

Total abundance

Overall, a total of 850 samples were obtained from eight locations throughout the months of July 2016 to July 2017. Depending on the length of every beach, most samples were taken on the strandlines of Tejita (280) and Cristianos (251), followed by Almaciga (63), Socorro (55), Gaviotas (46), Poris (44), Arena (40), and Puertito (30) (Fig. 2).

The total accumulation of plastic particles along the high tide line showed significant differences between locations (Kruskal-Wallis-Test, p-value <

Discussion

The plastic pollution values found were very wide ranged, not only between locations but also between the sampling dates on every beach. Values of plastic weight mainly supported values of the amount of particles found on every location. Nevertheless they showed more variability as it can be seen in the temporal variability of Arena and Gaviotas, as well as on position 3 and 6 of Almaciga (spatial variability). This might be due to the different types of existing plastic and their densities. No

Conclusion

Tenerife presents plastic pollution on every studied beach. The plastic concentration was variable during the year and different for every sampling site. Furthermore, the amount of plastic showed high variability between strandlines in general, but especially on Poris, Puertito and Almaciga high levels of contamination were found. Along the year each beach presented a consistent spatial pattern of accumulation.

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.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the IEO for the help to process the samples in this study. Also, we wish a special acknowledgement to all citizen participants who helped collect data, especially Gianfranco Villa, who spent many hours helping gathering samples. This work was funded by project MICROTROFIC (ULPGC2015-04) awarded to A. H. which was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship granted by Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC-2014).

Author contributions

S.R. designed the experimental work, conducted the sampling, processed the samples in the laboratory, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. A.H. performed statistical analyzes and graphics with R. C.H. contributed to design the experimental work. All authors contributed to the acquisition of the data and edited the article.

References (69)

  • T. Campani et al.

    Presence of plastic debris in loggerhead turtle stranded along the Tuscany coasts of the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals (Italy)

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2013)
  • M. Cole et al.

    Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2011)
  • P.L. Corcoran et al.

    Plastics and beaches: a degrading relationship

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2009)
  • J.G.. Derraik

    The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2002)
  • C. Edo et al.

    Occurrence and identification of microplastics along a beach in the Biosphere Reserve of Lanzarote

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2019)
  • M. Eriksen et al.

    Plastic pollution in the South Pacific subtropical gyre

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2013)
  • A. Herrera et al.

    Microplastic and tar pollution on three Canary Islands beaches: an annual study

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2018)
  • A. Herrera et al.

    Microplastic ingestion by Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber colias) in the Canary Islands coast

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2019)
  • L. Hoarau et al.

    Ingestion and defecation of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from by-catches in the South-West Indian Ocean

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2014)
  • M.E. Iñiguez et al.

    Marine debris occurrence and treatment: a review

    Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.

    (2016)
  • J.A. Ivar do Sul et al.

    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.

    (2007)
  • J.A. Ivar do Sul et al.

    Here, there and everywhere. Small plastic fragments and pellets on beaches of Fernando de Noronha (Equatorial Western Atlantic)

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2009)
  • A. Koutsodendris et al.

    Benthic marine litter in four Gulfs in Greece, Eastern Mediterranean; abundance, composition and source identification

    Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.

    (2008)
  • H. Lee et al.

    Sorption capacity of plastic debris for hydrophobic organic chemicals

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2014)
  • W.C. Li et al.

    Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of sources, occurrence and effects

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2016)
  • A.L. Lusher et al.

    Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2013)
  • R. Mascarenhas et al.

    Plastic debris ingestion by sea turtle in Paraı́ba, Brazil

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2004)
  • R.C.P. Monteiro et al.

    Plastic pollution in islands of the Atlantic Ocean

    Environ. Pollut.

    (2018)
  • C.J. Moore

    Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat

    Environ. Res.

    (2008)
  • C. Moore et al.

    A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2001)
  • C. Munari et al.

    Microplastics in the sediments of Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica)

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2017)
  • Y. Ogata et al.

    International Pellet Watch: global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in coastal waters. 1. Initial phase data on PCBs, DDTs, and HCHs

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2009)
  • F.E. Possatto et al.

    Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries impact

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2011)
  • A. Rodríguez et al.

    High prevalence of parental delivery of plastic debris in Cory’s shearwaters (Calonectris diomedea)

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2012)
  • Cited by (54)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text