Origin and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the
Transkript
Origin and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the
Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Marine Environmental Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marenvrev Origin and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea Coast Eda N. Topçu*, Arda M. Tonay, Ayhan Dede, Ayaka A. Öztürk, Bayram Öztürk Istanbul University Fisheries Faculty, Ordu Cad. No 200, 34130 Laleli-Istanbul, Turkey Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), P.O. Box 10, Beykoz-Istanbul, Turkey a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 26 June 2012 Received in revised form 17 December 2012 Accepted 19 December 2012 Beach debris abundance was estimated from surveys on 10 beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea Coast. Debris was collected from 20 m long transects during four different seasons; sorted and categorized by type, usage and origin. Litter density varied from 0.085 to 5.058 items m2. Debris was mainly composed of unidentifiable small size (2e7 cm) plastic pieces and beverage-related litter such as bottles and bottle caps. About half of the labeled litter was of foreign origin, including 25 different countries, 23% of which are in the Black Sea region. The south-western Black Sea Coast seems to receive foreign litter from two main sources: land-based debris from the neighboring countries and seaborne debris due to international shipping. Standardized methodology and indicators need to be designated all over the Black Sea basin in order to quantify and qualify coastal litter pollution, monitor compliance with MARPOL and develop regionally effective mitigation measures. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Marine debris Litter Ocean dumping Pollution monitoring Beaches Black Sea 1. Introduction Accumulation of marine litter in the ocean is a growing problem worldwide. Particularly plastic, the most utilized and persistent material, arises as the primary contaminant in the marine environment (Ryan et al., 2009; Derraik, 2002). Since the beginning of its widespread usage in 1950’s, plastic has turned into a widespread environmental pollution problem (Barnes et al., 2009; Gregory, 1977; Carpenter et al., 1972). Regional and international legislations, such as Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) prohibiting the dumping of all ship-generated plastic waste and regulating the dumping of other garbage into the oceans, started to focus on solid waste material. A regional legislation example, the Protocol to the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources, was signed in 1976. The United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched activities and issued various publications since the 1990’s. Although many measures have been constituted, solid waste materials continue to be discharged in marine environments. Quantities in the oceans became so high that the mass of plastic was approximately 6 times that of the surface plankton in the North Pacific Gyre * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 212 455570/16417; fax: þ90 212 5140379. E-mail address: edatopcu@istanbul.edu.tr (E.N. Topçu). 0141-1136/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.12.006 (Moore et al., 2001). Also, bottom trawls hauled litter from Mediterranean seafloors in very high amounts (Galgani et al., 2000). Despite being an enclosed sea surrounded by industrialized countries, an important maritime route, an intensive fishery area and tourism attraction, the Black Sea has not received sufficient attention regarding coastal litter pollution. It is an almost totally enclosed sea whose unique connection with the Mediterranean Sea is the narrow passage of the Turkish Straits System. A large number of rivers discharge into the Black Sea, including the second, third and fourth longest rivers of Europe. In addition to all these factors, the Black Sea has a very dynamic current system allowing crossborder transportation of waste materials (Topçu and Öztürk, 2010), which in turn makes this enclosed sea very vulnerable to marine litter. The Black Sea is subject to a number of international, regional and national legal instruments, which, to some extent, regulate measures against marine litter pollution. Among them, the Bucharest Convention is the most effective regarding land-based marine litter, whereas MARPOL 73/78 is the basic regulation instrument for shipping-related litter. The Black Sea is defined as a “Special Area” under Regulation 5 of Annex V (MARPOL) according to which any discharges of garbage into the sea are prohibited. However, all neighboring countries are required to have adequate port facilities in their ports and harbors. The garbage discharge requirements will not take effect until this prerequisite is fulfilled. Consequently, the Black Sea has not yet been treated as a Special Area. Debris accumulations have been observed along 22 E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 some sandy beaches of the Turkish western Black Sea Coast during surveys on stranded cetaceans (Tonay pers. comm.). A complete report on marine litter in the Black Sea region was recently published (BSC, 2007), highlighting the problems in legal, institutional and scientific aspects, but coastal litter in the Black Sea region has not yet been quantified. As pointed out in the report, scientific data on litter for the Black Sea are still scarce. In fact the determination of litter quantities and sources helps to develop and suggest appropriate strategies for the management of the problem (Santos et al., 2005; Claereboudt, 2004). Important shipping lanes of big tankers and cargo ships pass close to the Turkish part of the western Black Sea Coast. The shores receive currents from the Northern Black Sea together with the waters coming through the Danube. Some beaches along this coastline also serve as recreational areas for locals and tourists. As a consequence of all these activities, marine litter pollution needs to be studied in order to find effective solutions. As part of a larger project of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution supported by UNEP, this study aims to assess coastal litter pollution along the sandy beaches of the Turkish western Black Sea Coast, in order to quantify the problem, estimate the sources and thus help the development of appropriate mitigating strategies based on information presented here about litter quantity and sources. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area The study was carried out on sandy beaches of the western Black Sea Coast (Fig. 1), located in a local small-scale (coastal) and industrial fishing area (offshore). The stations on the western side (c1ec6) are close to/within small villages with low population numbers (500e2600) whereas stations on the eastern side (c7e c10) are all within villages with higher population numbers and are subject to intense recreational activities, mainly during the va (c10), summer populations summer period. In Şile (c9) and Ag increase considerably to 10,000e100,000 with the arrival of tourists. Particularities of the ten sampling stations randomly chosen along sandy beaches are presented in Table 1. uz et al., 2004) and main shipping routes (thick lines) in the Black Sea (adapted Fig. 1. Location of the Black Sea (A). Major currents of the upper layer circulation (adapted from Og from UNEP, 2006); the meandering Rim current system encircling the basin and the sub-basin scale gyres are cyclonic whereas the eddies on the coastal side are anticyclonic (B). Location of the stations along the study area (Google Earth (03.08.12)) (C); the area marked as “AA” shows the Anchorage Area for cargo and passenger ships. E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 23 Table 1 Various characteristics of ten stations randomly chosen along sandy beaches. Stations Nearest town Recreational Small scale fisheries Other remarks c1-Yalıköy c2-Şişecam c3-Evcik c4-Ormanlı c5-Kısırkaya c6-Kilyos c7-Sahilköy c8-Alacalıköy c9-Şile va c10-Ag Within town 2.6 km 5 km 3.5 km Within town Within town Close to summer houses Close to summer houses Within town Within town In summer Not In summer In summer In summer In summer In summer In summer All year long All year long þ e þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ e Silica production and refining factory at 100 m east. e The town dumping ground is 250 m away Anchorage area for cargo ships and tankers at 4 km from the beach Anchorage area for cargo ships and tankers at 4 km from the beach A small river at 500 m west Small rivers at 200 m west and 1000 m east A small river at 1500 m west Small rivers at 400 m and 800 m east 2.2. Sampling method and analysis The stations were surveyed for marine litter in April, June, October 2008 and in January 2009. Each survey consisted of 20 m long transects (Araújo et al., 2006) divided into different numbers of 2 m wide stripes parallel to the waterline (Fig. 2). The width of the beach from the waterline to the backshore varied from 11.2 to 40 m. The entire width of the beach was sampled, dividing it in as many stripes as necessary, i.e. the beach that was 40 m wide had a total of 20 sampling stripes. Within each sampling stripe all debris items >2 cm were collected, categorized and counted. Waste materials were taken to the nearest disposal site after photos of litter items/transect were taken in each station. Density of items (number of items m2) was calculated as ‘the total number of items on transect’/(width of the transect[m]*20 [m]). Some studies express the litter density as the number of items per 1 m or 100 m of beach front without taking into consideration the width of the beach. In order to facilitate the comparison with other studies, density (number of items. m1 of beach front) was also calculated as ‘the total number of items on transect’/20[m]. The items were sorted in categories according to the type of material (soft and hard plastics, glass, paper, metal, wooden, Styrofoam, polyurethane foam, composite, synthetic fibers, rubber, vinyl, cigarette ends, artificial sponge, ceramic, cork, fabric and other) and possible usage (beverage related, food packaging, general packaging, recreational, fisheries related, ropes, domestic/ household related, construction materials, medical utensils, foams/ sponges, smoking related, clothing, aerosols and pumps for foams, miscellaneous and unidentified). Whenever a legible label was observed, the information was recorded in order to categorize the item as foreign or local and each label was photographed. If a barcode number was still present on the label, it was used to determine the country of origin. To determine whether densities of debris differed significantly in different seasons and stations, we conducted one-way ANOVA tests. Prior to the statistical analyses, log transformation was applied to stabilize the variances. When differences were detected, post-hoc Tukey’s tests were applied. A nonparametric Kruskale Wallis analysis was used to test whether debris sizes were different at different sites as well as at different seasons. A Chisquare test was used to compare the amounts of foreign and local debris among stations. 3. Results 3.1. Quantitative results Fig. 2. Schematic overview of beach survey design. Marine debris was encountered at all stations during every sampling period (Table 2). A total of 18,597 items were collected from 19,607 m2 of sandy beach surveyed in four different seasons. Litter density varied from 0.085 to 5.058 items m2. The most abundant type of debris was hard plastic followed by soft plastics. The numbers of small debris items (<10 cm) were significantly higher than those of the larger ones in all stations (p < 0.05). Approximately 75% of all debris items were smaller than 10 cm, most of them being 2e7 cm in size. They consisted mainly of unidentifiable small plastic items followed by foam/sponge particles and plastic bottle caps. The largest items were nylon packaging (2e3 m), a 15 m long fishing net and a 110 72 cm refrigerator door. The litter found on the beaches comprised mainly artificial materials (62.7% hard plastic, 15.8% soft plastic, 4.4% synthetic fibers, 4.3% Styrofoam, 3.9% polyurethane), whereas materials such as glass, paper and wood had very small shares (Fig. 3A). Unidentifiable items (meaning highly eroded debris items, making it impossible to recognize original shape or usage) made up 52% of all litter (Fig. 3B). Identifiable litter consisted of beverage packaging (19%) followed by foam/sponge particles (9%), ropes (5%) and nylon packagings (4%) (bags, food wrappings, etc.). Recreational and fisheries related items comprised only 2% and 0.5% of the litter, respectively. 24 E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 Table 2 Litter densities and percentages of foreign and local items for stations during four seasons. Items m2 Western c1-Yalıköy c2-Şişecam c3-Evcik c4-Ormanlı c5-Kısırkaya c6-Kilyos Eastern c7-Sahilköy c8-Alacalıköy c9-Şile va c10-Ag Mean/season Overall mean Items m1 Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter 0.183 0.278 0.193 0.329 0.976 0.234 0.496 0.338 0.615 0.968 0.457 0.353 0.714 1.164 n/a 5.058 1.389 0.845 0.756 0.433 0.085 1.434 2.500 0.472 5.15 6.80 5.45 13.15 24.40 4.00 13.90 7.95 12.65 36.80 12.10 8.35 15.70 12.80 n/a 197.25 36.80 19.65 21.10 6.80 1.70 45.30 37.50 7.70 0.409 0.709 0.612 0.205 0.41 ± 0.27 0.884 ± 0.948 1.024 0.796 n/a 0.617 0.63 ± 0.25 3.136 0.480 0.353 0.991 1.57 ± 1.54 2.026 0.358 0.329 1.283 0.97 ± 0.81 17.25 18.80 17.45 4.00 11.65 ± 7.47 27.47 ± 33.66 43.50 18.30 n/a 14.20 18.64 ± 12.69 % of foreign labeled items Western c1-Yalıköy c2-Şişecam c3-Evcik c4-Ormanlı c5-Kısırkaya c6-Kilyos Eastern c7-Sahilköy c8-Alacalıköy c9-Şile va c10-Ag Mean/season 83.10 14.65 4.70 21.80 45.16 ± 61.56 65.00 12.15 6.05 36.05 23.94 ± 21.06 % of local items Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter 4.85 3.68 0.92 2.66 0.61 7.50 1.80 2.52 1.58 2.58 2.89 3.59 2.23 1.95 n/a 1.01 2.31 2.80 0.00 2.94 23.53 0.88 1.73 4.55 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.41 15.00 2.88 1.26 1.58 0.27 0.41 0.00 1.27 1.56 n/a 1.55 1.77 3.05 2.84 0.00 8.82 0.66 1.33 5.19 1.45 1.06 0.57 1.25 2.46 ± 2.27 0.34 1.64 n/a 1.41 2.04 ± 0.96 1.02 3.75 2.13 2.98 2.24 ± 0.88 2.41 0.55 n/a 1.41 1.20 ± 0.99 0.96 3.75 7.45 5.28 2.96 ± 2.19 1.77 4.94 0.83 4.58 3.10 ± 2.76 1.15 2.47 0.00 3.61 4.09 ± 6.99 Debris densities varied significantly between seasons (Fig. 4) (one-way ANOVA p < 0.05; F(3,34) ¼ 3.081, p ¼ 0.040) whereas stations were not significantly different from each other in any season (one-way ANOVA p < 0.05; F(9,38) ¼ 1.599, p ¼ 0.164). Autumn densities were significantly different from those of spring and summer (Tukey test, p < 0.05) whereas litter densities in the other seasons did not differ significantly. 44% of all debris items were collected in autumn in spite of the lack of one station (c3) due to flooding on the beach. Ormanlı-c4 showed the highest litter density in autumn with 5.058 items m2. Winter was the other season with high debris densities. The lowest litter densities were 0.58 1.33 1.43 1.25 2.01 ± 4.60 observed in spring. A higher number of large sized debris was observed in spring for many sites compared to those in other seasons. Debris densities increased slightly in summer compared to those in spring except for Kısırkaya-c5. A general trend was that stations on the eastern side of the study area seemed to receive more local than foreign litter (Fig. 5). Sites on the western side, on the other hand, received more foreign litter. Four of them (Yalıköy, Şişecam, Evcik, Kilyos) are rather clean sites with low debris densities but high foreign litter proportions (Table 2). Amongst them, Evcik had the lowest debris density of all stations in winter but 23% of all debris was foreign labeled. The Fig. 3. Percentage composition of debris items sorted in different types (A) and usage categories (B). E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 25 Table 3 Contributions of countries of origin to foreign litter. The proportion of items that were foreign but not attributed to a country due to absent/damaged barcode number was 64.8%. The other countries with minor contributions (<1%) are Israel, Poland, Lebanon, United Kingdom, France, Mauritius, Moldova, India, South Africa, Belgium, Holland, Japan, Algeria, Singapore and Chile. Fig. 4. Mean litter densities (standard deviations) during four seasons. Stations were considered as replicates (10/season) since they were not statistically different from each other. station was washed by a storm shortly before the sampling and only 34 items were present with half being small unidentifiable hard plastics and most of the rest, large foreign litter. The proportion of labeled foreign items varied greatly amongst stations in other seasons whereas in autumn it was quite consistent 2.2% (0.88). All stations received foreign and local litter. Only 662 items had admissible information to identify as local or foreign (Fig. 5). In sum, 53% were of local whereas 47% were of foreign origin. The amounts of foreign and local litter were not significantly different among stations (Chi-square ¼ 13.675, df ¼ 9, p ¼ 0.134). Overseas litter items originated in at least 25 different countries according to their labels (Table 3). Among them, 23% originated from the Black Sea neighboring countries, followed by China (3.9%) and Germany (3.2%). This debris consisted mainly of beverage related items (58.7%), food packagings (19.6%), and detergent containers (4.5%). Local items consisted mainly of food packagings (42.3%), beverage related items (40.6%), and detergent containers (2.8%). 3.2. Qualitative observations Many high accumulation areas outside of the randomly chosen stations were spotted in the study area. These areas are generally small depressions of the formations that limit the high end of the beach (like rocky ridges) and prevented debris being dispersed by winds. General observation could tell that most of the accumulated litter was composed of plastic bottles agglomerated over time with very high densities. Besides, the amount of foreign labeled items was very high in these debris accumulations. These sites should be preferred for coastal clean-up campaigns. Furthermore, several empty barrels of Dichlorotoluene were found during the coastal surveys, outside of the stations. This chemical is used as air cooler cleaner in the marine vessels’ diesel engines. The substance and its container must be disposed of as hazardous waste, because of toxicity for aquatic organisms and Country Contributions of countries of origin to foreign litter (%) Russia Ukraine China Romania Germany Bulgaria Italy Syria Georgia Egypt 4.8 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.0 potential long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. We also observed ship-originated tar in the study area at eight stations and at least twice for six of them during our samplings. Tar presence was recorded at all four samplings on c4-Kısırkaya station. This is probably due to the proximity of c4 to the anchorage area for cargo ships and tankers. 4. Discussion 4.1. Litter composition Plastic was the dominant debris in our study as had already been reported from the SW Black Sea seabed (Topçu and Öztürk, 2010) and in many other studies (e.g. Ryan et al., 2009; Derraik, 2002), probably driven by input, persistence and high floatability. Most of these plastics result from breakdown of large plastic containers, eroded by natural events that seem to be stronger on beach environments (Corcoran et al., 2009). Unidentifiable small plastics that form the bulk of litter items in our study (Fig. 3B) were mesoplastics that later disintegrate in microplastics. Highly abundant on coastlines, meso- and micro-plastics whose composition and relatively large surface area make them prone to adhering waterborne organic pollutants are considered bioavailable to organisms throughout the food web, causing significant concern (Andrady, 2011; Cole et al., 2011). Recreational and fisheries-related items made up only a small share of the litter. However, we only considered net buoys, nets, lures, hooks and lines as fisheries related items and placed ropes in a different category. Fishery is not a unique source for ropes, but an important contributor as we observed the highest rope quantities during the main fishing season (43% in autumn; 25% in winter; 19% Fig. 5. Percentages of labeled items in Eastern and Western sites during four seasons. Proportions of local and foreign labeled items in each side are presented in different colors. 26 E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 in spring; 13% in summer). Even with ropes included (5.1% of the litter), fisheries related debris would not make the bulk of the litter on SW Black Sea Coast compared to other areas (Claereboudt, 2004; Edyvane et al., 2004; Otley and Ingham, 2003), and seem to be similar to values worldwide (the share of Ocean/Waterway activities in marine beach litter is 8% globally and 24.9% for Europe; Anonymous, 2010) although fishing efforts are very intense in the study area. We also recorded other probable maritime debris such as oil containers, crates, life-vest fragments and emergency water containers but in very low quantities. The composition of litter in this study is very different compared to other locations in the Mediterranean (Martinez-Ribes et al., 2007). In the Mediterranean including southern Turkey (Balas et al., 2003; Tudor et al., 2002), the most abundant debris items are related to beach use with “cigarette butts” as the dominant group. In this study, although land-based debris was also prevalent, it was composed of bottles and lids that either came from overseas or local areas together with a dominance of small unidentifiable plastic debris and foam particles. 4.2. Litter dynamics Significantly higher litter densities in autumn are probably related to climatic events that occurred before and during samplings, such as heavy rains, high waves and dominance of strong northern winds that drive surface currents to the SW coast of the Black Sea. High debris in autumn could also be related to intensive fishing activities during this season because fishermen tend to throw back debris items caught in their nets. In this way, debris that had been lying on the sea floor might be refloated and drifted to shores. It is very difficult to compare litter concentrations of various coastal areas (with different population densities, hydrographic and geological conditions) obtained from various studies with different methodologies (especially when the sizes of debris items that are taken into account are different). Nevertheless, compared to some recent studies on debris (Table 4), the debris densities on the Turkish western Black Sea Coast seem to be as high as in some of the very touristic areas in the Mediterranean (Martinez-Ribes et al., 2007) or higher than in populated areas in Brazil (Wetzel et al., 2004; Araújo and Costa, 2003), although the Turkish western Black Sea Coast is not that touristic or populated. The Turkish western Black Sea Coast also seems much more polluted by marine litter compared to the touristic beaches in southern Turkey (Balas et al., 2003). 4.3. Origin of debris items In this study, items were sorted simply according to their possible usage. According to UNEP guidelines (Cheshire et al., 2009), indicator items can be used to relate litter to user-groups such as fishers, beach-goers, etc. with the purpose of developing practical management tools to target the behaviors of groups that are littering. This is relatively easy when it comes to link nets or buoys to fisheries or cotton buds in large numbers to sewage source. However, certain beach locations possess a mix of litter with several potential sources that any specific attribution may be extremely difficult; besides, some items from the same functional group such as beverage related debris can have different sources (Williams et al., 2003). In this study, numerous cans and glass bottles originated probably from shipping (e.g. a beer can almost entirely covered by barnacles was marked “the famous beer of Mauritius” and barcoded to Mauritius). The same way, several toothpastes and detergent containers e domestic discard related to land-based sources in many studies e unavailable on the Turkish market and barcoded to foreign countries, were most probably transported by sea to Turkish beaches. Trying to establish a source for beach litter is not easy and requires considering at least three major factors e identity, function and quantity e in order to make informed assumptions (Williams et al., 2003). Yet, the usage category of 52% of the litter in this study was unidentified and most of the rest consisted of beverage related debris which can have different sources. Namely, litter sourcing for the Turkish Black Sea Coast seems to be an imprecise task with these results. In the Black Sea region of Turkey, most of the municipal and industrial solid wastes, mixed with hospital and hazardous wastes, are dumped on the nearest lowlands and river valleys or into the sea (Berkun et al., 2005). Although the sites we studied are not much populated, many items without any label or marking could also originate from nearby settlements, especially from more va. If considering solely items with populated sites as Şile and Ag legible labels, the contributions of local and foreign sources to beach litter are equal. High numbers of foreign litter from neighboring countries and the diversity of countries identified from barcodes led us to suggest two main sources of foreign litter for the southwestern Black Sea coast: (i) debris from terrestrial sources in neighboring countries driven by river currents and (ii) maritime originated debris due to international shipping in the Black Sea. The eastern and western sides of the study area seemed to receive opposite proportions of foreign/local litter. The eastern side is a more recreational area than the western and study sites showed Table 4 Comparison of mean litter densities (sd) in this study and other areas. The interval of values are given in parentheses. Region Items m2 Items m1 Reference SW Black Sea coasts, Northern Turkey Antalya beaches, South Turkey Balearic Islands, Spain (Mediterranean) Costa do Dendê, Brazil Gulf of Aqaba Gulf of Aqaba SE Pacific, Chile Curaçao, West Indies-(pristine) Curaçao, West Indies-(public) Japan, Sea of Japan Russia, Sea of Japan Menorca Jabuka, Croatia Baja California, Mexico Tamandaré, PE Brazil Cassino, RS Brazil Cassino, Brazil Bootless Bay, Papua New Guinea 0.88 0.95 (0.085e5.057) e e e 3e5 2 (1e6) 1.8 0.01 0.365 3.4 (0.5e12.7) 0.21 e e e e e e 15.3 (1.2e78.3) 24 33.66 (1.70e197.25) (0.18e7.43) 36 (8e132) 9.1 e e e e e e e 8.8 6.4 (7.4e11) 10.4 (0.3e60.7) (5.3e10.7) e This study Balas et al., 2003 Martinez-Ribes et al., 2007 Santos et al., 2009 Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar, 2004 Al-Najjar and Al-Shiyab, 2011 Bravo et al., 2009 Nagelkerken et al., 2001 Nagelkerken et al., 2001 Kusui and Noda, 2003 Kusui and Noda, 2003 Barnes and Milner, 2005 Barnes, 2002 Silva-Iñiguez and Fischer, 2003 Araújo and Costa, 2003 Wetzel et al., 2004 Tourinho and Fillmann, 2011 Smith, 2012 E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 low litter densities in general with a dominance of local litter. This is due to easier accessibility and regular cleaning by municipalities of eastern sites. Sahilköy among them seems to be exempted of any cleaning activity since it showed the highest debris density of all sites in summer. Although it received high amounts of foreign litter in autumn and winter, local litter probably derived from recreational activities (such as cigarette butts and lollipop sticks) was much elevated in summer. This site is also influenced by a small river 500 m west by which items, such as medical utensils, lighters, food packagings, probably arrived. Şile among eastern sites was the second cleanest of the study area. Şile is very accessible from the city of Istanbul and highly recreational all year. This situation is actually beneficial due to the continuous cleaning and maintenance of the beach. The circulation pattern in the western Black Sea is a cyclonic gyre taking water masses from north to south, intersected with a small scale gyre in the southwestern area (Korotaev et al., 2003). These coasts have the highest wave height of all the Turkish Black Sea Coast (Özhan, 2003). The western sites receiving southward currents had a high number of foreign litter, in general higher than that of local ones among labeled litter. Four of them (Yalıköy, Şişecam, Evcik, Kilyos) were particularly clean with a dominance of foreign litter. These sites are highly washed by waves which probably results in return of debris to the sea or burial in sand, thus samplers find only freshly arrived foreign materials. Besides, many shipping accidents occur at the northern and southern entries of the Istanbul strait as happened in 2003 with 423 tons of oil discharged into the sea (Öztürk, 2005). Oil spills that result from shipping accidents in Istanbul Strait and the Marmara Sea might be transported to the Black Sea after sinking by deep Mediterranean currents. All these features indicate that pollution problems on Black Sea coasts, particularly those that result from shipping activities, require further and serious consideration. 5. Conclusion Sandy beaches of the Turkish SouthWestern Black Sea Coast are highly polluted by marine litter. Debris is mainly composed of unidentifiable plastics of small size and beverage related debris such as plastic bottles and lids. Fishing related debris seemed to have a small share in stranded marine litter. The solid waste pollution on the SW Black Sea Coast shows that the towns and villages require better litter management. Appropriate integrated solid waste management systems are needed as already established in the Istanbul area. If coastal cleanup campaigns are to be organized, we recommend acting in autumn since higher levels of debris accumulate due to climatic events and to select sites of high debris accumulation spotted at some points along the SW Coast. Although most of the litter collected in the study area was clearly of land-based origin, not all of it originated from the surrounding lands; about half of identifiable labeled litter was foreign. The southwestern Black Sea Coast seems to receive foreign litter from two main sources: terrestrial originated debris from neighboring countries driven by coastal currents and maritime originated debris from international shipping in the Black Sea. Our data show once more that coastal litter pollution is a transboundary problem not only in the oceans, but also for enclosed seas like the Black Sea. Thus Turkey cannot resolve litter pollution on its coasts by itself, even with appropriate solid waste management systems in all cities until all neighboring countries do the same as well. The Black Sea is defined as a “Special Area” under Regulation 5 of Annex V (MARPOL) according to which any discharges of garbage in the sea are prohibited. However, since the prerequisite of adequate port facilities in all neighboring countries 27 is not yet fulfilled, the Black Sea is not yet treated as a Special Area. Standardized methodology and indicators need to be designated throughout the Black Sea basin in order to quantify and qualify coastal litter pollution, monitor compliance with MARPOL and develop regionally effective mitigation measures. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (Project no: BSC-ML/2008) and Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) for financial support and several persons for help in collecting debris with hard weather conditions. In particular, we thank M. Eryalçın, P. Korkmazel, E. Tutuk, G. Güman, E. Dede, M. Topçu, B. Özsöz, T. Turan and Istanbul University Faculty of Fisheries volunteer students. Also, many thanks to all schools, fishing ports and cooperatives that accepted to expose awareness posters we prepared on marine litter pollution. Poster design from P. Korkmazel and technical support from Z. Dorak are exclusively acknowledged. References Abu-Hilal, A.H., Al-Najjar, T., 2004. Litter pollution on the Jordanian shores of the Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea). Marine Environmental Research 58, 39e63. Al-Najjar, T., Al-Shiyab, A., 2011. Marine litter at (Al-Ghandoor area) the most northern part of the Jordanian coast of the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Natural Science 3, 921e926. Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 1596e1605. Anonymous, 2010. International Coastal Clean-up Overview. The Ocean Concervancy. Araújo, M.C.B., Costa, M.F., 2003. Análise qualiquantitativa do lixo deixado na Baía de Tamandaré-PE-Brasil por excursionistas. Gerenciamento Costeiro Integrado 3 (1), 58e61. Araújo, M.C.B., Santos, P.J.P., Costa, M.F., 2006. Ideal width of transects for monitoring source-related categories of plastics on beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 957e961. Balas, C.E., Ergin, A., Williams, A.T., Kok, L., Demerci, D., 2003. Marine litter assessment for Antalya, Turkey, beaches. In: Ozhan, E. (Ed.), Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on the Med. Environment. MEDCOAST. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 1037e1046. Barnes, D.K.A., 2002. Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416, 808e 809. Barnes, D.K.A., Milner, P., 2005. Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 146, 815e825. Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 1985e1998. lu, S., 2005. Disposal of solid waste in Istanbul and Berkun, M., Egemen, A., Nemliog along the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Journal of Waste Management 25, 847e855. Bravo, M., de los Ángeles Gallardo, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Núñez, P., Vásquez, N., Thiel, M., 2009. Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): results from a national survey supported by volunteers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 1718e1726. BSC, 2007. Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: a Review of the Problem. Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey, 160 pp. Carpenter, E.J., Anderson, S.J., Harvey, G.R., Miklas, H.P., Peck, B.B., 1972. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178, 749e750. Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G., 2009. UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83, xii þ 120 pp.. Claereboudt, M.R., 2004. Shore litter along sandy beaches of the Gulf of Oman. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (9e10), 770e777. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 2588e2597. Corcoran, P.L., Biesinger, M.C., Grifi, M., 2009. Plastics and beaches: a degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 80e84. Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842e852. Edyvane, K.S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P.W., Higham, J.S., Wace, N.M., 2004. Long-term marine litter monitoring in the remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48, 1060e1075. 28 E.N. Topçu et al. / Marine Environmental Research 85 (2013) 21e28 Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H., Latrouite, D., Andral, B., Cadiou, Y., Mahe, J.C., Poulard, J.C., Nerisson, P., 2000. Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40 (6), 516e527. Gregory, M.R., 1977. Plastic pellets on New Zealand beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 8, 82e84. Korotaev, G., Oguz, T., Nikiforov, A., Koblinsky, C., 2003. Seasonal, interannual, and mesoscale variability of the Black Sea upper layer circulation derived from altimeter data. Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (C4), 3122. Kusui, T., Noda, M., 2003. International survey on the distribution of stranded and buried litter on beaches along the Sea of Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47, 175e179. Martinez-Ribes, L., Basterretxea, G., Palmer, M., Tintore, J., 2007. Origin and abundance of beach debris in the Balearic Islands. Scientia Marina 71 (2), 305e314. 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. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42 (12), 1297e1300. Nagelkerken, I., Wiltjer, G.A.M.T., Debrot, A.O., Pors, L.P.J.J., 2001. Baseline study of submerged marine debris at beaches in Curaçao, West Indies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42 (9), 786e789. uz, T., Tugrul, S., Kıdeys, A.E., Ediger, V., Kubilay, N., 2004. Physical and biogeoOg chemical characteristics of the Black Sea. In: Robinson, Allan R., Brink, Kenneth H. (Eds.), The Sea, vol. 14. President and Fellows of Harvard College, pp. 1331e1369. Otley, H., Ingham, R., 2003. Marine debris surveys at Volunteer Beach, Falkland Islands, during the summer of 2001/02. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 1534e1539. Özhan, E., 2003. Wind and wave climate of Turkish Coasts Project (NATO-WAVES), METU. In: Şenkal, B. (Ed.), Dalgaların Gücü, Yeryüzü Güncesi. National Geographic Türkiye, Haziran (in Turkish). Öztürk, B., 2005. Removal of petroleum pollution from the marine environment. In: Güven, K.C., Öztürk, B. (Eds.), Marine Pollution. TUDAV Publications No 21, Istanbul, pp. 147e160 (in Turkish). Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Moloney, C.L., 2009. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 1999e2012. Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Barretto, F.P., 2005. Overseas garbage pollution on beaches of northeast Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (7), 783e786. Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Ivar do Sul, J.A., 2009. Marine debris contamination along undeveloped tropical beaches from northeast Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 148, 455e462. Silva-Iñiguez, L., Fischer, D.W., 2003. Quantification and classification of marine litter on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 132e138. Smith, S.D.A., 2012. Marine debris: a proximate threat to marine sustainability in Bootless Bay, Papua New Guinea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 (9), 1880e 1883. Topçu, E.N., Öztürk, B., 2010. Abundance and composition of solid waste materials on the western part of the Turkish Black Sea seabed. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 13 (3), 301e306. Tourinho, P.,S., Fillmann, G., 2011. Temporal trend of litter contamination at Cassino beach, Southern Brazil. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 11 (1), 97e102. Tudor, D.T., Williams, A.T., Randerson, P., Ergin, A., Earll, R., 2002. The use of multivariate statistical techniques to establish beach debris pollution sources. Journal of Coastal Research 36, 716e725. UNEP, 2006. GIWA Black Sea Graphics. Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID, Arendal. http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/oil-transport-in-the-black-sea_d73e (03.08.12.). Wetzel, L., Fillmann, G., Niencheski, L.F.H., 2004. . Litter contamination on the Brazilian southern coast: processes and management perspectives. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 21 (2), 153e164. Williams, A.T., Tudor, D.T., Randerson, P., 2003. Beach litter sourcing in the Bristol Channel and Wales, U.K. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 143, 387e408.