MARINE LITTER

IN THE BLACK SEA

Editors
Ülgen Aytan
Maria Pogojeva
Anna Simeonova

Publication No: 56

Istanbul, 2020
 MARINE LITTER
IN THE BLACK SEA

All rights are reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior
permission from the Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV).

© Turkish Marine Research Foundation (Türk Deniz Araştırmaları Vakfı)

ISBN: 978-975-8825-48-6

Citation: Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in
the Black Sea. Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No:
56, Istanbul, Turkey. 361 p.

Cover photos (Left to right): 1&2 Arda M. Tonay/ TUDAV, 3 Ülgen Aytan

Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV)

P.O. Box: 10, Beykoz, Istanbul
Tel: +90 216 424 07 72
Fax: +90 216 424 07 71
E-mail: [email protected]
www.tudav.org

/tudav /Tudav Tudav /TÜDAV

/turkdenizarastirmalarivakfi

ii
CONTENTS
FOREWORD…………………………………………………………………...vi

PREFACE……………………………………………………………………...vii

CONTRIBUTORS…………………………………………………………….viii

MACROLITTER ASSESSMENTS

BEACH

Plastic pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast: Current status and
trends
Anna Simeonova, Rozalina Chuturkova, Daniela Toneva, Miroslav Tsvetkov….1

Marine litter monitoring on the Black Sea beaches in 2019: The ANEMONE
Project experience
Angelica Paiu, Mihaela Cândea Mirea, Anca-Maria Gheorghe,
Andreea Ștefania Ionașcu, Marian Paiu, Costin Timofte, Marina Panayotova,
Radoslava Bekova, Valentina Todorova, Kremena Stefanova, Media Gumus,
Svetlana Mihova, Ayaka Amaha Öztürk, Zeynep Gülenç, Denga Yuriy,
Karina Vishnyakova……………………………………………………………23

Analysis of the monitoring of the beach litter in the Georgia

Nino Machitadze, Kakhaber Bilashvili, Vakhtang Gvakharia, Nino Gelashvili,
Inessa Kuzanova, Vazha Trapaidze…………………………………………….37

Marine litter occurrence in the river-influenced Black Sea coast

Elena Stoica, Hakan Atabay, Levent Bat, Andreea Ciuca, Silvia Creanga,
Dragos Marin, Ayşah Öztekin, Mihaela Tanase, Leyla Tolun………………….49

Preliminary analysis of Marine Litter Watch data of the

European Environment Agency with particular reference to the Black Sea
Ahmet E. Kideys, Mustafa Aydın………………………………………….…...63

Raising awareness about marine litter through beach cleanup activities

along the Turkish coasts of the Black Sea
Zeynep Gülenç, Deniz Konaklı, İlayda Destan Öztürk…….…………………..74

Marine litter problem in the southern Black Sea coastal area: An

overview of the big pressure in Sinop
Ayşah Öztekin, Levent Bat……………………………………………………..82

iii
Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Program: Marine litter studies
in the Black Sea coasts of Turkey
Hakan Atabay, Ibrahim Tan, Mustafa Yiğit Konya, Gökhan Kaman, Alper Evcen,
Hacer Selamoğlu Çağlayan, Ebru Olgun Eker, Çolpan Polat Beken………….94

SEAFLOOR

Studies regarding the seafloor litter on the Romanian Black Sea coast
Madalina Galatchi, Eugen Anton……………………………………………..102

Distribution and composition of marine litter on seafloor in the western

Black Sea, Turkey
Uğur Uzer, Taner Yildiz, F. Saadet Karakulak………………………………..111

Distribution and composition of seafloor marine litter in the southeastern

Black Sea
Nazlı Kasapoğlu, Murat Dağtekin, Salih İlhan, Gökhan Erik, Uğur Özsandikçi,
Ferhat Büyükdeveci………………...………………………………………....136

Marine plastics in the fishing grounds in the Black Sea

Yahya Terzi, Kadir Seyhan…………………………………………………....151

FLOATING MARINE/RIVERINE

Composition of floating macro litter across the Black Sea

Maria Pogojeva, Daniel González-Fernández, George Hanke, Nino Machitadze,
Yuliia Kotelnikova, Iryna Tretiak, Oksana Savenko, Nino Gelashvili,
Kakhaber Bilashvili, Dmitry Kulagin, Aleksey Fedorov….……………….....161

Results of the monitoring of the marine and riverine floating macro litter
in the Black Sea, Georgia
Nino Machitadze, Kakhaber Bilashvili, Daniel González-Fernández,
Vakhtang Gvakharia, Nino Gelashvili, Inessa Kuzanova, Vazha Trapaidze….171

Anthropogenic litter input through rivers in the Black Sea

Daniel González-Fernández, Maria Pogojeva, George Hanke, Nino Machitadze,
Yuliia Kotelnikova, IrynaTretiak, Oksana Savenko, Nino Gelashvili,
Kakhaber Bilashvili, Dmitry Kulagin, Aleksey Fedorov, M. Çağan Şenyiğit,
Ülgen Aytan………………………………………………………………......183

MICROLITTER ASSESSMENTS

Microplastic pollution along the southeastern Black Sea

Ülgen Aytan, Yasemen Şentürk, F. Başak Esensoy, Ayşah Öztekin,
Ertuğrul Ağırbaş, Andre Valente.......................................................................192

iv
Distribution of micro- and mesolitter in the southwestern part of
the Black Sea
Aurelia Totoiu, George-Emanuel Harcotă, Elena Bișinicu, Florin Timofte,
Laura Boicenco……………………………………………………..…….…..208

Microplastics accumulation on the Black Sea coast: Scenario analysis

Svetla Miladinova, Diego Macias Moy, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz……218

INTERACTIONS WITH BIOTA

Cetaceans and marine litter in the Black Sea

Arda M. Tonay, Beril Gül, Ayhan Dede, Ayaka Amaha Öztürk……….….......236

Colonizing of bottom marine litter by benthic organisms in the northwestern

Black Sea (Gulf of Odessa)
Anastasiia Snigirova, Elena Uzun, Valentyn Portyanko………………….…..247

Microbial biofilm on plastics in the southeastern Black Sea

F. Başak Esensoy, Yasemen Şentürk, Ülgen Aytan…………………...………268

Microphytes assemblages on the neustoplastics from the northern Black Sea

Philipp Sapozhnikov, Anastasiia Snigirova, Olga Kalinina…………………..287

Microplastics in bivalves in the southern Black Sea

Yasemen Şentürk, F. Başak Esensoy, Ayşah Öztekin, Ülgen Aytan………....303

Presence of microplastics in zooplankton and planktivorous fish in the

southeastern Black Sea
Ülgen Aytan, F. Başak Esensoy, Yasemen Şentürk, Ertuğrul Ağırbaş,
Andre Valente………………………………………………….………….…..314

Chemicals associated with plastics and their ecological risks

Nigar Alkan, Ali Alkan………………………………………………………..326

RECOMMENDATIONS

Perspectives and challenges of implementation of Regional Action Plan on

Marine Litter Management in the Black Sea
Iryna Makarenko………………………………………………………...…....344

v
 FOREWORD
Pollution is one of the major threats for the Black Sea and plastic litter is relatively
a new issue in this enclosed sea, which is very vulnerable to environmental
degradation. It is already known that the Black Sea suffers from several threats,
such as overfishing, IUU fishing, habitat loss, climate change and various types
of pollution.

In terms of marine litter, either damped from the vessels or from the rivers or even
on the shores, is a visible pollution problem. Micro plastics, however, are often
less visible and can be more dangerous because the collection and removal of
them is almost impossible. Regional cooperation is essential for strategic
planning, data sharing, exchange of information and public awareness issues. We
know that high percentage of marine litter in the Black Sea is non-biodegradable
and the problem is not only aesthetic but also severely damaging marine
biodiversity, such as sea birds and cetaceans.

We hope that this publication will be useful for decision makers, scientists,
naturalists, fishermen, NGO’s and anyone who is interested in the protection of
the Black Sea. I thank all the authors who contributed to this book with their
efforts, namely, their time and knowledge, as well as their continuous passion for
the protection of the Black Sea environment. Dr. Ülgen AYTAN has played a
crucial role for this publication and TUDAV is very thankful for her diligence
and motivated endeavours.

Finally, we believe that this work is unique in many ways due to its contents based
on the wide range of new information and original outputs of many surveys in the
Black Sea. Let’s hope that this enclosed sea will be free from plastic litter one
day…
Bayram ÖZTÜRK
Director
Turkish Marine Research Foundation
Beykoz, İstanbul - October, 2020

vi
 PREFACE
Marine litter is one of the fastest growing threats to the marine environment. In a
single year, millions tons of litter, mainly plastic, end up in the oceans and seas
due to human activities. The problem is complex as one plastic item may fragment
into millions of microscopic particles with very slow rates of biodegradation,
making their removal an extremely difficult task. The continued accumulation of
these persistent materials poses a significant risk to marine life, human health and
the economy, and calls for urgent actions.

The Black Sea is especially at risk from marine litter and plastic pollution because
of the high river discharge from several countries into this semi-enclosed basin.
The problem in the region needs to be tackled on several fronts including regional
initiatives, legally binding directives, international cooperation, education
programmes and evidence-based scientific knowledge. In recent years, an
increasing number of studies have addressed the concern in relation to marine
litter and its potential effects on Black Sea ecosystem. However, there is still a
need to fully understand the environmental, public health and socio-economic
impacts of plastics in the region.

This book was prepared during the Covid-19 outbreak which was an
unprecedented situation around the world, giving us time to slow down and learn
from our mistakes, especially our drastic effects on nature. During this period,
researchers from many countries came together for this book to provide valuable
data on the current status of marine litter, particularly plastic pollution, in the
Black Sea environment. The book compiles information from sources to
distributions of macro- and microlitter in different matrices of the ecosystem.
Interactions of plastics with biota are also presented. The book also highlights
gaps in knowledge and different aspects of policy and management.

We believe that this book will be of interest for scientists, naturalists, fishermen,
NGO’s, decision makers, politicians and anyone interested in a sustainable
healthy Black Sea. We also believe that this book provides needed information
for governments and other stakeholders to take urgent actions to reduce and
remove marine litter in the Black Sea.

I would like to express my very great appreciation to the authors and editors, who
made this book possible during lockdown. I am sincerely thankful to Dr. Arda M.
TONAY for his technical edit and Ms. Zeynep GÜLENÇ for her technical
assistance. I would like to offer my special thanks to Dr. Bayram ÖZTÜRK,
founder and president of TUDAV, for his trust and support for this book.

Ülgen AYTAN
Marine Biologist, Marine Litter and Microplastic Researcher
Faculty of Fisheries, RTE University

vii
 CONTRIBUTORS
Ertuğrul Ağırbaş
Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
University, Rize, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Ali Alkan
Institute of Marine Science and Technology, Karadeniz Technical University,
61080, Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Nigar Alkan
Faculty of Marine Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61530, Sürmene,
Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Ayaka Amaha Ozturk

Turkish Marine Research Foundation, P.O. Box: 10 Beykoz 34820
Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Eugen Anton
NIMRD – National Institute for Marine Research and Development Grigore
Antipa, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Hakan Atabay
TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze,
Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Mustafa Aydın
European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, DENMARK
E-mail: [email protected]

Ülgen Aytan
Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
University, Rize, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Levent Bat
Department of Hydrobiology, Faculty of Fisheries, Sinop University, 57000,
Sinop, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

viii
Radoslava Bekova
Institute of Oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Kakhaber Bilashvili
Department of Hydrology, Oceanology and Meteorology Faculty of Exact and
Natural Sciences Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 1, I.Chavchavadze
ave., 0179 Tbilisi, GEORGIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Elena Bișinicu
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd, 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Laura Boicenco
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd, 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Ferhat Büyükdeveci
Sarıçam Directorate of Provincial Agriculture and Forestry, Sarıçam, Adana,
TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Mihaela Cândea Mirea

Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Rozalina Chuturkova
Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Technical University of
Varna, 1 Studentska str., 9010 Varna, BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Andreea Ciuca
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd., 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Silvia Creanga
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd., 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

ix
Murat Dağtekin
Central Fisheries Research Institute, Yomra, Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Ayhan Dede
Faculty of Aquatic Sciences, Istanbul University, Ordu Cad. No: 8, Istanbul,
TURKEY
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), P.O. Box: 10, Istanbul,
TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Gökhan Erik
Central Fisheries Research Institute, Yomra, Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

F. Başak Esensoy
Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
University, Rize, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Alper Evcen
TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze,
Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Aleskey Fedorov
Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,
RUSSIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Madalina Galatchi
NIMRD – National Institute for Marine Research and Development Grigore
Antipa, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Elisa Garcia-Gorriz
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, ITALY
E-mail: [email protected]

Nino Gelashvili
Al. Janelidze Institute of Geology of Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,
31, Politkovskaia str.0186, Tbilisi, GEORGIA
Scientific Research Firm GAMMA. 19d, D.Guramishvili ave, 0192 Tbilisi,
GEORGIA
E-mail: [email protected]

x
Anca-Maria Gheorghe
Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel González-Fernández
Department of Biology, International Campus of Excellence of the Sea
(CEIMAR), University Marine Research Institute (INMAR), University of
Cádiz, SPAIN
E-mail: [email protected]

Media Gumus
Institute of oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Beril Gül
Institute of Graduate Studies in Sciences, Istanbul University, Esnaf Hastanesi
Binası 4. Kat, Fatih, İstanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Zeynep Gülenç
Turkish Marine Research Foundation, P.O. Box: 10 Beykoz 34820
Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Vakhtang Gvakharia
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Alexander Janelidze Institute of
Geology, 3, Chavchavadze Ave., Tbilisi 0128, Georgia Scientific Research Firm
GAMMA. 19d, D.Guramishvili ave, 0192 Tbilisi, GEORGIA
E-mail: [email protected]

George Hanke
EC Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ITALY
E-mail: [email protected]

George-Emanuel Harcotă
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd, 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Salih İlhan
Central Fisheries Research Institute, Yomra, Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

xi
Andreea Ștefania Ionașcu
Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Olga Kalinina
Faculty of Geography at Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
RUSSIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Gökhan Kaman
TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze,
Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]
F. Saadet Karakulak
Department of Fisheries Technology and Management, Faculty of Aquatic
Sciences, Istanbul University, Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Nazlı Kasapoğlu
Central Fisheries Research Institute, Yomra, Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Ahmet E. Kideys
Institute of Marine Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Erdemli,
TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Deniz Konaklı
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), P.O. Box: 10, 34820, Beykoz,
İstanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Mustafa Yiğit Konya

TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze,
Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Yuliia Kotelnikova
Ukrainian Center of Ecology of the Sea, Odessa, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Dmitry Kulagin
Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,
RUSSIA
E-mail: [email protected]

xii
Inessa Kuzanova
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Institute of Oceanography and
Hydrology, 1, I. Chavchavadze ave., 0179 Tbilisi, GEORGIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Nino Machitadze
Al. Janelidze Institute of Geology of Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,
31, Politkovskaia str.0186, Tbilisi, GEORGIA
Scientific Research Firm GAMMA. 19d, D.Guramishvili ave, 0192 Tbilisi,
GEORGIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Iryna Makarenko
LL.M Permanent Secretariat of the Commission on the Protection of the Black
Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention), Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Dragos Marin
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd., 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Svetlana Mihova
Institute of Oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Svetla Miladinova
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, ITALY
E-mail: [email protected]

Diego Macias Moy

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, ITALY
E-mail: [email protected]

Ebru Olgun Eker

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey, Directorate General of
Environmental Impact Assessment Permit and Inspection/Dept. of Laboratory,
Measurement and Monitoring Gölbaşı, Ankara, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Uğur Özsandikçi
Faculty of Fisheries, Sinop University, Dibekli, Sinop, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

xiii
Ayşah Öztekin
Department of Hydrobiology, Faculty of Fisheries, Sinop University, 57000,
Sinop, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

İlayda Destan Öztürk

Department of Physical Oceanography and Marine Biology, Institute of Marine
Sciences and Management, İstanbul University, İstanbul, TURKEY
Turkish Marine Research Foundation, P.O. Box: 10 Beykoz 34820 Istanbul,
TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Angelica Paiu
Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Marian Paiu
Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Marina Panayotova
Institute of oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Maria Pogojeva
N.N. Zubov’s State Oceanographic Institute, Roshydromet, Moscow, RUSSIA
Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,
RUSSIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Çolpan Polat Beken

TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze,
Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Valentyn Portyanko
Institute of Marine Biology of the NAS of Ukraine, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Philipp Sapozhnikov
P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of RAS, Moscow, RUSSIA
E-mail: [email protected]

xiv
Oksana Savenko
Ukrainian Center of Ecology of the Sea, Odessa, UKRAINE
National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine, Kyiv, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Hacer Selamoğlu Çağlayan

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey, Directorate General of
Environmental Impact Assessment Permit and Inspection/Dept. of Laboratory,
Measurement and Monitoring Gölbaşı, Ankara, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Kadir Seyhan
Faculty of Marine Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61530 Sürmene,
Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Anna Simeonova
Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Technical University of
Varna, 1 Studentska str., 9010 Varna, BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Anastasiia Snigirova
Institute of Marine Biology of the NAS of Ukraine, Odessa, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Kremena Stefanova
Institute of oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Adolf Stips
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, ITALY
E-mail: [email protected]

Elena Stoica
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd., 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Yasemen Şentürk
Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
University, Rize, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]
M. Çağan Şenyiğit
Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

xv
Ibrahim Tan
TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze,
Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Mihaela Tanase
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd., 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Yahya Terzi
Faculty of Marine Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61530 Sürmene,
Trabzon, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Costin Timofte
Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Florin Timofte
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd, 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Valentina Todorova
Institute of oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Leyla Tolun
TUBITAK Marmara Research Center, PB.21, 41470, Kocaeli, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Arda M. Tonay
Faculty of Aquatic Sciences, Istanbul University, Ordu Cad. No: 8, Istanbul,
TURKEY
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), P.O. Box: 10, Istanbul,
TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Daniela Toneva
Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Technical University of
Varna, 1 Studentska str., 9010 Varna, BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

xvi
Aurelia Totoiu
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd, 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Vazha Trapaidze
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Institute of Oceanography and
Hydrology, 1, I. Chavchavadze ave., 0179 Tbilisi, GEORGIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Iryna Tretiak
Ukrainian Center of Ecology of the Sea, Odessa, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Miroslav Tsvetkov
Faculty of Navigation, "N. Vaptsarov" Naval Academy, Varna, BULGARIA
E-mail: [email protected]

Uğur Uzer
Department of Fisheries Technology and Management, Faculty of Aquatic
Sciences, Istanbul University, Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Elena Uzun
Institute of Marine Biology of the NAS of Ukraine, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Andre Valente
MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências,
Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, PORTUGAL
E-mail: [email protected]

Karina Vishnyakova
Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of the Sea, 89 Frantsuzsky Blvd.
Odessa, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

Taner Yildiz
Department of Fisheries Technology and Management, Faculty of Aquatic
Sciences, Istanbul University, Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: [email protected]

Denga Yuriy
Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of the Sea, 89 Frantsuzsky Blvd.
Odessa, UKRAINE
E-mail: [email protected]

xvii
xviii
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Plastic pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast:

Current status and trends

Anna Simeonova1*, Rozalina Chuturkova1, Daniela Toneva1,

Miroslav Tsvetkov 2
1 Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Technical University of Varna, 1
Studentska str., 9010 Varna, BULGARIA
2 Faculty of Navigation, "N. Vaptsarov" Naval Academy, Varna, BULGARIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Quantitative assessment of marine litter pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coastline was presented, based on surveys conducted on 10 beaches during the summer -
autumn period 2017 - 2019. A total amount of 167679 items were recorded, removed and
classified into 8 major groups of material types on aggregated basis. The highest
abundance was in 2017 (77196 nos.), followed by 2019 (49789 nos.) and 2018 (40694
nos.). The vast majority of ML was from the category "Artificial polymer materials",
varying negligibly through the years - from 64.9% in (2017) to 60.2% (2018). The annual
average ML density within the whole country coastline was ranging from 0.59 items/m2
in 2017 to 0.23 items/m2 in 2019. One of the beaches was classified as "Very dirty"
through the whole period - the urban beach "Channel 2 - Varna"- (3.45 items/m2 in
2017), subject to intense littering mainly from land-based sources- coastal tourism,
recreational fishing, general public, fly- tipping, etc. The most abundant plastic items
(top 10) were identified. Smoking related items were the most frequent type and
Cigarette butts and filters were the highest on most of the sites. A descending trend of
plastic abundance was outlined during the last two years, which might be considered as a
successful start in reaching "Good environmental status" according to the requirements of
MSFD.

Keywords: Marine litter, plastic, pollution, Black Sea coast, Bulgaria

Introduction

Plastic pollution of marine areas has become an alarming issues worldwide,

causing environmental, socio - economic and health consequences (Derraik
2002; Worm et al. 2006; Jang et al. 2014; Gall and Thompson 2015; Geyer et
al. 2017; Karbalaei et al. 2018; Beaumont et al. 2019; Galgani et al. 2019).
Abandoned, disposed of, lost or transported plastics by a variety of sources, can
enter marine environment and drift around the water areas, inflicting trans
boundary pollution or reach very remote distances where they do not normally
occur (Browne et al. 2015; Turrell 2019; Stanev and Ricker 2019). Growing
amounts of plastics are registered in all marine compartments - sea surface,
water column, sea floor and shoreline. In the open sea or on the sea floor they
can lead to habitat loss and biodiversity degradation, entanglement, ingestion

1
and even mortality of marine species (Rochman et al. 2013; Worm et al. 2017;
Erni-Cassola et al. 2019; Carreras-Colom et al. 2018). A significant fraction of
plastic could be found on coastline discarded or unintentionally lost by
recreational users, washed ashore from the sea by strong winds or scattered by
waves superficial circulation and high tides, may degrade on the beaches and be
washed back into the oceans (Corcoran et al. 2009; Jambeck et al. 2015; Stanev
and Ricker 2019; Miladinova et al. 2020).

Black Sea is a typical semi-enclosed sea, very sensitive to contamination. It’s

extremely slow replenishment of water, limited vertical intermixing and
dynamic surface circulation in combination with high anthropogenic pressure
from river and canal discharges, navigation, fishery, waste dumps near the coast,
tourism and recreation activities, etc., favour marine litter (ML) pollution both
in the entire basin and its particular areas. To quantify the problem and take
measures to reduce ML loading within the Black Sea basin, several surveys
have been conducted during the last years to assess coastal littering along the
Turkish, Romanian and Bulgarian Black Sea shoreline (Topçu et al. 2013; Terzi
and Seyhan 2017; Paiu et al. 2017; Simeonova et al. 2017; Esensoy et al. 2018;
Muresan et al. 2018; Simeonova and Churutkova 2019; Toneva et al 2019;
Aytan et al. 2020), as well as floating ML and sediments in the Romanian Black
Sea (Ioakeimidis et al. 2014; Suaria et al. 2015), SE Black Sea (Aytan et al.
2016; Oztekin et al. 2019), Bulgaria, Romania and Western Black Sea
(Moncheva et al. 2016; Berov and Klayn 2020) and Ukraine, Russia and
Georgia Black Sea (Slobodnik et al. 2017). The data showed that plastic is the
most abundant ML in all marine compartments of the Black Sea basin, thus
considering plastic pollution as one of the main problems that needs urgent
actions.

Bulgaria is one of the six countries sharing all benefits and problems of the
Black Sea basin. ML pollution in the Bulgarian Black Sea environment is of
growing concern and a priority issue on national level. Making efforts to combat
littering in the Black Sea, the country is strictly following the requirements of
different conventions, directives and agreements, which are relevant to the
management, and mitigation of ML problem. The Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD), one of the most ambitious legislative instrument, focused on
measures to ensure that "quantities and composition of marine litter do not cause
harm to marine or coastal environment" (Galgani et al. 2011) has been
transposed in the Bulgarian legislation and monitoring programs for ongoing
assessment were established by the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and
Waters (MOEW) in 2014 and updated in 2017 (MOEW 2017). The first national
monitoring targeted to quantify ML pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast was conducted in 2015 - 2016 and initial assessment of litter composition,
distribution and seasonal dynamics was made (Simeonova et al. 2017;
Simeonova and Chuturkova 2019). Starting in 2015, national monitoring
campaigns have been conducted every year in order to understand the scale of

2
the anthropogenic ML problem and take measures to reduce ML pollution in the
Bulgarian Black Sea environment.

The present paper is based on data, collected for three years period 2017 - 2019
within the updated national ML monitoring program and aims to evaluate the
status and trends of coastal ML pollution, especially plastic in order to outline
the issues and knowledge gaps, as well as to improve ML management on
country beaches.

Materials and Methods

Beach litter sampling and analyses

Beach litter surveys were conducted on 10 beaches during the summer - autumn
period 2017 - 2019 in line with MOEW monitoring program (MOEW 2017).
Reference beaches were selected according to EU MSFD TG10 “Guidance on
Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas” (Galgani et al. 2013) and
OSPAR guidelines (OSPAR 2010), taking into consideration the following
criteria: over 1 km in length (if possible); exposed to the open sea; composed of
sand or gravel; accessible to surveyors and free of ‘buildings’ all year round; not
subject to any other litter collection activities. Two sections of 100-metre stretch
on each reference beach (1 km in length) were monitored, covering the whole
area between the water edge to the back of the beach. During the surveys all
stranded ML were collected by volunteers (Figure 1), classified, and recorded
according to TSG_ML General-Code (Galgani et al. 2013). The items were
classified in 8 categories according to the type of material: Artificial polymer
materials; Rubber; Cloth/Textile; Paper/Cardboard; Processed wood; Metal;
Glass/ceramics and Unidentified - a total of 167 sub-categories.

Figure 1. Marine litter surveys along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast

3
The average litter density per beach per year was calculated and beach
cleanliness was assessed according to Alkalay's Clean Coast Index (CCI) scale:
values from 0-2 indicate very clean beaches, 2-5 clean, 5-10 moderately clean,
10-20 dirty and > 20 extremely dirty (Alkalay et al. 2007).

Study area

The Bulgarian Black Sea coast is located at the western part of the Black Sea
and stretches from Cape Sivriburun in the north at the Romanian border to Cape
Rezovo on the south at the border with Turkey. The total length of the coastline
is 378 km, characterized with a variety of coastal types: rocky cliffs, sandy
beaches and dunes, low-lying parts of bays and lagoons (Stanchev et al. 2013).
The beaches occupy about 200 km of the coastline and the number of sandy
beaches is over 70, comprising 34.5% of the entire coastline. There are two
large bays of Varna and Burgas along the coast, which are jutting out deeply
into the land (Stancheva 2009). The rivers of the coastal area are with small
catchment, short length and minor amount of river runoff, except river
Kamchiya, which is the longest. Seventeen small rivers flow directly into the
Bulgarian Black Sea and nine are the significant lakes, located along the coast
(important wetlands and Ramsar sites). The Bulgarian Black Sea coastal zone is
5.21% of the country territory and hosts 8.85% of the national population,
concentrated in fourteen state municipalities (BSBD 2016).

Figure 2. Map with the surveyed beaches along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast

4
Ten monitoring sites were surveyed, from the northern to the southern part of
the Bulgarian sea coast: Northern Black Sea coast - "Durankulak" beach,
"Krapets" beach, "Channel 2 - Varna"; Central Black Sea coast - "Shkorpilovtsi"
beach, "Byala - Karadere" beach, "Obzor" beach, "Irakli" beach and Southern
Black Sea coast - "Black Sea saltpans - Burgas" beach, "Alepu" beach and
"River Veleka Mouth" beach (Figure 2).

The beaches were selected, taking into consideration the basic drivers of ML
accumulation on country coastal zones: navigation and ports; urbanization;
tourism and recreation; commercial and recreational fishing; rivers inflow,
including wastes discharges by rivers; transboundary transfer of waste between
water basins, etc. All of the sites were unguarded, out of concession, typical
sandy. Only "Channel 2 - Varna" coastline is composed of gravel and pebble -
not considered as a beach. Two of the sites - "Channel 2 - Varna" and "Black
Sea saltpans - Burgas" beaches are within big towns Varna and Burgas
respectively, with large population more than 100000 population equivalent
(p.e.), big ports and developed maritime industry. "Channel 2 - Varna" is used
for navigation, connecting Varna Lake and Black Sea. The rest of the beaches
are near less populated areas (2000 - 10000 p.e.), used for recreation mainly
during the summer period. The beaches "Shkorpilovtsi", "Obzor", "Irakli" and
"River Veleka Mouth" are in close proximity to rivers, flowing into the sea.
"Durankulak" beach is the northernmost beach, close to Romania and "River
Veleka Mouth" beach - the southernmost, close to European Turkey.

Results and Discussion

Composition and spatial distribution of marine litter

In the last three years 2017 - 2019, during the national ML monitoring, 11
surveys were conducted in summer - autumn period on 10 sampling sites,
covering 78932 m2. A total amount of 167679 items were recorded, removed
and classified into 8 major groups of material types on aggregated basis. The
highest was the abundance in 2017 - 77196 nos., lower in 2019 - 49789 nos. and
lowest in 2018 - 40694 nos. The vast majority of ML was from the category
"Artificial polymer materials", varying negligibly through the years - from
60.2% (2018) to 64.9% in (2017) (Figure 3-5). The second most abundant
category of litter was “Paper/cardboard” - from 12.5% (2018) to 14.1% (2017)
and third - the category “Processed wood”, showing highest accumulation in
2019 (11.8%) and considerably lower in 2017 (5.7%).

5
 Figure 3. Total litter items per category type in percentage, 2017

Figure 4. Total litter items per category type in percentage, 2018

The contribution of the category "Artificial polymer materials" (Plastic) to

coastal ML pollution was dominant and relevant to our previous studies
regarding Bulgarian Black Sea coast (Simeonova et al. 2017; Simeonova and
Chuturkova 2019; Simeonova and Chuturkova 2020), as well as in accordance
with many other observation worldwide, widely documenting that
approximately more than 80% of all ML, found on beaches was plastic (Derraik
2002; Barnes et al. 2009; Addamo et al. 2017; OSPAR 2017). It was estimated
that the global production of plastic will exceed 34 billion metric tons by 2050
and there will be around 12 billion tons of plastic litter in landfills and the
environment (Geyer et al. 2017). According to the statistics, Bulgaria generated
120 million tons of plastic packaging waste in 2017, of which 65% recycled -
well above the EU average rate (Eurostat 2017).

6
 Figure 5. Total litter items per category type in percentage, 2019

It should be noted that ML abundance by category was different on each

monitoring site and year, but predominance of plastic items was recorded on all
stations within the whole period, varying from 54.3% to 70.4% of the total ML.
In 2017 and 2019 - the highest was the accumulation on "Durankulak" beach -
70.4% and 66.2% respectively and in 2018 - on "Shkorpilovtsi" beach - 65.5 %.
The lowest amounts of plastic items were found on "River Veleka Mouth" in
2017 accounting 54.3% of all litter collected.

The annual average ML density within the whole monitored country coastline
was ranging from 0.23 items/m2 in 2019 to 0.59 items/m2 in 2017. As shown in
Table 1, among the 10 examined sites, the highest was the average density on
"Channel 2 - Varna", varying from 1.30 items/m2 (2019) to 3.45 items/m2
(2017). Therefore, "Channel 2 - Varna" was classified as "Very dirty" through
the whole period according to Alkalay's CCI grades, varying from - CCI=26
(2019) to CCI = 69 (2017). In 2017, relatively high litter average densities were
recorded also on "Shkorpilovtsi" beach (0.32 items/m2), "Byala - Karadere"
beach (0.32 items/m2), "Durankulak" beach (0.47 items/m2) and "Obzor" beach
(0.50 items/m2), being classified as "Moderately clean". In 2018 and 2019, most
of the sites were classified as "Clean" or "Very clean".

Bearing in mind the results of this study and our previous findings (Simeonova
et al. 2017; Simeonova and Chuturkova 2019; Simeonova and Chuturkova
2020), "Channel 2 - Varna" was assesses as very sensitive to ML contamination
coastal area and might be considered as one of the hot spots along the Bulgarian
Black Sea coast. The main reason is the variety of ML drivers, concentrated in
considerable small area. Situated within one of the biggest towns in Bulgaria -
Varna town, "Channel 2 - Varna" is subject to intense littering from coastal
tourism and recreational fishing all year round, as well as from public and fly
tipping, which are land-based sources. The navigation channel along the
coastline of "Channel 2 - Varna" and the close proximity of Port Varna - East

7
suggest that some items may originate from shipping, related to sea- based
sources.

Table 1. The average ML density, CCI and cleanliness of the surveyed beaches,
2017 – 2019

Beach 2017 2018 2019

item/ CCI Cleanli- item/ CCI Cleanli- item/ CCI Cleanli-
name
m2 ness m2 ness m2 ness
Duran- Very Very
0.47 9.4 Moderate 0.06 1.2 0.08 1.6
kulak clean clean
Very Very
Krapets 0.16 3.2 Clean 0.09 1.8 0.09 1.8
clean clean
Channel Very
3.45 69.0 Very dirty 1.68 33.6 Very dirty 1.30 26
2 -Varna dirty
Shkorpi- Very
0.32 6.4 Moderate 0.14 2.8 Clean 0.09 1.8
lovtsi clean
Byala -
0.32 6.4 Moderate 0.12 2.4 Clean 0.13 2.6 Clean
Karadere
Obzor 0.50 10 Moderate 0.24 4.8 Clean 0.18 3.6 Clean
Very
Irakli 0.23 4.6 Clean 0.17 3.4 Clean 0.08 1.6
clean
Saltpans -
0.18 3.6 Clean 0.20 4.0 Clean 0.14 2.8 Clean
Burgas
Very Very
Alepu 0.13 2.6 Clean 0.06 1.2 0.10 2.0
clean clean
River Very
0.15 3.0 Clean 0.17 3.4 Clean 0.09 1.8
Veleka clean

The potential drivers of ML are relevant to the economic activities and key
sectors typical for the Bulgarian Black Sea: Shipping and Ports, Fishery and
aquaculture and Tourism. In Bulgaria, coastal tourism constitutes a significant
economic sector in terms of number of visitors and has significant contribution
into regional GDP, compared to other maritime activities (MARPLAS - BS,
2017).

Undoubtedly, the amount of litter items found on all monitoring sites is in close
relation with ML sources, so identifying the causes of ML is crucial to
understand the origin and pathways of littering to the marine environment.
Further detailed analyses to define sources and their contribution to coastal
pollution will be carried out, taking into consideration - beach topography,
currents specifics, river runoff, trans boundary transport, etc. and applying
different scientific approaches (Veiga et al. 2016; Moora and Piirsalu 2016).
Very often the river runoff and landfill/dumping sites, are recognized to be the
most important sources, by which ML can be transported into the sea by waves,
winds and rains (Suaria et al. 2015; Berkun et al. 2005; Topçu et al. 2013).

8
Top ten plastic litter
The most abundant Plastic items (top 10) along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast
were identified, assessed and classified.

Top 1 - According to the results, plastic litter was primarily consisted of

Cigarette butts and filters on most of the monitoring sites, exhibiting highest
public usage. Predominant were the amounts on "Channel 2 - Varna" coastline -
932 nos. in 2017, gradually decreasing to 454 nos. in 2019 (Figure 6), followed
by "Shkorpilovtsi - north" beach - 821 nos. (2017) and decreasing to - 325 nos.
in 2019, showing the same tendency.

Figure 6. Cigarette butts and filters abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast,
2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5. Byala -
Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

On three of the beaches, comparable levels of pollution were observed in 2017 -

"Durankulak North" beach - 531 nos., "Obzor" beach - 532 nos. and "Irakli"
beach - 534 nos., gradually decreasing in 2018. The beaches "Obzor" and
"Irakli" were reaching the lowest levels in 2019 - within 138 to 170 items. On
"Durankulak North" beach and "Alepu" beach an increase was observed in 2019
compared to 2018. In general, there is a pronounced descending trend in ML-
Cigarette butts and filters pollution on most of the beaches on the Bulgarian
Black Sea coast.

Top 2 - Plastic /polystyrene pieces 0-2.5 cm were the second most

abundant items with greatest majority again on "Channel 2 - Varna" coastline -
664 nos. (2017), 407 nos. (2018) and lowest in 2019 - 333 nos. (Figure 7).

9
Figure 7. Plastic /polystyrene pieces 0-2.5 cm abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast, 2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5.
Byala - Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

Beach "Durankulak North" was following "Channel 2 - Varna" with 399 nos. in
2017, but showing quite different tendency - decreasing in 2018 up to 28 items
only and rising in 2019 to 161 items. Similar variances were recorded on several
other beaches - "Krapets", "Byala - Karadere", "Obzor", "Black Sea saltpans -
Burgas" and "Alepu".

Top 3 - The third most abundant items were Plastic caps/lids drinks
highest on "Channel 2 - Varna" - 1016 nos. in 2017 and considerably lower in
2018 and 2019 - 239 nos. and 237 nos. respectively (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Plastic caps/lids drinks abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, 2017-
2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5. Byala -
Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

10
Beach "Durankulak North" was the second most polluted monitoring site with
highest majority - 419 nos. in 2017, decreasing to 104 nos. in 2018 and
increasing again to 142 nos. in 2019. Two other beaches were showing similar
variances "Obzor" and "Alepu" beach. In general, descending trend in ML-
Plastic caps/lids drinks pollution was outlined on most of the beaches during
2019.

Тоp 4 - Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box packaging is related to

smoking littering, showing considerably high occurrence on most of the sites,
compared with the other subcategories. The highest was the amount of these
items on "Channel 2 - Varna" - 1304 nos. in 2017, slowly decreasing to 336 nos.
(2018) and 182 nos. (2019) (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box packaging abundance along the

Bulgarian Black Sea coast, 2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4.
Shkolpilovtsi; 5. Byala - Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas;
9. Alepu; 10. River Veleka Mouth

A pronounced descending trend was observed through the whole monitoring

period.
Top 5 - Plastic caps/lids unidentified were fifth in ranking the plastics
abundance. The most polluted was "Durankulak North" beach - the
northernmost beach, near to the Romanian border - 497 nos. in 2017 and
considerable lower during the next years - 46 nos. (2018) and 59 nos. (2019)
(Figure 10). "Channel 2 - Varna" was second in pollution - 430 nos. in 2017 and
only 196 nos. in 2019. For most of the beaches the littering was decreasing
during the last year.

11
Figure 10. Plastic caps/lids unidentified abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast,
2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5. Byala -
Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

Top 6 - Plastic cups and cup lids were dominant on two of the sites -
"Channel 2 - Varna" coastline - 372 nos. and "Obzor" beach - 370 nos. in 2017,
and decreasing gradually till 2019 (Figure 11). On several beaches the tendency
was variable - much lower quantities in 2018 and higher in 2019: "Durankulak
North", "Krapets", "Byala - Karadere" and "Alepu". The rest of the beaches
showed decreasing pollution tendency.

Figure 11. Plastic cups and cup lids abundance along Bulgarian Black Sea coast, 2017-
2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5. Byala -
Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

12
 Top 7 - Crisps packets/sweets wrappers were counting highest majority
on "Channel 2 - Varna" - 706 nos. in 2017 and lower during the next years - 314
nos. (2018) and 185 nos. (2019) (Figure 12). On the rest of the monitoring sites
the amounts were considerably lower in 2017, namely "Shkorpilovtsi -north" -
244 nos., "Durankulak North" - 215 nos., "Obzor" - 206 nos. In general, the
littering was decreasing in 2019.

Figure 12. Crisps packets/sweets wrappers abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast, 2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5.
Byala - Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

Top 8 - Plastic/polystyrene pieces 2.5-50 cm were highest on "Channel

2 - Varna" - 771 nos. in 2017 and lowest - 242 nos. in 2019 (Figure 13). The
loadings on most of the beaches were varying - decreasing in 2018 and
increasing in 2019.

Figure 13. Plastic/polystyrene pieces 2.5 -50 cm abundance along the Bulgarian Black
Sea coast, 2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi;
5. Byala - Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

13
 Top 9 - Plastic rings from bottle caps/lids were predominant on
"Durankulak North" beach - 539 nos. in 2017, rapidly decreasing the next years
- 19 nos. in 2018 and 42 nos. in 2019 (Figure 14). Second, regarding pollution
was "Channel 2 - Varna" - 285 nos. (2017) and decreasing to 169 nos. in 2019.
A descending trend was observed for most of the beaches.

Figure 14. Plastic rings from bottle caps/lids abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast, 2017-2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5.
Byala - Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

Top 10 - Straws and stirrers were dominant on "Shkorpilovtsi -north" -

291 nos. in 2017, but lower in quantities - 83 nos. in 2019 (Figure 15).
Considerable loadings were recorded also on "Durankulak North" beach - 232
nos. (2017), sharply decreasing to 40 nos. (2018) and 41nos. (2019).

Figure 15. Straws and stirrers abundance along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, 2017-
2019: 1. Durankulak; 2. Krapets; 3. Channel 2-Varna; 4. Shkolpilovtsi; 5. Byala -
Karadere; 6. Obzor; 7. Irakli; 8. Black Sea saltpans - Burgas; 9. Alepu;
10. River Veleka Mouth

14
For several beaches were recorded lower amounts in 2017, increasing in 2018
and decreasing again in 2019: "Krapets", "Channel 2 - Varna", "Byala -
Karadere", "Black Sea saltpans - Burgas" and "River Veleka mouth".

Among plastic, Cigarette butts and filters were the most frequent type of litter
on the majority of Bulgarian beaches, very much in line with the global
tendencies (Ocean Conservancy 2016) and with the results regarding many
European beaches, including Romanian and Bulgarian Black Sea beaches
(Addamo et al. 2017; Muresan et al. 2017; Paiu et al. 2017; Simeonova and
Chuturkova 2019). Another items related to smoking and found in very high
quantities on the monitored beaches were Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box
packaging (top 4). Items that fell in the top 10 were also plastic /polystyrene
pieces with size 0-2.5 cm and 2.5-50 cm, which mostly come from
disintegration of larger plastic items due to weathering and other meteorological
conditions. These small items together with Crisps packets/sweets wrappers (top
7) are very easily transported by wind, waves and heavy rains from distant
areas, might enter the sea or be washed back to the shore, and could be found far
from the primary source. Some other plastic items with high occurrence - Plastic
caps/lids, Straws and stirrers, Plastic cups and cup lids, Plastic rings from bottle
caps/lids etc. were associated with beach/coastal tourism, fishing, etc. and they
are good indicator of pollution from beach users. Due to their considerably
small sizes, they might be captured in the beach vegetation or buried deep in the
sand and found long after their release in the environment.

The most polluted coastline with plastic items, related to leisure activities
(coastal tourism and fishing) was "Channel 2 - Varna" - urban area, impacted by
very high anthropogenic load most of the year. "Durankulak North" beach,
situated close to the Romanian border was showing highest predominance of
Plastic /polystyrene pieces with size 0-2.5 cm, which might be due to the
influence of the Black Sea rim current, encirculating the entire basin in a
counter-clockwise direction and disseminating plastic pieces over the Rumanian
basin. Fishing gear-containing plastic was not in the top 10 items, showing that
fishing activities were not so popular and intensive along the country shoreline.
The top 10 plastic items from the northern to the southern part of the Bulgarian
Black Sea coast, calculated on aggregate bases per year are presented in Figure
16.

As shown in the figure, a pronounced descending trend of pollution was

outlined for most of the top 10 items until 2019: Cigarette butts and filters -
4852 nos. in 2017 and 2290 nos. in 2019; Plastic caps/lids drinks - 2733 nos.
(2017) and 1430 nos. (2019); Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box packaging -
2694 nos. (2017) and sharply decreasing to 601 nos. (2019); Plastic caps/lids
unidentified - 2374 nos. (2017) and 1010 nos. (2019); Plastic cups and cup lids -
2318 nos. (2017) and 1473 nos. (2019); Crisps packets/sweets wrappers - 2157
nos. (2017) and sharply decreasing to 612 nos. (2019); Plastic rings from bottle

15
caps/lids - 1639 nos. (2017) and 851 nos. (2019); Straws and stirrers - 1535 nos.
(2017) and 905 nos. (2019). Regarding both - Plastic /polystyrene pieces 0-2.5
cm and Plastic/polystyrene pieces 2.5-50 cm, variable pollution tendency was
outlined - decreasing in 2018 and increasing in 2019.

Figure 16. The top 10 plastic items along the Bulgarian Black Sea on aggregate bases
per year, 2017 - 2019: 1. Cigarette butts and filters; 2. Plastic /polystyrene pieces 0-2.5
cm; 3. Plastic caps/lids drinks; 4. Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box packaging; 5.
Plastic caps/lids unidentified; 6. Plastic cups and cup lids; 7. Crisps packets/sweets
wrappers; 8. Plastic/polystyrene pieces 2.5-50 cm; 9. Plastic rings from bottle caps/lids;
10. Straws and stirrers

The decreasing trend of pollution from 2017 to 2019 might be explained with
the rising public awareness regarding ML pollution, in line with some objectives
of the new MOEW monitoring program. Many informal campaigns for cleaning
up different beaches, especially after 2017 were organized under different
initiatives - World Black Sea Day, World Water Day, Earth Day, World
Environment Day, etc. Moreover, the wild camping becomes very popular
during the last years on some beaches, thus shifting the relative share of plastic
items to items related to other categories (processed wood, paper and glass) due
to the specifics of this activity. The impact of sea wave’s circulation and drift
direction, as well as the influence of rivers runoff are very important factors for
either the plastics distribution and variability in time. Very often, floating litter
are spreading and stranding in one marine areas and after a considerable period
of time may be drifted to another area or deposited on a shore far from the
primary source (Stanev and Ricker 2019).

Conclusions

The present study provides quantitative assessment of coastal ML pollution on

10 beaches along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast in summer - autumn period

16
2017 - 2019. A total of 167679 items were collected from 78932 m2 area during
11 surveys. The contribution of plastic items to coastal ML pollution was
dominant through the whole period, varying from 54.3% to 70.4% of the total
ML at the different beaches. Among plastic, smoking related items were the
most frequent type of litter found on the monitored beaches, very much in line
with the global tendencies. The most polluted beach was the urban coastline -
"Channel 2 - Varna", subject to intense littering mainly from land-based sources
- coastal tourism, recreational fishing, public, fly- tipping, etc. The average ML
density on "Channel 2 - Varna" was highest, reaching 3.45 items/m2 in 2017,
thus classified as "Very dirty". A descending trend of plastic abundance was
outlined, reaching the lowest levels - 60.2% (2018), compared with all
monitoring campaigns conducted on the country beaches (starting in 2015).
These results might be considered as a successful start in reaching "Good
environmental status" according to the requirements of MSFD.

Our findings may support the application of possible mitigation measures to

combat plastic pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast and substantially
help to address marine litter problem, such as: (i) identification of ML sources,
trying to distinguish between land-based and offshore activities; (ii) reduction
and prevention of waste generation that may end up in the marine environment;
(iii) raising awareness of the business sector (traders, beach concessionaires,
users of beach services, fishermen, etc.) and the public (tourists, students,
children, etc.); (iv) stimulating nature-friendly tourism and developing
regulations for "wild camping"; (v) better coordination between institutions and
other organizations, related to ML monitoring and management; (vi) promoting
clean up campaigns and maintenance of the beaches, as well as increasing the
capacity of coastal municipalities in terms of waste and water management; (vii)
integration of all current documents, related to waste minimization and waste
water treatment and application in the existing Bulgarian legislation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Black Sea Basin Directorate -Varna for providing
data of ML campaigns in line with MOEW monitoring program.

References

Addamo, A., Laroche, P., Hanke, G. (2017) Top Marine Beach Litter Items in
Europe. EUR 29249 EN. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, 117 pp., Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc.

Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A. (2007) Clean-coast index - a new approach
for beach cleanliness assessment. Ocean Coast Manag 50(5): 352-362.

17
Aytan, Ü., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Saraykoy Beach
(SE Black Sea): density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turk J Fish & Aquat Sci 20(2): 137-145.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.
E., Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Mar Environ Res 119: 22-30.

Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009) Accumulation

and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil Trans R Soc B
364(1526): 1985-1998.

Beaumont, N., Aanesen, M., Austena, M., Börger, T., Clark, J., Cole, M.,
Hooper, T., Lindeque, P., Pascoe, Ch., Wyles, K. (2019) Global ecological,
social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bullet 142: 189-195.

Berkun, M., Aras, E., Nemlioglu, S. (2005) Disposal of solid waste in Istanbul
and along the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Waste Manag 25: 847-855.

Berov, D., Klayn, St. (2020) Microplastics and floating litter pollution in
Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bullet 156: 111225.

Browne, M.A., Chapman, M.G., Thompson, R.C., Amaral Zettler, L.A.,

Jambeck, J., Mallos, N.J. (2015) Spatial and temporal patterns of stranded
intertidal marine debris: is there a picture of global change? Environ Sci Technol
49: 7082-7094.

BSBD (2016) River Basin Management Plan of the Black Sea Basin Directorate
(2016-2021), Available at: http://www.bsbd.org/.

Carreras-Colom, C.M. E., Constenla, M., Soler-Membrives, A., Cartes, J.E.,

Baeza, M., Padros, F., Carrasson, M. (2018) Spatial occurrence and effects of
microplastic ingestion on the deep-water shrimp Aristeus antennatus. Mar
Pollut Bull 133: 44-52.

Corcoran, P.L., Biesinger, M.C., Grifi, M. (2009) Plastic and beaches: a

degrading relationship. Mar Pollut Bull 58(1): 80-84.

Derraik, J.G.B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic

debris: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 44: 842-852.

Erni-Cassola, G., Zadjelovic,V., Gibson M., Christie-Oleza J. (2019)

Distribution of plastic polymer types in the marine environment; A meta
analysis. J Hazard Mater 369: 691-698.

18
Esensoy Şahin, F.B., Karacan, F., Aytan, Ü. (2018) Plastic pollution on Rize
Saraykoy beach in the southeastern Black Sea. Aquatic Research 1(3): 127-135.

Eurostat (2017) Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics.

Galgani, L., Beiras, R., Galgani, F., Panti, C., Borja, A., (eds.) (2019) Impacts of
Marine Litter. Front. Mar. Sci. 6: 208 pp.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D.,
Kinsey, S., Thompson, R.C., Van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M.,
Mira Veiga, J., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A.,
Leslie, H., Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine
Litter in European Seas. Scientific and Technical Research series. Report EUR
26113 EN, 128 pp.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Piha, H. (2011) MSFD GES Technical
Subgroup on Marine Litter Technical Recommendations for the Implementation
of MSFD Requirements. JRC scientific and technical report, EUR 25009 EN, 93
pp.

Gall, S., Thompson, R. (2015) The impact of debris on marine life. Mar Pollut
Bull 92: 170-179.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L. (2017) Production, use and fate of all
plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3(7): e1700782.

Jang, Y.C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M.J., Shim, W.J. (2014) Estimation of lost
tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in
South Korea. Mar Pollut Bull 81(1): 49-54.

Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, Ch., Siegler, Th., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,
Narayan, R., Law, K. (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.
Science 347(6223): 768-771.

Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N.,
Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G. (2014) A comparative study
of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Black Seas. Mar Pollut Bull 89(1-2): 296-304.

Karbalaei, S., Hanachi, P., Walker, T.R., Cole, M. (2018) Occurrence, sources,
human health impacts and mitigation of microplastic pollution. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 25(36): 36046-36063.

19
MARPLAS - BS. (2017) Interim report 3, WP1, Activity 1.1, Component 1.1.1.
Elaboration of detailed studies for a complete analysis of the Romanian and
Bulgarian maritime area, Study 1.1.1 FINAL Bulgarian maritime area, 422 pp.,
Available at: http://www.marsplan.ro/en/results/msp-studies.html.

Miladinova, S., Macias, D., Stips, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E. (2020) Identifying

distribution and accumulation patterns of floating marine debris in the Black
Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 153: 110964.

MOEW (2017) Monitoring program BLKBG - D10 - Marine litter, Available at:
https://www.bsbd.org/bg/msfd_monitoring.html.

Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Sahin, F., Timofte, F. (2016) Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: A
pilot assessment. Turk J Fish & Aquat Sci 16: 213-218.

Moora, H., Piirsalu, E. (2016) Sources and pathways of marine litter.

Background report. Project BLASTIC, plastic waste pathways into the Baltic
Sea. 22 pp., Available at: https://www.blastic.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/so
urces-and-pathways-of-marine-litter_background-report-2.pdf.

Muresan, M., Begun T., Voicaru, C., Vasile, D., Teaca, A. (2017) Beach litter
occurrence in sandy littoral: case study - the Romanian Black Sea coast. Geo-
Eco-Marina 23: 205-213.

Ocean Conservancy (2016) International Coastal Cleanup, Available at:

https://oceanconservancy.org/trash-free-seas/international-coastal-cleanup/past-
results/.

OSPAR (2010) OSPAR Guideline for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Beach in
the OSPAR Maritime Area, Agreement Number 2010-02. 84 pp., Available at:
https://www.ospar.org/ospardata/1002e_beachlitter%20guideline_english%20
only.pdf.

OSPAR (2017) Beach Litter - Abundance, Composition and Trends, Available

at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-
2017/pressures-human-activities/marine-litter/beach-litter/.

Oztekin, A., Bat, L., Gokkurt-Baki, O. (2019) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the Southern Black Sea. Turk J Fish & Aquat Sci 20:
197-205.

Paiu, A., Cândea, M.M., Paiu, R.M., Gheorghe, A.M. (2017) Composition and
spatial distribution of marine litter along the Romanian Black Sea coast.
Cercetări Marine 47: 232-239.

20
Rochman, C., Browne, M., Halpern, B., Hentschel, B., Hoh. E. (2013) Classify
plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494: 169-171.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2019) Marine litter accumulation along the

Bulgarian Black Sea coast: Categories and predominance. Waste Manag 84:
182-193.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2020) Macroplastic distribution (Single-use

plastics and some Fishing gear) from the northern to the southern Bulgarian
Black Sea coast. Reg Stud Mar Sci 37C: 101329.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V. (2017) Seasonal dynamics of

marine litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Mar Pollut Bull 119: 110-
118.

Slobodnik, J., Alexandrov, B., Komorin, V., Mikaelyan, A.S., Guchmanidze, A.,
Arabidze, A., Korshenko, A. (2017) National Pilot Monitoring Studies and Joint
Open Sea Surveys in Georgia, Russian Federation and Ukraine (Report
ENPI/2013/313-169). Scientific Report - Joint Black Sea Surveys 2016, 573 pp.

Stanev, E.V., Ricker, M. (2019) The fate of marine litter in semi-enclosed seas:
A case study of the Black Sea. Front Mar Sci 6: 660.

Stanchev, H., Young, R., Stancheva, M. (2013) Integrating GIS and high-
resolution orthophoto images for the development of a geomorphic shoreline
classification and risk assessment-a case study of cliff/bluff erosion along the
Bulgarian coast. Journal of Coastal Conservation 17: 719-728.

Stancheva, M. (2009) Indicative GIS-based segmentation of the Bulgarian Black

Sea coastline for risk assessment. Compt Rend Acad Bulg Sci 62(10): 1311-
1318.

Suaria, G., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Ion, G., Aliani, S. (2015) First

observations on the abundance and composition of floating debris in the North-
western Black Sea. Mar Environ Res 107: 45-49.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Mar Pollut Bull 120: 154-158.

Toneva, D., Stankova, T., Dimova, D., Ralcheva, D. (2019) Research on marine
beach litter at Burgas Bay region during autumn 2019. Sustainable Development
3: 18-22.

21
Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B. (2013) Origin
and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish western
Black Sea Coast. Mar Environ Res 85: 21-28.

Turrell, W.R. (2019) Spatial distribution of foreshore litter on the northwest

European continental shelf. Mar Pollut Bull 142: 583-594.

Veiga, J.M., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S.,
Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., Cronin, R.
(2016) Identifying Sources of Marine Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter
Thematic Report. JRC Technical Report. EUR 28309, 41 pp., Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-
10/pdf/MSFD_identifying_sources_of_marine_litter.pdf.

Worm, B., Barbier, EB., Beaumont, N., Duffy, JE., Folke, C., Halpern, BS.,
Jackson, JBC., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A.,
Stachowicz, J.J., Watson, R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean
ecosystem services. Science 314: 787-790.

Worm, B., Lotze, H.K., Jubinville, I., Wilcox, C., Jambeck, J. (2017) Plastic as
a persistent marine pollutant. Ann Rev Environ Resour 42(1): 1-26.

22
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Marine litter monitoring on the Black Sea beaches in

2019: The ANEMONE Project experience

Angelica Paiu1*, Mihaela Cândea Mirea1, Anca-Maria Gheorghe1,

Andreea Ștefania Ionașcu1, Marian Paiu1, Costin Timofte1,
Marina Panayotova2, Radoslava Bekova2, Valentina Todorova2,
Kremena Stefanova2, Media Gumus2, Svetlana Mihova2,
Ayaka Amaha Öztürk3, Zeynep Gülenç3, Denga Yuriy4,
Karina Vishnyakova4
1 Mare Nostrum NGO, Bogdan Voda 16str., 900613, Constanta, ROMANIA
2Institute of Oceanology-BAS,”Parvi may”40 Str., P.O. Box 152, 9000 Varna,
BULGARIA
3 Turkish Marine Research Foundation, P.O. Box: 10 Beykoz 34820 Istanbul, TURKEY
4 Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of the Sea, 89 Frantsuzsky Blvd. Odessa,

UKRAINE
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Plastic debris is a complex cultural and multi-sectoral problem that imposes tremendous
ecological, economic, and social costs around the world. One of the substantial barriers to
addressing plastic pollution is the absence of adequate scientific research, assessment, and
monitoring. There is a gap in information needed to evaluate impacts of marine litter on
coastal and marine species, habitats, economic health, human health and safety, and social
values. The Black Sea does not represent an exception and the assessments made in 2019,
within “Assessing the vulnerability of the Black Sea marine ecosystem to human
pressures” (ANEMONE) project represent step forward in filling this knowledge gap. 28
surveys were performed in Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and Ukraine in spring (April) and
autumn (October – November) of 2019 and artificial polymer material accounted for 78%.

Keywords: Marine litter, Black Sea, ANEMONE, plastics, pollution

Introduction

Plastics trends around the world

Marine environments are vital important to human well-being, but they are also
extensively threatened by anthropogenic activities. Marine litter, or debris, is
defined as "any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded,
disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment" (Cheshire et al.
2009; Schulz et al. 2017). This problem was first mentioned in 1870, when Jules
Verne provided a graphic description of how floating debris accumulates in ocean
gyres in the chapter on the Sargasso Sea in his famous novel “Twenty Thousand
Leagues under the Sea”.

23
The marine environment can be considered as a sink in which anthropogenic litter
accumulates (Van Acoleyen et al. 2013) coming from land-based and offshore
sources (Veiga et al. 2016). Thus, marine litter is found in all marine
compartments such as beaches, shallow and deep seafloor, at the sea surface and
in the water column. Marine litter is recognized as a worldwide concern by EU
and global initiatives such as the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP; see Sustainable Development Goal 14), as well as the G7 and G20. It
causes harm to the environment and generates adverse economic, health and
aesthetic impacts.

There have been growing awareness of the problem in recent years by scientists,
industry, policy makers and environmental NGOs. Considerable media attention
and associated interest from the public has been focused on this issue. Wind and
sea currents make it a transboundary problem. For instance, during a field study
with checking the barcodes, performed by Mare Nostrum NGO, on the Romanian
beaches were found items that have the origins in such countries as Ukraine,
Turkey, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary or Cyprus, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Finland,
Portugal, China, etc.

Due to the persistence and buoyancy of marine litter in general, and plastics in
particular, impacts may be separated considerably in both time and space from
the original source. Over 267 animal species are known to suffer from
entanglement and ingestion of marine debris, including 86% of sea turtles, 44%
of seabirds, and 43% of marine mammals. Plastic waste also constitutes an
aesthetic problem in touristic areas such as natural parks and beaches. Marine
litter is a problem in all EU marine waters. On reaching the ocean, it is estimated
that 15% of marine debris floats on the sea surface, 15% remains in the water
column and 70% rests on the seabed, both in shallow coastal areas and in much
deeper parts of the oceans (UNEP 2005). Common litter items are made of plastic,
paper, wood, textiles, metal, glass, ceramics and rubber discarded by humans
(UNEP 2005).

The first plastics hit the market around 1950. At that time there were 2.5 billion
people on Earth and the global production of plastic was 1.5 million tonnes. Today
there are more than 7 billion people and plastic production exceeds 300 million
tonnes annually (Plastics Europe 2015; Velis 2014). Some people have described
this dramatic increase in the use of plastics as the “Age of Plastics” (Stevens 2002)
or “Our Plastic Age” (Thompson et al. 2009). If the trend continues, another 33
billion tonnes of plastic will have accumulated around the planet by 2050
(Rochman et al. 2013) (Figure 1).

The quantities of plastics leaking to the oceans on a global scale are largely
unknown. Reliable quantitative estimations of input loads, sources and
originating sectors represent a significant knowledge gap, but it is suggested that,
every year, almost 8 million tonnes of plastic leak to the ocean. It is estimated that

24
the ocean may already contain over 150 million tonnes of plastic, of which around
250,000 tonnes, fragmented into 5 trillion plastic pieces, may be floating at the
oceans’ surface.

Figure 1. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments

(Barnes et al. 2009)

Between 60 and 90 % – sometimes as much as 100 % – of the litter that

accumulates on shorelines, the sea surface and the sea floor is made up of one or
a combination of different plastic polymers. The most common items, constituting
over 80 % of the litter stranded on beaches (Andrady 2015) are cigarette butts,
bags, remains of fishing gear, and food and beverage containers. Likewise, 90 %
of the litter collected from sea floor trawls is made up of plastic (Derraik 2002;
Galgani et al. 2015).

Despite the fact that rivers are major sources of marine litter, there are no global
estimates on man-made debris reaching the ocean with river flows. Therefore, of
the estimated 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes of litter which enter the marine
environment in 2010 from land-based sources within a 50 km-wide coastal zone
(Jambeck et al. 2015), the proportion delivered by rivers is unknown. Debris
originating farther than 50 km inland from the coast could also be added to these
estimations.

Due to the slow rates of plastic degradation in the marine environment (from
months to hundreds of years), it can be assumed that a major part of the debris
that leaked into the ocean after the onset of mass production in the 1950s is still
there. Rough estimates of the global stock of plastic marine debris range between
86 and 150 million tonnes, assuming leakage ratios between 1.4 and 2.8 %
(McKinsey Center for Business and Environment 2015).

25
At a global level, UNEP has estimated the economic impact of marine plastics
(excluding microplastics), including losses incurred by fisheries and tourism due
to plastic littering, as well as beach clean-up costs, at around $13 billion per year.
Only in the European Union fishing fleet is estimated to lose $81.7 million (61.7
million Euros) per year.

Materials and Methods

Monitoring of litter on the coastline should quantify and characterize litter

pollution and provide comparable datasets to support national and regional
assessments of marine litter pollution. Consequently, it should provide the basis
for the development of solid waste management, appropriate infrastructure,
control and support the mitigation measures. It should also help to understand the
impact of marine litter on marine ecosystems and biota (Cheshire et al. 2009).

The European Commission decision of September 1 st, 2010 on criteria and

methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters has
established that marine litter should be evaluated. This should allow the
assessment of trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or deposited on
coastlines, including analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and, where
possible, source.

Sampling units can be identified on the selected beach sectors. A sampling unit is
a fixed section of a beach covering the entire area from the water's edge (where
possible and safe) and the area where the sandy part ends and the asphalted / built-
up part begins (Galgani et al. 2013).

The monitoring was done on a section of 100 m length, according to the sector's
delineation. The section length was the same for each monitoring session. The
GPS position is obligatory in order to ensure using the same monitoring site for
each monitoring session. All litter items (size more than 2.5 cm) found on the
beach have a unique identification number and should be included in the
monitoring protocol. Data could be entered immediately while the waste is picked
up or it is also possible to collect all litter in closed bags and to make the
registration afterwards. Human errors such as unclear handwriting, forgetting to
enter some data in the form, not seeing all litter items (leaving litter behind),
mismatching categories, etc. should be taken in account.

Any unknown items that are not listed in the monitoring protocol will be marked
separately at the end of the form in the special box with brief description and
photographs.

After the registration of all the items they were sorted according to the material
types (plastic, metal, paper/cardboard, glass, rubber, wood, textile, other), placed
in different bags and weighted separately. The weight per category was recorded

26
in each observation sheet. The monitoring sessions were conducted in spring
(April) and autumn (mid September – mid October) 2019.

Results and Discussion

Plastic litter in the Black Sea coast

Marine litter is recognized as a worldwide rising pollution problem affecting all

the oceans and coastal areas of the world (Galgani et al. 2015; Ryan 2015;
Thompson 2015) and the Black Sea is not an exception. However, there is a lack
of comparable and reliable data and very limited information regarding the
quantities and composition of marine litter in the Black Sea. It is admitted that the
prevailing material of marine litter is plastic. In the recent years, more and more
organizations are willing to combat marine litter and a variety of projects and
activities are implemented nowadays in order to minimize the extent of this issue.
“Assessing the vulnerability of the Black Sea marine ecosystem to human
pressures” (ANEMONE) is aiming to enhance knowledges, skills, to exchange
the experience and good practices, innovation, harmonized methodologies and
joint research. Within the ANEMONE Project the marine litter case studies were
conducted with the involvement of citizens.
ANEMONE also had made a step forward in filling the scientific research gap
regarding the beach litter pollution in the Black Sea by organizing two
synchronous monitoring sessions in spring (April) and autumn (October –
November) of 2019 in the participating riparian countries: Romania (Mare
Nostrum NGO), Bulgaria (Institute of oceanology – BAS), Ukraine (Ukrainian
Scientific Center of Ecology of the Sea) and Turkey (Turkish Marine Research
Foundation). There were 16 surveys performed in Romania, 2 in Bulgaria, 2 in
Turkey, and 6 in Ukraine - 26 surveys in total, covering a surface of 78308 m2 of
beaches.

4% 0% 2% 3% 1%
Artificial polymer
5%
7% materials
Metal

Glass/ceramics
78%

Paper/cardboard

Rubber

Figure 2. The most abundant materials of marine litter at Black Sea beaches (2019)

27
The total amount of items was 64703 (spring 27,080; autumn 37,623), the most
common material was plastic, constituting 78% of the total amount (50,681
plastic items) (Figure 2). This finding is quite in line with the global statistics that
emphasize the fact that plastic waste makes up to 80% of all marine debris from
surface waters to deep-sea sediments.

Table 1 presents the densities per each beach sector from Bulgaria, Romania,
Turkey and Ukraine, from 2009 to 2019. Within ANEMONE study, the locations
with highest densities included Turkey with 2.81 items/m2 and Romania with 0.95
items/m2. Sites with intermediate litter density were in Bulgaria (0.57 items/m2
and the lowest diversity was recorded in Ukraine, 0.22 items/m2. The average
density for the surveyed beaches was 0.82 items/m2. In Romania, the densities
varied between 0.18 items/m2 (Corbu) and 2.33 items/m2.

Table 1. Results of beach surveys for marine litter in the Black Sea
Location Methods Litter Period Authors/Organization
density
(items/m2)
Romania 100 m length 0.95 2019 Mare Nostrum NGO
(MSFD)

Bulgaria 100 m length 0.57 2019 IO-BAS

(MSFD)
Turkey 100 m length 2.81 2019 TUDAV
(MSFD)
Ukraine 100 m length 0.22 2019 UkrSCES
(MSFD)
Turkey 5 – 100 m length 0.09 – 3.24 2009 - 2018 Terzi et al. 2020
(OSPAR)
Turkey 100 length (MSFD) 1.512±0.578 2015 - 2016 Oztekin et al. 2020
Bulgaria 100 length (MSFD) 0.64 2017 Simeonova and
Chuturkova 2020
Turkey OSPAR 1.22 – 4.17 2016 - 2017 Aytan et al. 2020

In Turkey, the litter density reached up to 4.17 items/m2 (Aytan et al. 2020), one
of the highest value ever recorded. In Bulgaria, the litter density ranged between
0.64 items/m2 to 0.57 items/m2, between 2017 and 2019 (Simeonova 2020). The
surveys were performed during different seasons, in different regions with
specific characteristics, with more or less anthropogenic activities that influence
the presence of litter. The methods used, MSFD and OSPAR Convention, are
quite the same. To have a clear view of the litter density around the Black Sea
basin, however, it is highly important to define a common database where to make
data available and common protocols to be used in monitoring in line with the
requirements of MSFD and the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution.

28
The artificial polymer material prevailed in all participating countries, as can be
easily observed in Figure 3. The highest quantity was registered in Romania
(33468), followed by Turkey (9337), Bulgaria (4395) and Ukraine (3481).

Figure 3. Artificial polymer materials on the Black Sea beaches

Plastic litter is not only an environmental, but also a health problem. Medical and
sanitary wastes constitute a health hazard and could potentially seriously injure
people. A large number of cotton bud sticks (475 items), diapers (32 items),
syringes and their needles (25 items), medical/pharmaceuticals containers/tubes
(48 items), as well as sanitary towels (103 items) were identified on the Black Sea
beaches.

The top 10 common plastic items were: cigarette butts and filters (G27) (21000
items), crisps packets/sweets wrappers (4730 items), plastic pieces 2.5 cm > <
50cm (3778 items), polystyrene pieces 2.5 cm > < 50 cm (2764 items), plastic
caps/lids drinks (1990 items), small plastic bags, e.g. freezer bags incl. pieces
(1958 items), polystyrene pieces 0 - 2.5 cm (1729 items), straws and stirrers (1406
items), plastic pieces 0 - 2.5 cm (1193 items) and string and cord (diameter less
than 1 cm) (858 items).

Plastic litter at the Romanian Black Sea coast

Regular surveys and monitoring events are being organized in Romania, by Mare
Nostrum NGO, starting from 2014 for the aim of providing information on
temporal and spatial distribution of marine litter. The strategy adopted is based
on the measurement of quantities and inventory for collection purposes. The small
fragments measuring less than 2.5 cm, micro-litter, is not being targeted by the
monitoring surveys. Recording the rate at which litter accumulates on beaches
through regular surveys is currently the most commonly-used approach for
assessing long-term accumulation patterns and cycles. The studies performed to

29
date have demonstrated abundance of 0.95 items/m2. The monitoring is taking
place twice per year (April and October), on 8 beach sectors established along
Romanian seaside, from South to North (Vama Veche, Saturn, Tuzla, Eforie,
Constanta, Mamaia Nord, Navodari and Corbu). A total of 45814 items were
recorded, removed and classified. Plastic accounts for a large proportion of the
litter found on beaches in all 8 areas (Table 2).

Table 2. Percentage of plastic in litter collected in Romania, 2019

Sector April 2019 September 2019
Artificial Artificial
polymer Percentage polymer Percentage
material % material %
(number) (number)
Vama Veche 503 55 1.938 88
Saturn 513 58 3.271 75
Tuzla 183 51 1.669 73
Eforie 1.328 34 4.226 79
Constanta 1.488 79 7.986 85
Mamaia Nord 1.320 58 3.920 75
Navodari 1.464 70 2.967 71
Corbu 210 78 482 89

The average percentage for artificial polymer materials was estimated as 73% of
all litter found on the Romanian beaches in 2019 (Figure 4). Metal was on the
second place and reaches only 8%, followed by glass/ceramics (6%) and
paper/cardboard (5%). The less abundant categories were cloth/textile and
processed wood (3%), other (2%) and rubber (0%).

Figure 4. The most abundant materials of beach litter in Romania (categorized), 2019

30
Among the polymer artificial material category, the cigarette butts and filters
(G27) were the most common (19779 items), followed by crisps packets/sweet
wrappers (G30) (3749 items) and small plastic bags, e.g. freezer bags incl. pieces
(G4) (1724 items) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Top 10 items found on the 8 Romanian beach sectors, 2019

The artificial polymer material reached the highest value in 2019 (Figure 6), when
there were registered 33468 plastic items. The cigarette butts averaged 59% of
total number.

Figure 6. Trends of artificial polymer material in Romania, 2016 – 2019

31
The monitoring sessions were performed in spring, before the summer season
started and in September, after it. The amount of litter was found to be very
variable: April – 7009 items and September– 26459 items. For instance, Figure 7
shows the differences for the top most common items and we can see that crisps
packets/sweet wrappers (G30), straws and stirrers (G35) were more abundant in
the autumn session. However, this is not a rule, because there were items that
showed higher number in April, such as plastic pieces 2.5 cm > < 50 cm (G79)
(966 in April and 675 in September), small plastic bags, e.g. freezer bags incl.
pieces (G4) (929 items in April and 795items in September) or foam sponge (G73)
(182 in April and 153 in September).

Figure 7. Differences between monitoring sessions, 2019

(Front row: spring, back row: autumn)

Plastic litter at the Bulgaria, Turkey and Ukraine coast

Institute of Oceanology – BAS, Varna, Bulgaria, within ANEMONE project
organized 2 monitoring campaigns, in April and in September 2019. But, here the
trend was different; meaning that in spring, the number of plastic litter was about
2.5 times higher than in autumn (Figure 8).

The most common items were cigarette butts (G27) with 659 items, followed by
plastic pieces 2.5 cm > < 50 cm (G79) with 650 and crisps packets/sweets
wrappers (G30) with 430 items.

In Turkey, the situation was the same as in Bulgaria. According to the monitoring
reports of Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), in spring the number

32
of litter made of artificial polymer material was 8629 while in autumn it was 12
times less – 708 (Figure 8). However, the items counted in the autumn survey
presented less as not all the litter pieces were counted due to a logistical problem.
Unlike Romania and Bulgaria, in Turkey, the most abundant were polystyrene
pieces 2.5 cm > < 50cm (G82) with 2251 items, plastic pieces 2.5 > <50 cm (G79)
with 1438 items and plastic caps/lids drinks (G21) with 652 items.

10000
Spring Autumn
8000
Number of items

6000

4000

2000

0
Bulgaria Turkey Ukraine
Country

Figure 8. Plastic litter collected by the surveys in spring and autumn 2019 in Bulgaria,
Turkey and Ukraine

Ukraine had a total of 3481 plastic items during two surveys made by the
Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of the Sea (UkrSces). The litter values
were not so variable: in spring the number of plastic debris was 1669 and in
autumn – 1812 (Figure 8).

The polystyrene pieces 0 – 2.5 cm (G81) prevailed in Ukraine (1006 items), being
followed by cigarette butts and filters (G27) (480 items) and small plastic bags,
e.g. freezer bags incl. pieces (G4) (228 items).

Conclusion

Plastic pollution is a global problem caused mainly by excessive consumption and

lack of effective waste management. Nowadays, systematic efforts to collect data
on the amount, distribution, composition and sources of plastic litter along the
coastline of the Black Sea are rather limited. ANEMONE Project sets the baseline
for joint scientific assessment and monitoring in 2019 and it should be continued

33
in the coming years, ensuring the creation of long-term data and information
series that cover the whole Black Sea coastline.

Artificial polymer material accounted up to 78% of all the litter collected. The
most frequently found items included cigarette butts and filters (G27), crisps
packets/sweets wrappers (G30) and plastic pieces 2.5 cm > < 50cm (G79). The
highest quantity was registered in Romania, followed by Turkey, Bulgaria and
Ukraine.

It is essential to support further research to fill the knowledge gaps on plastic

debris fluxes, its impacts on maritime socio-economic sectors, biota and on
human health, on the occurrence of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing
gear (ALDFG) and on its degradation mechanisms in the environment. In this
respect, in order to strengthen the efforts of the ANEMONE community it is
recommended to reinforce and consolidate participatory science initiatives,
encouraging the collaboration between scientific communities.

The development and implementation of common protocols and standardized

methods for plastic litter assessment in the Black Sea, especially in relation with
different size categories, sampling procedures and reference values are needed to
be harmonized and adopted at regional and national levels of all the Black Sea
countries.

Acknowledgement

The study has been supported by the ANEMONE project “Assessing the vulnerability of
the Black Sea marine ecosystem to human pressures”, funded by the European Union under
ENI CBC Black Sea Basin Programme 2014-2020, grant contract 83530/20.07.2018.

References

Andrady, A.L. (2015) Persistence of plastic litter in the oceans. In: Marine
Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.), Springer,
Berlin, pp. 57-72.

Aytan, U., Sahin F., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Saraykoy Beach (SE Black
Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms. Turkish
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation

and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc
Lond B Biol Sci 364 (1526):1985-98, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.

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.,

34
Westphalen, G. (2009) UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of
Marine Litter.

Derraik, J.G.B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris:
A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(9): 842-852.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T. (2015) Global distribution and abundance of
marine litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L.,
Klages, M.), Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 29-56.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey,
S., Thompson, R.C., van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Veiga, J.
M., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H.,
Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in
European Seas. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Report EUR 26113 EN.
Available at: https://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/201702074014.pdf

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(6223): 768-771.

McKinsey Center for Business and Environment (2015) Stemming the Tide:
Land-based Strategies for a Plastic-free Ocean. McKinsey & Company and Ocean
Conservancy, US. Available at: https://act.oceanconservancy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf

Oztekin, A., Bat, L., Baki, O.G. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop Sarikum
lagoon coast of the Southern Black Sea. Turkish Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
20(3): 197-205.

Plastics Europe (2015). Plastics – the Facts 2015, an Analysis of European

Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. Available at:
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/3715/1689/8308/2015plastics_t
he_facts_14122015.pdf

Rochman, C.M., Browne, M.A., Halpern, B.S., Hentschel, B.T., Hoh, E.,
Karapanagioti, H.K., Rios-Mendoza, L.M., Takada, H., Teh, S., Thompson, R.C.
(2013) Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494: 169-171.

Ryan, P.G. (2015) A brief history of marine litter research. In: Marine
Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.), Springer,
Berlin, Germany, pp. 1-25.

35
Schulz, M., van Loon, W., Fleet, D.M., Baggelaar, P., van der Meulen, E. (2017)
OSPAR standard method and software for statistical analysis of beach litter data.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 120: 166-175.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2020) Macroplastic distribution (Single-use

plastics and some fishing gear) from the northern to the southern Bulgarian Black
Sea coast. Regional Studies in Marine Science 37. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101329.

Stevens, E.S. (2002) Green Plastics: An Introduction to the New Science of

Biodegradable Plastics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

Terzi, Y., Erus, C., Ozseker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of the south – eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste
Management 105: 139-147.

Thompson, R.C. (2015) Microplastics in the marine environment: Sources,

consequences and solutions. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds. Bergmann,
M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.), Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp.185-200.

Thompson, R.C., Swan, S.H., Moore, C.J., Vom Saal, F.S. (2009) Our plastic age.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364:
1973-1976.

UNEP (2005) Marine Litter, An Analytical Overview. United Nations

Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Van Acoleyen, M., Laureysens, I., Stijn, L., Raport, L., Van Sluis, C., Kater, B.,
van Onselen, E., Veiga, J., Ferreira, M. (2013) ARCADIS Final Report Marine
Litter Study to Support the Establishment of an Initial Quantitative Headline
Reduction Target. SFRA0025, European Commission DG Environment Project
number BE0113.000668.

Veiga, J.M., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S.,
Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., Cronin, R. (2016)
Identifying sources of marine litter, MSFD GES Technical Group on Marine
Litter Thematic Report; JRC technical report; EUR28309, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg.

Velis, C.A. (2014) Global recycling markets - plastic waste: A story for one player
– China. Report prepared by FUELogy and formatted by D-waste on behalf of
International Solid Waste Association - Globalisation and Waste Management
Task Force. ISWA, Vienna.

36
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Analysis of the monitoring of the beach litter in the

Georgia
Nino Machitadze1,2*, Kakhaber Bilashvili3, Vakhtang Gvakharia1,2,
Nino Gelashvili1,2, Inessa Kuzanova3, Vazha Trapaidze3
1 Al. Janelidze Institute of Geology of Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 31,
Politkovskaia str.0186, Tbilisi, GEORGIA
2
Scientific Research Firm GAMMA. 19d, D.Guramishvili ave, 0192 Tbilisi, GEORGIA
3 Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Institute of Oceanography and Hydrology, 1,

I. Chavchavadze ave., 0179 Tbilisi, GEORGIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Marine litter is included in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as one of the
Descriptors – Descriptor 10, for determination of marine environmental status (Directive
2008/56/EC_MSFD). Marine litter is considered as a crucial and complicated
environmental problem in the Black Sea basin (BSC 2007). The scientific group of Iv.
Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Scientific/ Research Firm “GAMMA” gave a
start to the investigations of beach litter in the Georgian coastal area in 2015 within the
EC-UNDP funded projects “EMBLAS I and II” and “EMLAS Plus”. With the purpose of
conducting investigations, the European monitoring methodology and protocols were
harmonized and adopted for our region. Five sites in terms of macro litter monitoring in
the Georgian Black Sea coastal area was selected. The survey program included
identification and categorisation of macro-litter (items of 2.5 cm and over). The
abundance of litter ranges within 0.07 - 1.12 items/m2. The surveyed beaches differ by
the number of visitors per season and infrastructure. Based on the results, it is deduced
the plastics is the largest category of household waste accumulated on the beaches,
whereas the remaining categories of paper, metal, glass and rubber do not exceeding 5%
in total. An analysis of the data obtained, revealed, that the locations near the mouths of
the rivers had significantly larger amounts of litter, likely receiving litter from marine
and riverine sources. The continuous data monitoring is required to create more
consistent picture of the marine litter dynamics in the coastal zone.

Keywords: Georgia, beach, macro litter, plastic, monitoring

Introduction

Marine litter is included in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as one of

the Descriptors – Descriptor 10, for determination of marine environmental
status (EC 2008). To develop effective strategies for the establishment of survey
programs that aim to reduce plastic litter and its possible impacts, it is necessary
to identify and quantify the litter found and their pathways to the marine
environment. The composition of litter is one of the important point of coastal
assessments. A detailed study of litter composition on the beaches provides

37
information on potential sources of the litter found and helps to assess the harm
to the environment

Marine litter is considered as a crucial and complicated environmental problem

in the Black Sea basin (BSC 2007). Available data are predominantly gathered
on sandy beaches, while data for floating litter in the sea is exceptionally limited
(Jeftic et al. 2009; Joint Black Sea Surveys 2017).

An assessment of beach litter shows that a large amount of debris has been
observed in different areas of the southern Black Sea coast (Topçu et al. 2013;
Terzi and Seyhan 2017; Aytan et al. 2020; Oztekin et al. 2020). The plastic is
the most prevalent type of litter in the Black Sea. The southeastern side of the
Black Sea was found to be more polluted than its western side (Terzi and
Seyhan 2017). Conversely, compared to the eastern side, the western side of the
Turkish Black Sea is ~ 3.8 times more populated and hence its marine litter was
expected to be denser. An extremely high litter density (1.51 ± 0.58 items m −2)
is detected in Sarıkum Lagoon, which is located at about 42°N and 35°E
(Oztekin et al. 2020). An even higher litter density with higher variance was
estimated for Sarayköy Beach (2.10 ± 1.38 items m−2 ), which is located at about
41.02°N and 40.38°E (Aytan et al. 2020). Monitoring of marine litter along the
Bulgarian Black Sea coast (Simeonova et al. 2017) shows that the beaches were
highly polluted due to local sources, where cigarette butts and filters were
dominant. Since the highest marine litter accumulation was observed in
summer, one can conclude that the accumulation is probably a result of
recreational activities, increased tourist flow and wild camping. Therefore, the
marine litter on the west coast of the Black Sea seems to be almost entirely of
local origin. In summary, on the base of existing evidence the litter density on
the west coast is less than on the south and east coasts.

Our scientific group was first that started the investigations of beach litter on
Georgian coastal area in 2015 within the EC-UNDP funded projects “EMBLAS
I and II” and “EMLAS Plus”. With the purpose of conducting investigations, the
monitoring method and protocols were harmonized and adopted for our region.
Obtained results were issued with project internal reports and some publications
(Ozturk and Pogojeva 2019; Machitadze et al. 2016, 2018). This paper
demonstrates the results of a survey conducted between 2015 and 2019 in
frames of above-mentioned international projects.

Materials and Methods

Survey area

The surveyed area stretches across the central and southern part of the Black sea
Georgian coastal area, from Sarpi (by the national borders of Turkey and
Georgia) to river Rioni. This represents 90 km in length. Submarine slop and

38
beaches are formed by the rivers’ solid materials and alongshore transfer
processes of bottom sediment. Southern part beaches – from Sarpi up to the
mouth of river Natanebi – are presented with the pebble and gravel, turning to
the sandy beaches on the north. Due to various anthropogenic factors within this
zone, such as transit and economic corridor from east to west, intensive human
activity, residential, tourist and recreational infrastructure within the coastline,
the coastal and marine environments are affected with the pollution.

Sampling

Methodology for Monitoring Marine Litter on the beaches (JRC 2013) involves
the assessment of the density and categories of litter items on a 100-metre
survey section of the selected beach. Observations are conducted on the same
section, thus the coordinates of the endpoints of the sections are marked. All
items of litter on the selected sites were collected in compliance with the safety
and precaution rules. Then they were counted and categorized/sub-categorised
and documented within the field records. After completion of the works, the
survey sites were cleaned and the collected litter is placed in the household
bunkers (Machitadze et al. 2016, 2018).

The below considerations were taken into account for selecting 5 sites in terms
of macro litter monitoring (Figure 1, Table 1);

The first selected survey sit located in 2 km to the north from the northern edge
of Kobuleti. Unlike central part of Kobuleti, this zone has relatively low level of
human activity: there are no private houses, touristic or recreational
infrastructure, trade counters or domestic wastewater. There is no visible source
of litter and the river mouth is quite far away from the beach. The area adjacent
to the beach is not populated. Thus, there has not been detected any visible
source of litter pollution. Taking all these facts into consideration, this part of
costal line can be used for the detection of the background level of the pollution.

The second site - Ureki is a famous sea resort, becoming densely populated
during the summer season. Children make up the majority of visitors due to its
healing and recreational features. During the last couple of years, intensity of
construction works and infrastructure development increased in Ureki, namely
in Shekvetili zone. Riv. Tskaltsminda and Riv. Supsa mouths make up the
northern border of Ureki. Thus, the main pollution sources of the resort’s beach
represent the rivers runoff and impact coming from the town.

The third survey site is located in Sarpi, along with the international East-West
highway E60, which is located 200 m away from the gate of Georgian-Turkey
state land border. The highway goes over the concrete wall, which is located on
the backside of the beach. On the opposite side of the highway, there are private
houses, hotels, cafes and guesthouses are operating. Sarpi beach gets very busy

39
during the summer season. The effluent discharge point has been registered. The
highway is permanently overcharged with cars and transit vehicles. Due to the
high traffic on Georgian and Turkish crossing border, these vehicle are stuck for
a couple of days. There are a lot of cafés, fast food facilities and counters for
souvenirs around the place. Thus, this place is under the high pressure of human
activity.

The fourth site is located close to the Riv. Tskaltsminda mouth. This section
represents the northern end of Ureki beach, characterized with low customer
demand and no cleaning activities are made.

The fifth monitoring site is located on southern periphery of Poti, near the Riv.
Maltakva mouth. Maltakva beach spreads over 3 km. The width of the beach
reaches to 170 m in some places. The beach is seasonally visited, thus the
maintenance works are carried out regularly.

Table 1. Survey sites, coordinates and dates

# Name of Beach Coordinates Survey date
1 Kobuleti 41.895863°N; 41.770758°E 29.10.2019
41.895400°N; 41.770827°E 03.09.2019
41.895854°N; 41.771141°E 17.09.2018, 20.04.2017
41.895404°N; 41.771262°E 19.10.2016, 22.10.2015
2 Ureki 41.995491°N; 41.759237°E 26.10.2019
41.995528°N; 41.758816°E 18.09.2019
41.995077°N; 41.758869°E 21.10.2015
41.995049°N; 41.759291°E
3 Sarpi 41.522318°N ; 41.548278°E 28.10.2019
41.522764°N; 41.548371°E 31.08.2019
41.522902°N; 41.547649°E 20.09.2018
41.522451°N; 41.547503°E 22.04.2017, 18.10.2016
4 Tskaltsminda 42.001920°N; 41.756811°E 26.10.2019
42.001857°N; 41.757130°E 31.08.2019
42.001507°N; 41.757124°E
42.001491°N; 41.756865°E
5 Maltakva 42.106660°N; 41.683996°E 26.10.2019, 31.08.2019
42.106796°N; 41.684486°E
42.106245°N; 41.684324°E
42.106419°N; 41.684780°E

The survey program included investigation of macro-litter - 2.5 cm larger items.

All items in this size category were collected, identified according to the
"Master List" (JRC 2013) and recorded within the specific forms.

40
 Figure 1. Selected sites for monitoring on beach litter along the Georgian Black Sea
coast

Results and Discussion

The surveyed beaches differed with the seasonally visitor number and
infrastructure. Also, with the collection, disposal and management of the litter
on the beaches by the relevant municipal parties. Cleaning activities on our
survey sites of Ureki and Sarpi are regularly carried out by local municipal
organizations, especially during the summer holiday season (May-September).
No cleaning works are carried out in the northern periphery of Kobuleti,
Tskaltsminda and Maltakva as these sites are not visited by tourists.

The results revealed that the total load of macro litter on Kobuleti section
(Figure 2) ranged from 1000 to 3000 items/100m. There is a clear trend towards
reducing the amount of the litter from 2016 to 2019 (Figure 3).

41
 Figure 2. Northern periphery of Kobuleti N.P. beach sampling section

There is also a visible trend of a sharp decline in the total amount of the litter in
Ureki and Sarpi surveyed sites. The relatively low density of litters in these
areas since 2016 as a result of daily cleaning activities. Thus, the obtained data
represents the loading of a litter within a single day. The total amount of litter
on these sites varied from 200 to 800 items/100m in 2017 - 2019.

Figure 3. Total litter amount on the study beaches

According to the data of the two sessions in 2019, the density of litter on the
Maltakva beach it reached to 1000 items/100m. This section can be considered
as background level (like Kobuleti north periphery section). On Tskaltsminda
beach, total load of litter ranged between 1700 and 2300 items/100m.
Consequently, on Tskaltsminda beach there should be additional source of litter,

42
such as river runoff. Therefore, this section should reflect their impact on the
litter accumulation process.

Assessment of the studied beaches by CCI (Alkalay et al. 2007) shows that
Kobuleti N.P. beach can be considered as moderately dirty. Although this
section is not cleaned up regularly, there was a decrease in the amount of litter
in 2017-2019 (Figure 2). The surveyed site in Ureki beach situated in central
part of resort, whereas regular clean-ups were carried out seasonally, thus the
area found as clean. Sarpi and Maltakva beaches were found to be clean.
Tskaltsminda section was classified as extremely dirty due to the above-
mentioned conditions (Table 2).

Table 2. Clean- coast indexes of the beaches

Name of Beach Items/m2 CCI
Kobuleti N.P. 0.32-0.95 6–20:from moderate to dirty
Ureki 0.07-0.9 0.14–20: From clean to dirty
Sarpi 0.02-0.07 < 2: very clean
Tskaltsminda 0.84-1.12 20 +: extremely dirty
Maltakva 0.20-0.23 4–5: clean

Density of litters on studied beaches remain within the average amount of litter
detected on the Black Sea coasts - 0.05-5.05 items/m2 (Aytan et al. 2020) and is
similar to the litter density range of other regions of the Black sea (Terzi and
Seyhan 2017; Simeonova et al. 2017; Terzi et al. 2020).

In order to assess the nature of litter distribution and their sources,

categorization was conducted according to the research methodology (JRC
2013). Tables 3 and 4 provides the percentage of essential categories of litter
items.

Based on the results, it is deduced the plastics is the largest category of litter
accumulated on the beaches, whereas the remaining categories of paper, metal,
glass and rubber do not exceeding 5% in total (Alkalay et al. 2007).

Different ratio was identified within Sarpi beach section, whereas the content of
plastic litter represents less than 70% and the share of metal litter was 10-18%.
The share of rubber litter was quite high (5-9%). This might be due to the
different sources of anthropogenic impact on this beach. In particular, the litter
on Sarpi beach comes mainly from the highway. The road runs by the edge of
the beach, whereas truck trailers have to stop for a long time while queuing to
cross the state border. Thus, the drivers leave the following categories of litter:
food waste, cans and bottles, as well as dismantled transport equipment.

43
 Table 3. The percentage of litter items by the essential categories
(%) on the beaches of Georgia between 2015 and 2018
Litter

Kobuleti N. P.
Kobuleti N. P.
categories

Kobuleti N.P
Kobuleti N.P
Ureki

Ureki
Sarpi

Sarpi

Sarpi
Years 2015 2016 2017 2018
Plastic 96.3 94.4 91.2 61.1 91.5 86 95.1 79.7 100
Rubber 0.1 0.3 1.9 5.1 1.9 2 1.8 5.8 -
Textile 0.9 1.7 3.3 3.3 2.8 - - - -
Processed/
0.1 0.8 0.5 1.4 - - - - -
worked wood
paper/
0.3 0.7 - 1.6 - - - - -
Cardboard
Metal 1.1 1.3 1.2 18.1 1.4 10 2.6 14.5 -
Glass/ ceramics 0.8 0.7 0.4 5.8 2.4 2 0.5 - -
Other 0.4 0.1 1.5 3.6 - - - - -

Table 4. The percentage of litter items by the essential categories (%) on the
beaches of Georgia in 2019
Litter category

Tskaltsminda

Tskaltsminda
Kobuleti N.P.

Kobuleti N.P.
Maltakva

Maltakva
Ureku

Ureku
Sarpi

Sarpi

09.2019 10.2019
Plastic 95.6 68.8 93.0 90.8 89.6 98.2 68.7 96.8 95.5 97.9
Rubber 0.1 6.4 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 9 - 1.1 -
Textile - - 0.4 0.5 1.6 - 0 1.4 1 0
Paper - 5.7 1.7 5.1 3.6 - 4.3 - - 0.4
Processed/
0.7 1.4 0.4 0.00 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 - -
workedwood
Metal 1.9 13.5 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.7 13.8 0.2 1.5 -
Glass 1.6 4.3 1.7 1.5 3.6 0.7 3.7 0.7 0.9 1.7

44
Regardless of cleaning activities carried out regularly, the percentage of litter
categories within the surveyed sections are almost the same. In all occasions,
plastic items represent the largest category of the litter. Due to this reason we
have further sub-divided this category into sub-categories. The results show that
the highest part of plastic litter composes the plastic bottles and caps, as well as
containers of different product categories (food, cosmetics etc), packaging
materials, etc. Some of these are washed out from the sea. This is deduced from
the large number of unidentified plastic fragments of various sizes. These
fragmentations of plastics are caused by the sea waves, UV, bacteriolocigal
degredation etc. However, some part of the litter is also left by visitors on these
beaches.

According to the surveys, the litter is dumped into the sea from land based
sources. It is recognized that the presence of medical and pharmaceutical litter
on the beaches belong to hazardous litter (Figure 4). Their ratio represents
around 10% of plastic litter.

a b
Figure 4. Medical/pharmaceutical litter on the beaches
Kobuleti (a) and Ureki (b)

A detailed visual observation of the coastal zone of the surveyed area was
conducted to identify the sources of litter in the marine environment.
Observations revealed several hotspots in the coastal zone.

There are certain subjective or objective factors in the coastal zone of Georgia,
which cause the accumulation of large masses of litter washing upon the
beaches. Daily cleanups on the resort beaches is less common after the end of
the tourist season. As the result, the litter dumped on the beaches (during non
seasonal time, in stormy periods) goes back in the sea and resides in the
neighboring areas of the coast, depending on the direction and intencity of the
streams. This can be considered as secondary loads.

One of the sources of litter in the marine environment are landfills, both
municipal (organized) and spontaneous (illegal). Spontaneous landfills are one
of the most serious problems and significant challenges in our country. There

45
are illegal landfills in the coastal areas, in many large and small settlements.
This problem is complex and is related to managerial and technical
shortcomings, as well as low levels of public awareness. These landfills are
mainly the source of the above medical and pharmaceutical litter. This type of
litter is should be managed by the authorized services that serve the medical
institutions.

Nowadays, there is a new legislative base on litter management in Georgia - the

Waste Management Code and other normative acts, strengthening regulations
and imposing new requirements on both legal entities and individuals. As the
result, the following activities have been improved in the country: cleaning,
collection of waste, disposal and recycling. Illegal landfills in the country were
recorded, transportation of litter and polygons were arranged according to the
requirements of international and national legislations. The infrastructure
required for the waste management was upgraded. Thus, the declining trend in
the amount of litter suggests that we are facing positive shifts. We believe that
this trend is due to the activities taken place at the legislative level.

During the visual study of the shores, large areas of litter accumulation were
observed on the several sections of the coastal zone. They were quite far from
the nearest populated areas, which excludes the population factor in the process
of accumulation. It is clear that the litter washed out from the sea have been
accumulating on these sections for years, and their disposal by the municipal
services is practically never done. During storms, debris still enters the sea and
then moves to the other beaches of the coastal zone. So these areas of
accumulation can be considered as a hotspot for constant loading (Figure 5).

Figure 5. One of the hotspot sections along the Natanebi River mouth

46
Conclusion

The research has been undertaken on the Black Sea coast of Georgia related to
beach macro litter, the ratio between the essential categories and sub-categories
and their sources. The situation of the state of the beaches was assessed by the
clean-coast index (CCI). The surveyed beaches differ by the number of visitors
per season and infrastructure, as well as with the collection, disposal and
management of litter on the beaches by the relevant municipal parties. Based on
the results, it is deduced the plastics is the largest category of household waste
accumulated on the beaches, whereas the remaining categories of paper, metal,
glass and rubber do not exceeding 5% in total.

An analysis of the data obtained, revealed, that the locations near the mouths of
the rivers had significantly larger amounts of debris, likely receiving litter from
marine and riverine sources. At this stage of investigations, no clear overall
pattern in litter abundance or composition is fixed, as well as significant
quantitative similarities between debris types were inconsistent, though some
peculiarities in the composition of the solid waste were revealed in correlation
with sources of the pollution. The continuous data monitoring is required to
create more consistent picture of the marine litter dynamics in the coastal zone.

References

Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A. (2007) Clean-coast index- A new approach
for beach cleanliness assessment. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 5-6.

Aytan, U., Esensoy Sahin, F., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy
Beach (SE Black Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

BSC (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: A Review of the Problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007–1, Istanbul-Turkey, 160 p.

EC (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 17 June 2008 (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

Jeftic, L., Sheavly, S., Adler, E. (2009) Marine litter in the Black Sea region
overview and draft strategic action plan. In: Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.
UNEP Available at: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/marine-
litter-globalchallenge.

Joint Black Sea Surveys (2017) National pilot monitoring studies and joint open
sea surveys in Georgia, Russian Federation and Ukraine, 2017. Available at:
http:// emblasproject.org/publications-reports. Korotaev, G., Oguz, T.,
Nikiforov, A., Koblinsk, C.

47
JRC (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. JRC
Scientific and Policy Report EUR 26113 EN. European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 2013.

Machitadze, N., Gelashvili, N., Gvakharia V., Bilashvili, K., Trapaidze V.,
Gaprindashvili, N., Maglakelidze, A. (2018) Monitoring of marine beach and
riverine floating litter within Georgian Black Sea coastal area. Journal of
Environmental Protection and Ecology 19(2): 583-591.

Machitadze, N., Gelashvili, N., Gvakharia, V., Maghlakelidze, A.,

Gaprindashvili, N. (2016) Monitoring of Beach Litter within Georgia’s Black
sea Coast. Mineralogical Society of Georgia. Georgian Technical University.
International Scientific–Practical Conference on up-to date Problems of
Geology. 19 – 20 May 2016. Book of abstracts. pp. 85-88 (in Georgian).

Oztekin, A.A., Bat, L., Gokkurt-Baki, O. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the Southern Black Sea. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci 20:
197-205.

Ozturk, B., Pogojeva, M. (2019) State of the Environment of the Black Sea
(2009-2014/5). Edited by Anatoly Krutov. Publications of the Commission on
the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (BSC) 2019, Istanbul, Turkey,
811 pp. Chapter 1.2.7 Marine Litter. pp. 212-222.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V. (2017) Seasonal dynamics of

marine litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin
119: 110-118.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özseker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste Management
105: 139-147.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the South-Eastern Black Sea Coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 120: 154-158.

Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Ozturk, A.A., Ozturk, B. (2013) Origin
and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western
Black Sea coast. Mar Environ Res 85: 21-28.

48
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Marine litter occurrence in the river-influenced Black

Sea coast
Elena Stoica1*, Hakan Atabay2, Levent Bat3, Andreea Ciuca1,
Silvia Creanga1, Dragos Marin1, Ayşah Öztekin3, Mihaela Tanase1,
Leyla Tolun2
1 National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300
Mamaia Blvd., 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
2 TUBITAK Marmara Research Center, PB.21, 41470, Kocaeli, TURKEY
3 Faculty of Fisheries, Sinop University, 57000, Sinop, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Composition and abundance of anthropogenic litter were investigated on adjacent

coastal beaches of three rivers flowing into the North-Western and Southern Black Sea.
A single sampling survey was conducted during the period August – September 2019
within 4 sectors of sandy beaches with different level of urbanization situated at the
Romanian and Turkish littoral of the Black Sea. The results of study evinced total of
3916 items with the maximum litter accumulations found on the Turkish coast. The
most-represented items of anthropogenic litter in the evaluated samples were plastics,
paper/cardboard, wood and glass/ceramic. Plastics made up the main share of litter on
Black Sea coastal beaches near the river mouths (65–95%). The types of plastic items
ranged from 15 to 54 among the sites, of which cigarette butts, plastic pieces (2.5 cm > <
50 cm), polystyrene and plastic caps/lids drinks constituted the highest number of
artificial polymeric material. The characteristic of plastic litter composition of each
selected Black Sea beach is attributable to river and human influences. Fragments and
small plastic items were predominant for most of the beaches, including wild beaches
and those that had lower levels of urbanization, confirming that riverine outflows have
an important impact on plastic litter pollution on Black Sea coastal beaches.

Keywords: Beach litter, plastic pollution, river-influenced areas, Black Sea

Introduction
At present, it is widely recognized that the marine litter (ML) has affected all
parts of the world’s seas and oceans, being present in all marine habitats, from
densely populated regions to remote points far from human activities, from
beaches and shallow waters to the deepest areas of ocean (ARCADIS 2012;
Galgani et al. 2013; van der Wal et al. 2013). Anthropogenic litter enters to
marine environment from both sea-based and land-based sources, where may
causes negative effects on the environment, economy, security, and health
(Addamo et al. 2017; González-Fernández et al. 2016).

49
The Black Sea does not constitute an exception from marine litter global
tendency; the marine litter pollution has been identified as a major issue
affecting the environmental state of the Black Sea too. The occurrence of
anthropogenic litter in the Black Sea has been reported in the recent years by
various researchers, and is highlighted as a growing threat (Topcu and Ozturk
2010; Moncheva et al. 2016; Suaria et al. 2015; Simeonova et al. 2017; Öztekin
et al. 2020; Terzi et al. 2020; Aytan et al. 2020).

Anthropogenic litter deposited on marine beaches has generally several sources,

of which riverine input is estimated to be a major contributor (Castro-Jiménez
et al. 2019; González-Fernández et al. 2016; Schmidt et al. 2017). The Black
Sea is exposed to a substantial anthropogenic impact due to the big drainage
basin and the large rivers runoff of the Black Sea including Danube, Dnieper,
Bug, Dniester, etc. (BSC 2007; 2019). However, to date no comprehensive
information is available about the amount of litter being transported through
rivers to the Black Sea, as well as on the riverine litter ending-up on its coastal
beaches. For this reason, our study aimed to evaluate the abundance and
composition of the anthropogenic litter found on river-influenced beaches with
different levels of development and use along three Black Sea regions, to reveal
the transportation of land-based litter items through rivers and the pressure of
river-borne litter in this particular marine basin.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

Anthropogenic marine litter was studied on four different beaches of the Black
Sea located at various distances from the mouths of the most important rivers
flowing into the Romanian and the Turkish Black Sea coast (Figure 1). The
Romanian sites (RO01, RO02) were located 6.5 km, respectively 19.5 km in the
south of the Sulina branch mouth. Sulina is the central, the shortest (70 km), and
the straightest branch of the Danube River, with water depth ranging from 7 to
18 meters, and carries about 20% of the total Danube’s water (Panin and Jipa
2002). Sulina beach (site RO01, 45.1438°N and 29.6845°E) is located at 2.5
kilometers from Sulina town and is an isolated beach that can be reached only
by water to Sulina. It is a touristic beach with fine sand and shallow water being
the widest growing beach in Romania. In 2019, the average number of tourists
per year is 7396 and the town population was 3911 people (INSSE 2019). The
site RO02 is located in the more Southern, narrower wild beach called Casla
Vadanei (44.9945°N and 29.6369°E). Both Romanian selected beaches are also
part of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve with local flora represented by salt
and dune vegetation and include internationally protected species (Ciortescu
2015).

50
The Turkish sampling sites were selected in the southwestern (TR01) and
southeastern (TR02) Black Sea coast near two the most important Turkish
rivers (Sakarya and Yeşilırmak) flowing into the Black Sea (Figure. 1). The site
TR001 (41.1261°N and 30.6470°E) is a typical sandy beach situated 0.2 km
west of Sakarya River and in the proximity (6 km) of Karasu city. The site
TR02 (41.3802°N and 36.6547°E) was selected on the sandy beach located in
the proximity of the Yeşilırmak River (0.4 Km west) and 23 km north of
Çarşamba city.

Figure 1. Map of the Black Sea study area showing the sampling sites at Romanian
(RO01, RO02) and Turkish (TR01, TR02) beaches

Beach macro-litter monitoring

Data on litter deposited on the selected beaches were collected during August
(in Romania) and September 2019 (in Turkey) following the work protocol
described in the EU MSFD TG10 “Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in
European Seas-2013-JRC Scientific and Policy Reports“ (Galgani et al. 2013).
The methodology implies the visual identification of 100 m long fixed section
of beach covering the whole area between the water edges (where possible and
safe) or from the strandline to the back of the beach. All litter items greater than
2.5 cm were collected, counted, and categorized according to TSG – ML code
given in the Annex 8.1 of the Guidance.

51
Results and Discussion
Litter abundance
A total of 3916 items were found on the four beaches within the three river-
influenced regions of the Black Sea, with densities (items/m2) of 0.113, 0.105,
2.039, and 0.329 for sites RO01, RO02, TR01, and TR02, respectively (Table
1). Litter abundances on surveyed beaches varied strongly between sampling
sites, which can be attributed to the river type (Sulina branch of Danube River,
Sakarya and Yeşilırmak River) as well as to the direct anthropogenic influence
(e.g. recreational activities or illegal dumping) on sampling sites. In terms of
litter abundance, the Turkish Black Sea sector recorded the highest abundance.
Although the Romanian sites were located in Danube River mouth area, they
were classified according to the Clean Coast Index (Alkalay et al. 2007) as
being cleaner compared to the Turkish sites which ranged from moderate to the
extremely dirty beaches (Table 1). Among all surveyed sites, the minimum
abundance was registered on the wild Casla Vadanei beach (RO02), while the
maximum abundance of litter was found on the urbanized Sakarya beach
(TR01). Different hydrographic regimes specific for each Black Sea region
selected in this study may be responsible for differences of litter abundances
found in this study on all four beaches. The mean annual discharge varies
strongly between the three rivers (from 1248 m3 s-1 in the Sulina branch to 193
m3 s-1 in Sakarya and 121 m3 s-1 in Yeşilırmak River, Driga 2004; Lekesiz et al.
2007) and is very likely to influence the total number of litters presented on the
neighboring beaches. The litter abundances can be assigned also to the general
direction and seasonal variability of major water current (the Rim Current) for
the Black Sea, which could facilitate the downstream transport of Danube
River-derived litter from the NWS waters southward along the South-Western
and Southern Turkish coastline.

Table 1. Classification of the surveyed beaches according to the to Clean Coast Index
(CCI)
Survey Site Corresponding river Items m-² Beach cleanliness*
RO01 Danube 0.113 Clean
(Sulina beach) (Sulina branch)
RO02 Danube (Sulina branch) 0.105 Clean
(Casla Vadanei
beach)
TR01 (Sakarya Karasu- Sakarya 2.039 Extremely dirty
beach)
TR02 (Yeşilırmak Çarşamba-Yeşilırmak 0.329 Moderate
beach)
* CCI beach scale: very clean (0-2), clean (2-5), moderate (5-10), dirty (10-20) and extremely dirty
(>20) (Alkalay et al. 2007)

52
Litter composition
The composition of the litter did not differ significantly between the coastal
beaches of each river, especially not between the southern Black Sea Rivers
(Sakarya and Yeşilırmak). The main proportions of litter types found at all four
coastal beaches are shown in Figure 2. Concerning the coastal beaches of
Sulina branch (Danube River), the artificial polymer materials (plastics) was the
most dominant category of litter collected from both RO01(65%) and RO02
(86%) sites in August 2019. This category was followed at a great distance by
paper/cardboard (~25%), as well as metal (~8%), processed/ worked wood
(~5%) and cloth/textile (~3.5%). The fewest (< 1%) belonged to rubber and
glass. In TR01 the most common litter type was found as artificial polymer
materials 92.28% and followed by 4.18% glass/ceramic, 1.65% metal, 0.77%
processed/worked wood, 0.74% paper/cardboard, 0.35% cloth/textile, 0.04%
rubber. The most common litter type in TR02 was found as artificial polymer
materials 94.36% and followed by 2.75% glass/ceramic, 1.59% metal, 0.58%
cloth/textile, 0.43% processed/worked wood, 0.29% paper/cardboard.

Figure 2. Proportion of the major categories of marine litters found on each evaluated
beach. Note the prevalence of plastic items as major category of debris recorded in the
Black Sea coastal regions impacted by diferrent rivers.

The most common litter items in the Romanian and Turkish survey sites are
shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Top ten items comprised ~85% of
all litter items in RO01 and RO02, and ~70% of total litter items in TR01 and
TR02. All survey sites encountered top ten marine litter items occurred from
artificial polymer materials (plastics), particularly Turkish sites. Beside plastics,
top ten litter items for the Danube-River influenced coastal beaches also

53
included paper/cardboard (RO01), cloth/ textile (RO01, RO02) and processed/
worked wood (RO02) (Table 2). For Turkish river-influenced sites, plastics
made up almost the top ten items. The only one exception was found at TR001
where glass/ceramics bottles occupied the last place of the top ten items (Table
3).

Plastics were the most-represented items of anthropogenic litter in all the

evaluated Black Sea river-influenced beaches. Figure 2 shows the distribution
of marine litter per each survey area and categories where it can be seen the
very large difference between artificial polymer material and other categories.
The types of plastic items ranged from 15 to 54 among sites (Figure 3). With
respect to items composed of plastic, for the touristic beach Sulina (RO01), the
majority were cigarette butts (n=72), a marker of anthropogenic litter pollution
level in highly urbanized and/or heavily used beaches (Araújo et al. 2018),
while for the wild beach Casla Vadanei (RO02) the plastic pieces 2.5 > < 50
cm constituted the highest number of artificial polymeric material (n=41)
(Figure 4). In addition to cigarette butts, in the category artificial polymeric
materials were also found other plastic items such as shopping bags incl. pieces
(n=2), plastic caps/lids drinks (n=6), tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box
packaging (n=6), crisps packets/sweets wrappers (n=21), straws and stirrers
(n=8), plastic / polystyrene pieces 0-2.5 cm, drink bottles > 0.5l (n=21), food
containers including fast food containers (n=5), plastic caps/lids drinks (n=25),
medical / pharmaceuticals containers/tubes (n=3). In contrast to the Danube
River beaches, none of the selected Turkish sites seemed not to be subjected to
the cigarette butt’s pollution. The abundance of this plastic item (G27) in both
TR01 (n=4) and TR02 (n=3) beaches was lower than the 10 most common
litter (Figure 3) or plastic items (Figure 4) found on the surveyed Black Sea
beaches. This finding is not surprising, considering the level of urbanization of
each analysed Black Sea beach. The top plastic litter items in Turkish survey
sites TR01 and TR02 commonly occurred included beverage related items
(drink bottles, plastic caps/lids drinks), polystyrene and plastic pieces 2.5 > <
50 cm (Figure 3 and Figure 4). These small items are generally refraction
products formed as a result of degradation of large plastics and it can also be
thought of as the main source of microplastics which accumulate and persist in
the Black Sea environment for unlimited periods. The plastic litter items we
found on the selected river-influenced beaches are similar to those formerly
reported by other studies in the Black Sea coast (Topçu et al. 2013; Muresan et
al. 2017; Golumbeanu et al. 2017; Öztekin et al. 2017; Terzi and Seyhan 2017;
Aytan et al. 2020). The high presence of plastic we found on all evaluated
Black Sea beaches is a common pattern that occurs in numerous other countries
in coastal area (UNEP 2005). Nowadays, plastics present in anthropogenic
litter are one of the biggest concerns for the ocean regarding the marine
pollution because of their inherent properties, such as enduringness and
widespread ascending use (Thompson et al. 2009; Lechner et al. 2014;
Lebreton et al. 2017).

54
Table 2. Ten most common items of marine litter collected in the Romanian Black Sea
coast during August 2019 (APM: Artificial Polymer Materials).

Survey TSG_ML Percentage of

Litter item Material class
Site Code total ML

G27 Cigarette butts and filters APM 31.72

G158 Other paper items Paper/ Cardboard 21.59

Crisps packets/sweets
G30 APM 9.25
wrappers
G3 Shopping Bags incl. pieces APM 5.29

G35 Straws and stirrers APM 3.52

RO01
G145 Other textiles (incl. rags) Cloth/ Textile 3.52

G178 Bottle caps, lids and pull tabs Metal 3.52

G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks APM 2.64
Tobacco pouches / plastic
G25 APM 2.64
cigarette box packaging
Plastic/polystyrene pieces 0-
G78 APM 2.20
2.5 cm
G79 Plastic pieces 2.5 > < 50 cm APM 27.70

G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks APM 16.89

G8 Drink bottles >0.5l APM 14.19

Polystyrene pieces 2.5 cm > <
G82 APM 4.73
50 cm
Plastic caps/lids chemicals,
G22 APM 4.05
detergents (non-food)
RO02 Crisps packets/sweets
G30 APM 4.05
wrappers
G7 Drink bottles <=0.5l APM 3.38
Food containers incl. fast food
G10 APM 3.38
containers
Shoes and sandals (e.g.
G138 Cloth/ Textile 3.38
Leather, cloth)
Processed/
G171 Other wood < 50cm 3.38
Worked Wood

55
Table 3. Ten most common items of marine litter collected in the Turkish Black Sea
coast during September 2019 (APM: Artificial Polymer Materials)

Survey TSG_ML Percentage of

Litter item Material class
Site Code total ML

G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks APM 10.69

Polystyrene pieces 2.5
G82 APM 10.54
cm > < 50cm
Plastic pieces 2.5 cm > <
G79 APM 9.77
50cm
G74 Foam (packaging) APM 7.91
Crisps packets/
G30 APM 6.36
sweets wrappers
TR01
Plastic rings from bottle
G24 APM 6.15
caps/lids
G74 Foam (Polyurethane) APM 5.59

G7 Drink bottles <=0.5 l APM 4.96

Plastic caps/lids
G23 APM 4.18
unidentified
G200 Bottles, including pieces Glass/Ceramics 3.23
Plastic pieces 2.5 cm > <
G79 APM 18.06
50cm
Polystyrene pieces 2.5
G82 APM 11.71
cm > < 50cm
G21 Plastic caps/lids drinks APM 6.65
Plastic caps/lids
G23 APM 6.21
unidentified
Food containers incl. fast
G10 APM 5.92
food containers
TR02
G74 Foam (Polyurethane) APM 5.06

G7 Drink bottles <=0.5 l APM 4.05

Plastic construction
G89 APM 4.05
waste
Crisps packets/
G30 APM 4.05
sweets wrappers
Plastic rings from bottle
G24 APM 3.76
caps/lids

56
 Figure 3. Plastics items (ranged from 15 to 54 among sites) counted on 4 different
beaches at 2 geographical locations of the river-influenced Black Sea coast: Romania
(RO01, RO02) and Turkey (TR01, TR02).

57
 Figure 4. Distribution of the top three plastic items on Black Sea coastal beaches
corresponding to the rivers Danube (RO01, RO02), Sakarya (TR01) and Yeşilırmak
(TR02)
Conclusion

The results of the present study showed litter accumulation on the Black Sea
coastal beaches at three important rivers mouths (Sulina-Danube River branch,
Sakarya and Yeşilırmak) with the abundances increasing from the
Northwestern (Romania) towards Southern (Turkish) coastline. The
composition of the macrolitter recorded on each surveyed beach reflected its
ability to reach the estuarine shoreline of the selected rivers and the influence
of the beach users. The visual monitoring data on the beach macro-litter
showed a clear predominance of plastic (up to 94% of the total items), thus
confirming the previous findings regarding the major input of plastic into the
sea via the rivers. However, the results presented here are based on a single
sampling in late summer (August) and earlier autumn (September) 2019.

58
Knowledge of how the composition of marine litter varies over the space and
time seems to be of a major importance for understanding of river influence in
the litter pollution of the coastal Black Sea. Therefore, we suggest that further
detailed studies based on sampling beaches all year round would be worthwhile
in understanding of litter accumulation on Black Sea coastal beaches that are
influenced by riverine input.

Acknowledgements

The study has been supported by the ANEMONE project “Assessing the vulnerability of
the Black Sea marine ecosystem to human pressures”, funded by the European Union
under ENI CBC Black Sea Basin Programme 2014-2020, grant contract
83530/20.07.2018.

References

Addamo, A.M., Laroche, P., Hanke, G. (2017) Top Marine Beach Litter Items
in Europe, EUR 29249 EN, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, 2017, doi: 10.2760/496717, JRC108181.

Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A. (2007) Clean-coast index-A new approach
for beach cleanliness assessment. Ocean & Coastal Management 50(5): 352-
362.

Araújo, M.C.B., Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., Costa, M.F. (2018) Anthropogenic litter

on beaches with different levels of development and use: a snapshot of a coast
in Pernambuco (Brazil). Frontiers in Marine Science 5: 233 doi:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00233

ARCADIS (2012) Final Report. Pilot Project ‘4 Seas’: plastic recycling cycle
and marine environmental impact, Case Studies on the plastic cycle and its
loopholes in the four European regional seas areas. European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium, 114 pp.

Aytan, Ü. Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach

(SE Black Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

BSC (2007) Marine litter in the Black Sea Region: A review of the problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey, 160 pp.

BSC (2019) State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2009-2014/5). Edited
by Anatoly Krutov. Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the
Black Sea Against Pollution, Istanbul, Turkey, 811 pp.

Castro-Jiménez, J., González-Fernández, D., Fornier, M., Schmidt, N.,

59
Sempere, R. (2019) Macro-litter in surface waters from the Rhone River:
Plastic pollution and loading to the NW Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 146: 60-66.

Ciortescu, R. (2015) Romania Journal.ro. Available at: https://www.romaniajou

rnal.ro/travel/sulina-beach-one-of-the-wildest-places-on-the-romanian-seaside/

Driga, B.V. (2004) Danube Delta - Water circulation system. Casa Cărţii de
Stiinţă, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 256 pp (in Romanian).

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D.,
Kinsey, S., Thompson, R.C., Van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M.,
Mira Veiga, J., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A.,
Leslie, H., Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine
Litter in European Seas. Scientific and Technical Research series, Report EUR
26113 EN.

Golumbeanu, M., Nenciu, M., Galatchi, M., Nita, V., Anton, E., Oros, A.,
Ioakeimidis, C., Belchior, C. (2017). Marine litter watch app as a tool for
ecological education and awareness raising along the Romanian Black Sea
coast. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 18(1): 348-362.

González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G., Tweehuysen, G., Bellert, B., Holzhauer,

M., Palatinus, A., Hohenblum, P., Oosterbaan, L. (2016) Riverine Litter
Monitoring - Options and Recommendations. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter
Thematic Report, JRC Technical Report, EUR 28307, 50 pp, doi:
10.2788/461233.

INSSE (2019) National Institute of Statistics. Available at:

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/ (in Romanian).

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. Nature
Communications 8: 15611.

Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R.,
Tritthart, M., Glas, M., Schludermann, E. (2014) The Danube so colourful: A
potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe's second largest
river. Environmental Pollution 188(100): 177-181.

Lekesiz, C.M., Mesci, Y., Yorulmaz, T. (2007) River Basin Management

Applications: Yeşilırmak River Basin Development Project Model, Ministry of
energy and Natural Resources General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works,
Antalya, Turkey, 191 pp.

60
Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Sahin, F., Timofte, F. (2016) Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: A
pilot assessment. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 16(1): 213-
218.

Mureșan, M., Begun, T., Voicaru, C., Vasile, D., Teacă, A. (2017) Beach litter
occurrence in sandy littoral: Case study – the Romanian Black Sea Coast.
Geo-Eco-Marina 23: 205-213.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Seafloor litter in the Sinop İnceburun Coast in the
Southern Black Sea. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics
(IJEGEO) 4(3): 173-181.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Baki, O.G. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop Sarikum
Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 20(3): 197-205.

Panin N., Jipa D. (2002) Danube River sediment input and its interaction with
the North-western Black Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 54(2): 551-
562.

Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S. (2017) Export of plastic debris by rivers
into the sea. Environmental Science and Technology 51(21): 12246-12253.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V. (2017) Seasonal dynamics of

marine litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin
119(1): 110-118.

Suaria, G., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Ion, G., Aliani, S. (2015) First

observations on the abundance and composition of floating debris in the North-
western Black Sea. Marine Environmental Research 107: 45-49.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources
on coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste
Management 105: 139-147.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 120(1-2): 154-158.

Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H. (2009) Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 2153-2166.

61
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 and Management 13(3): 301-306.

Topcu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Ozturk, A.A., Ozturk, B. (2013) Origin
and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western
Black Sea Coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

UNEP (2005) Marine Litter: An Analytical Overview. Nairobi, 47 pp.

van der Wal, M., van der Meulen, M. D., Roex, E. W. M., Wolthuis, Y.,
Tweehuysen, G., Vethaak, A.D. (2013) Summary report Plastic litter in Rhine,
Meuse and Scheldt, contribution to plastic litter in the North Sea. Deltares, 22
pp.

62
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Preliminary analysis of Marine Litter Watch data of the

European Environment Agency with particular reference
to the Black Sea
Ahmet E. Kideys1*, Mustafa Aydın2
1 Institute of Marine Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Erdemli, TURKEY
2 European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, DENMARK

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

In this study the Marine Litter Watch (MLW) database comprising data from European
beaches, including seas, rivers and lakes has been analysed mainly for the sea beaches from
2014-2019. Among the four EU regional seas, the Black Sea appeared as the most littered
beach (with a median value of 652 items/100m) with the Baltic Sea the least polluted (with
a median value of 78 items/100m). The percentage share of plastics on beaches was very
high for most EU regional seas (79-88%). In the top 10 litter items, cigarette butt & filters
abundances were much higher for the Black Sea (36.4%) and the Mediterranean Sea
(22.6%), compared to those for the north-east Atlantic and the Baltic Sea (both 13.2%).
With a share of 66.1%, the Black Sea had the highest rate of Single-Use Plastics (SUP).
Considering combined data, sea-beach litter appeared to increase steadily after 2014 with
median values from 125 to 436 items/100m. The high values for the Black Sea caused an
overall increase trend in beach litter at the European scale.

Keywords: Marine litter, beach, Europe, Black Sea, Marine Litter Watch

Introduction

Litter in general, but plastics in particular, is piling up in all aquatic systems

(Schwarz et al. 2019). Although predominantly plastics, marine litter comprises
a wide range of materials including metal, rubber, glass, paper, textiles etc. The
most visible environmental effect of beach litter is entanglement, which can cause
fatal consequences for marine species, compromising the ability to capture and
ingest food, sense hunger, escape from predators, and reproduce, as well as
decreasing body condition and impairing locomotion (GEF 2012). Macro litter
items (>2.5mm) can also be mistaken for food and ingested by fish, mammals,
birds or turtles, which may cause severe health issues (Kühn and van Franeker
2020). Macro litter on beaches degrades to meso- (5-25mm) and/or microplastics
(< 5mm) due to UV light and other environmental factors. They can be ingested
by marine species and thus transferred through the food chain. Ingestion of litter
may cause loss of biodiversity and a reduction in overall ecosystem functions
(GEF 2012).

63
Beach and sea floor litter cause injuries: A study in Australia reflects that 21.6%
of beach users received injuries from beach litter at designated ‘clean’ beaches
(Alkalay et al. 2007), illustrating that even ‘clean’ beaches pose a threat
(Campbell et al. 2016).

In addition to its environmental and health impacts, marine litter also incurs socio-
economic costs, mostly affecting coastal communities (Beaumont et al. 2019). In
order to improve touristic appeal, communities and businesses must clean up the
beaches before the start of the summer season (EEA 2016). The theoretical
estimated cost of keeping all 34 million km of global coastlines clean is 69 billion
USD (50 billion EUR) per year (UNEP 2017), and this figure will continue to
increase if littering does not stop.

Several EU policies exist, associated with the management of marine litter. The
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD 2008/56/EC; EC 2008) required
EU member states to ensure that, by 2020, "properties and quantities of marine
litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment". The Single-Use
Plastics Directive (SUPD 2019/904/EC; EC 2019) introduced a set of ambitious
measures such as a ban on selected single-use products made of plastic (including
cutlery, plates, straws, cups), measures to reduce consumption of food containers
and beverage cups made of plastic, and specific marking and labelling of certain
products as well as measures to deal with waste fishing gear containing plastic
(EC 2019).

Information and data on marine litter is essential for tackling this crucial
environmental problem. The European Environment Agency (EEA) has
developed a Marine Litter Watch (MLW) mobile app and has been collecting
beach litter data (mainly for seas but also for rivers and lakes) since 2013 with the
participation of communities from Europe and beyond. MLW aims to strengthen
Europe’s knowledge base on marine litter and thus provide support to European
policymaking.

This study presents an assessment of the data collected by the EEA-MLW

initiative activities held on the beaches of Europe’s regional seas between 2013 –
2019. As a result, the analyses were performed to answer the following questions
with particular reference to the Black Sea:
a) Are there differences in composition of beach litter among EU regional
seas?
b) Does MLW data provide indications on trends of beach litter from
European seas?

MLW dataset

The up to date information on litter collection efforts within MLW can be found
at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/marine-litterwatch. The MLW

64
includes data from beaches of four regional seas (the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea,
the Mediterranean Sea and the North-East Atlantic Ocean) as well as from rivers
and lakes.

The EEA-MLW database analysed in this report covers the period of 12th March
2013-31st December 2019. After excluding duplicates, offshore areas,
ports/canals, outside wider European areas, non-aquatic areas (forest, land, town,
etc.), the MLW database presented 1894070 litter items from 3012 surveys
belonging to lake, river and sea beaches from the wider-European area (Figure 1)
Wider-European area includes several surveys from the northern Africa coasts
and eastern Mediterranean coasts.

Figure 1. EEA-Marine Litter Watch data locations between 12 March 2013 and
31 December 2019.

It is worth mentioning that rivers play an important role in transporting litter to

sea and lake beaches. However, this study does not include analyses from river
and lake beaches (total 1138 surveys). The main analyses focused on data
obtained from the sea beaches (total 1884 surveys) (Table 1).

There are two types of data collection events in the MLW: clean-up (since 12th
March 2013) and “monitoring” (since 7th April 2014). With the exception of some
cases where countries provide their official monitoring results to the MLW
database, MLW “monitoring” data in general cannot be regarded as official
monitoring data. Within the scope of MLW initiative, “monitoring” survey or
“monitoring” data is used to describe the survey/data collected with timely,

65
organised and standardised efforts of the MLW communities, using European
beach litter guidelines and the “joint list” of EU Technical Group on Marine Litter
(Galgani et al. 2013), whereas clean-up surveys represents relatively lesser
standardised efforts. Although the preferred stretch of beach for survey using the
MLW apps is 100 m, these ranged between 33 and 3443 m for the “monitoring”
events and between 1 and 33932 m for the clean-up in the database.

In this study, for quantitative analyses were undertaken, median values (rather
than means) were used as suggested by Hanke et al. (2019) to eliminate error
caused by extreme values in the data set, which are common with the marine litter
data.

Table 1. Number of surveys and litter items reported to the EEA-Marine Litter Watch for
different types of events between 12 March 2013 and 31 December 2019 (only wider-
European data from sea beaches).

Database Number of surveys Sum of litter items

Cleanup events 1189 1026503
Baltic Sea 47 16634
Black Sea 146 108458
Mediterranean Sea 435 456520
North-east Atlantic Ocean 561 444891
“Monitoring” events 640 496048
Baltic Sea 36 13941
Black Sea 75 106192
Mediterranean Sea 402 303746
North-east Atlantic Ocean 127 72169
Event type not indicated 55 98394
Mediterranean Sea 34 51602
North-east Atlantic Ocean 21 46792
Total EU Sea-Beaches 1884 1620945

Results and Discussion

Beach litter among regional seas

The total number of “monitoring” surveys (640) was less than half the number of
clean-up surveys (1189 surveys; Table 1). Among the four EU seas,
Mediterranean beaches underwent the highest number of “monitoring” surveys
(402), followed by the north-east Atlantic (127 surveys), Black Sea (75 surveys)
and the Baltic Sea (36 surveys) (Table 1).

Based on the monitoring surveys, Black Sea beaches appeared as the most littered
(median value of 652 litter items per 100 m) and the Baltic Sea the least polluted
(median value of 78 litter items per 100 m) (Figure 2). Litter transport from large
as well as numerous small rivers coupled with improper municipal waste dumping

66
and lower levels of environmental awareness with respect to littering in the Black
Sea could be the major reasons for this result.

Comparison of median values with the past data which use mean is difficult. The
overall mean values found for the southern Black Sea were 275 litter items/100
m for 2009 (Topçu et al. 2013) and 3798 litter items/100 m for 2016/2017 (Aytan
et al. 2020).

MedianTotalLitterNo/100mBeach
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North-east
Sea Atlantic Ocean

Figure 2. Comparison of litter numbers for beaches of different EU regional seas from
2014 –2019 (only European “monitoring” data for sea beaches)

The share of plastics was lowest for Baltic Sea beaches (about 61%) compared to
other seas (79.8-88.5%) (Table 2). The share of plastics was also high in the
southeastern Black Sea (84-91%) in 2016/2017 (Aytan et al. 2020) and western
Black Sea (80.6%) in 2014-2017 (Paiu et al. 2017). Among all EU regional seas,
the highest share of metals (5.3%) was recorded for the Black Sea beach litter.

Striking differences in the relative shares of different litter items were evident
among the regional seas for the period 2013-2019 (Figure 3) obtained from
“monitoring” events. For example, shares of cigarette butts/filters were much
higher for the Black Sea (36.4%) and the Mediterranean Sea (22.6%), compared
to those for the north-east Atlantic and the Baltic Sea (both 13.2%). Except for
the northeast Atlantic, cigarette butts/filters were the most common litter item
from beaches of all European seas. Araujo and Costa (2019) reported that the
percentage share of cigarette butts/filters could be as high as 58% from beaches
globally. Cigarette butts/filters, considered one of the commonest litter items on
beaches, are ubiquitously disposed of, amassing as beach litter due to its light
specific weight. Proper disposal of cigarette butts/filters thereby requires stringent
measures. Apart from plastics fragments, drinking caps/lids, cotton bud sticks,
straws and stirrers and crisp packets/sweet wrappers were notably present in all

67
the regional seas. The list of the top ten items list is very similar to that reported
for the European scale (Addamo et al. 2017).

Table 2. Percentage shares of different litter groups (based on total litter per beach
values) among European regional seas from 2014-2019
(“monitoring” data only, paraffin excluded)
Litter category Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean NE Atlantic
(%) (%) Sea (%) Ocean (%)
Plastics 61.2 79.8 88.1 88.5
Glass/ceramics 18.7 4.9 3.2 3.3
Metal 3.7 5.3 2.6 1.3
Paper/Cardboard 2.4 4.3 2.7 1.3
Processed/worked wood 4.6 2.6 1.2 2.7
Cloth/textile 6.5 2.4 1.1 1.2
Rubber 2.4 0.5 1.1 1.6
Unidentified 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Cigarette butts and filters

Plastic pieces 2.5 cm > < 50cm
Polystyrene pieces 2.5 cm > < 50cm
Plastic caps/Drink lids Baltic Sea

Shopping Bags incl. pieces Black Sea

Cotton bud sticks Mediterranean Sea
Crisp packets/Sweet wrappers North-east Atlantic Ocean
String and cord (diameter less than 1cm)
Glass or ceramic fragments >2.5cm
Straws and stirrers

Figure 3. Comparison of Top Ten Item of litter collected by the regional sea beaches
from 2014 – 2019 (“monitoring” data only, paraffin excluded)

With a percentage share of 66.1%, the Black Sea demonstrated the highest rate of
Single Used Plastics (SUP) among the regional seas followed by the
Mediterranean Sea (40%) (Figure 4). With a share of 12.2%, fishery related litter
was highest in the north-east Atlantic and lowest for the Black Sea (1.6%) among
the regional seas. Despite being among the major fishing areas of Europe, the
fishery related litter also demonstrated a very low share (0.5%) in 2009 from the
southern Black Sea (Topçu et al. 2013).

68
 Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean Sea North-east Atlantic Ocean

75%
% of total litter

50%

25%

0%
FISH SUP

Figure 4. Comparison of regional seas for SUP and fishing-related items collected from
European sea beaches between 2014 – 2019 (“monitoring” data only, paraffin excluded)

Beach litter trends for European seas

Annual median values per 100 m sea beach are shown in Figure 5 (for all seas
combined) and Figure 6 (for each regional sea separately). For the combined data,
sea-beach litter appeared as increasing steadily through the years; with median
values rising from 125 to 436 items per 100 m beach (Figure 5). When data were
displayed separately for each regional sea for the entire study period (Figure 6),
the litter pollution was also at its highest for the north-east Atlantic and the Black
Sea beaches in 2019. In contrary, lowest values were obtained for the Baltic and
Mediterranean Seas in 2019. The high values observed in 2019 as well as in
previous years were mainly due to Black Sea values, which caused an increasing
trend in beach litter for the combined data at the European scale. When data from
the Black Sea is excluded, litter pollution initially appears to be increasing until
2017 and later decreasing steadily (Figure 7).

All seas combined

Median Litter Number / 100

500 436
397 397
400
285 293
300
m beach

200
125
100
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year
Figure 5. Changes in median beach litter numbers from 2014 – 2019 (“monitoring” data
only, paraffin excluded, all regional seas combined).

69
 Baltic Sea

Median Litter Number /

1600

100 m beach 1200

800

400
50 70 184 85 120 53
0

Black Sea
Median Litter Number /

1600 1512
100 m beach

1200

800 696
581
400 375 399 305

Mediterranean Sea
Median Litter Number /

1600
100 m beach

1200

800
471 429 431 428
400
150
0

North-east Atlantic
Median Litter Number /

1600
1200
100 m beach

800
400 269
114 225 125 63 37
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 6. Changes in median beach litter numbers for each regional sea, from 2014 –
2019 (“monitoring” data only)

70
 All European regional seas except
Black Sea
400 399
376
Median Litter Number / 100 m beach

285 280

200
146

64

0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 7. Changes in median beach litter numbers (combined only from the three
regional seas (the Baltic, north-east Atlantic and the Mediterranean), from 2014 – 2019
(“monitoring” data only)

Over the years, an increase in beach litter pollution from 275 litter items/100m in
2009 (Topçu et al. 2013) to 3798 litter items/100m in 2016/2017 (Aytan et al.
2020) for the beach litter is also apparent for the southern Black Sea.

References
Addamo, A.M., Laroche, P., Hanke, G. (2017) Top marine beach litter items in
Europe: A review and synthesis based on beach litter data. EUR 29249 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017,
doi:10.2760/496717, JRC108181.

Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A. (2007) Clean-coast index-A new approach
for beach cleanliness assessment. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 352-362.

Araujo, M.C., Costa, M.F. (2019) A critical review of the issue of cigarette butt
pollution in coastal environments. Env Research 172: 137-149.

Aytan, U., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach Litter on Sarayköy beach (SE
Black Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20: 137-145.

Beaumont, N.J., Aanesen, M., Austen, M.C., Börger, T., Clark, J.R., Cole, M.,
Hooper, T., Lindeque, P.K., Pascoe, C., Wyles, K.J. (2019) Global ecological,

71
social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 142:
189-195.

Campbell, M.L., Slavin, C., Grage, A., Kinslow, A. (2016) Human health impacts
from litter on beaches and associated perceptions: A case study of ‘clean’
Tasmanian beaches. Ocean & Coastal Management 126: 22-30.

EC (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 17 June 2008 (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

EC (2019) ‘Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts’ (Online) Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-
10/index_en.htm

EEA (2016) European bathing water quality in 2015, EEA Report No 9/2016,
European Environment Agency Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publica
tions/european-bathing-water-quality-2015

GEF (2012) Impacts of marine debris on biodiversity: Current status and potential
solutions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Scientific
and Technical Advisory Panel, CBD Technical Series Montreal. 67, pp. 61.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey,
S., Thompson, R.C., van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Veiga, J.
M., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H.,
Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in
European seas, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Report EUR 26113 EN.

Hanke, G., Walvoort, D., Loon, W.G.M., Addamo, A., Brosich, A., Montero, M.,
Molina, J., Maria, E., Vinci, M., Georgetti, A. (2019) EU marine beach litter
baselines: Analysis of a pan-European 2012-2016 beach litter dataset. EU-JRC
Technical Reports doi: 10.2760/16903.

Kühn, S., van Franeker, J.A. (2020) Quantitative overview of marine debris
ingested by marine megafauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 151: 110858

Paiu, A., Candea, M.M., Paiu, R.M., Gheorghe, A.M. (2017) Composition and
spatial distribution of marine litter along the Romanian coast. Cercetari Marine
47: 232-239.

Schwarz, A.E., Ligthart, T.N., Boukris, E., van Harmelen, T. (2019) Sources,
transport, and accumulation of different types of plastic litter in aquatic
environments: A review study. Mar Poll Bull 143: 92-100.

72
Topçu E.N., A.M. Tonay, A. Dede, A.A. Öztürk, B. Öztürk (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish western Black Sea
coast. Mar Env Res 85: 21-28.

UNEP (2017) Marine Litter Socio Economic Study, United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi. (Online) Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/h
andle/20.500.11822/26014/Marinelitter_socioeco_study.pdf?sequence

73
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Raising awareness about marine litter through beach

cleanup activities along the Turkish coasts of the Black
Sea
Zeynep Gülenç1, Deniz Konaklı1, İlayda Destan Öztürk1,2
1 Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), P.O. Box: 10, 34820, Beykoz,
İstanbul, TURKEY
2 Department of Physical Oceanography and Marine Biology, Institute of Marine

Sciences and Management, İstanbul University, İstanbul, TURKEY

Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Beach cleanup activities were organized by Turkish Marine Research Foundation

(TUDAV) and cooperating organizations on four beaches along the Turkish coast of
the Black Sea. A total of 1161 kg of litter was collected with the majority consisting of
plastics (425 kg). Three beaches near the Istanbul Strait had mostly plastic waste, likely
from major urban sources as well as sea-based sources deposited by wave action. Beach
cleanups are highly effective in raising awareness among local people, but clean coasts
and clean seas, free from plastic waste, are only possible via international cooperation.

Keywords: Beach cleanup, plastic pollution, Black Sea, raising awareness

Introduction

Marine pollution and plastic waste are inextricably interconnected problems

that require well thought-out, multi-step solutions on a global scale. There are
various sources for marine pollution such as land-based pollution from
wastewater discharge that includes domestic and industrial waste, and sea-
based pollution from marine vessels including those of shipping and fisheries
sectors. Marine litter can be classified as beach litter, seafloor litter, floating
litter, litter in biota and microplastics (< 5 mm) (Bat et al. 2017).

Analyses of multiple cleanups over a number of years show that 80 to 90% of

all collected materials are either plastic or include plastic components
(Walther et al. 2018; Konecny et al. 2018). Urban areas, with the
accompanying problems of lack of proper recycling systems and bad waste
management, are the main originators of beach litter (Poeta et al. 2016).
Plastic waste originating from beachgoers has been identified as a major
component of beach litter in multiple studies (Corraini et al. 2018 Asensio-
Montesinos et al. 2019; Williams et al. 2016), with more visits leading to a
significant increase in the amount of plastic litter (Lee and Sanders 2015).
Nearshore benthic habitats were also found to contain plastic waste from local
beaches (Pasternak et al. 2019).

74
Marine animals are not spared the effects of plastic pollution. Seabirds, marine
mammals and other marine organisms are most often subject to entanglement
in, and ingestion of plastic litter (Kühn and van Franeker 2020) Microplastics
end up in the stomach of many species, from the lowest ranks of the
evolutionary ladder to the highest, including filter-feeding animals,
economically important species and, eventually, humans (Barboza et al. 2018;
Abreo et al. 2019). Microplastics have also been found in sensitive, remote
ecosystems free from most anthropological pressures such as Antarctica and
the deep sea (Horton and Barnes 2020). In the Black Sea, the surface and water
column contain microplastics from ships such as ship paint, as well as fibres,
hard plastic pieces and nylons (Aytan et al. 2016; Öztekin and Bat 2017).

Turkish coasts of the Black Sea are under significant anthropological pressure
from marine transportation and shipping, as well as recreational activities.
Currents and wave action are also responsible for marine litter being
transported from foreign locations. Land-based litter from neighbouring
countries and sea-based litter from shipping activities are important factors.
Like the rest of the world, plastics encompass the majority of beach litter with
fragmented pieces, hard plastics and food-related items taking the lead (Topçu
et al. 2011, 2013).

Recent studies from the southern Black Sea find that 80% to 95% of beach
litter consists of plastic materials, with significant amounts of land-based litter,
and litter from neighbouring countries (Öztekin et al. 2019; Terzi et al. 2020).
Abundance of smoking paraphernalia and food-related items, as well as the
significant increase in litter density during summer seasons point to noticeable
pressure from recreational activities in the region (Aytan et al. 2020;
Simeonova and Chuturkova 2020). Bottom-trawl studies show that litter
concentration, mostly plastics and fragmented pieces of multinational origins,
is higher at the bottom of the Black Sea compared to the Mediterranean, as
well as higher in density near the coastal shelf (Topçu and Öztürk 2010,
Moncheva et al. 2016).

Beach cleanup efforts are also a great way to incorporate citizen science to the
fight against plastic pollution. Citizen science can be an effective tool in terms
of policy, education, community capacity building, site management, species
management and research. This underutilized approach can be immensely
effective for gathering data and raising awareness if done right (Cigliano et al.
2015). For example, it’s possible to achieve repeated sampling over a number
of years (a time series) by taking advantage of volunteer-lead activities but
standardized methods and quality control are obligatory for the success of this
method (Zettler et al. 2017).

75
Materials and Methods

This work is a compilation of 4 beach cleanups on the coasts of the Black Sea.
The cleanups were coordinated by TUDAV in 2019 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location of the beaches where cleanups were carried out

Our beach cleanups were realized with the cooperation of major companies.
Participants at these events were often accompanied by influencers or
celebrities invited by the cooperating organizations, leading to greater
participation by the general public, hence, more volunteers (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Collecting marine litter along the Samsun Beach

We collected and labelled the waste in four categories; plastic, glass, metal
and others. Further categorization (i.e. textile, chemicals, rubber) to provide
more insight may have been possible but it could have caused confusion
amongst participants and lead to incorrect labelling of materials. Proper
separation of litter was important as we needed accurate data on the abundance
of various litter categories. We had prepared the collection bags with clear,
legible labels before we arrived at the beach. A brief explanation on litter
categories and materials found at the beach as well as a short speech on the
importance of this work was given to the participants before the cleanup began.

76
We set three important rules for the participants;
 Everyone must wear gloves,
 Swimming is forbidden during the cleanup,
 Team leaders must be informed of injuries as a first aid kit is always
available on site.

Each cleanup took approximately two hours. At the end of the litter collection,
all garbage bags were weighted individually and recorded. Municipal
authorities, previously informed of the cleanup, arrived to collect the litter
after having been contacted towards the end of the activity.

Results and Discussion

All beaches included in this work are touristic ones. Some are more popular
than others, but all are under pressure from the tourism sector. Four beaches
cleaned in 2019 contained a total of 1161 kg of litter, of which 36.6% consisted
of plastic - a large quantity, especially considering the fact that glass and metal
are much heavier than plastic (Table 1).

Table 1. Weight and percentage of litter collected by the beach clean-ups

Name of Plastic Glass Metal Others Total
Date Company
the Beach (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
Şile-
Kızılcaköy 24.07.2019 a 73 2 1 11 87
Beach
Kilyos-
Kısırkaya 20.09.2019 b 99 47 22 80 248
Beach
Samsun-
Atakum 20.09.2019 b 116 292 108 58 574
Beach
Riva-2nd
02.11.2019 c 137 33 6 76 252
Cove
425 374 137 225
TOTAL 1161
(36.6%) (32.2%) (11.8%) (19.4%)

All three beaches near the Istanbul Strait contained more plastic waste than
glass, metal or other types of litter (Figure 3). Only Atakum Beach in Samsun
showed significant difference, as glass litter consisted half of all litter
collected. Plastic and metal litter, each less than half of glass litter collected
during the cleanup, were similar in abundance. It is important to note, however,
that Atakum Beach is located approximately 700 km east of other cleanup
areas and likely to be under different environmental and anthropological
pressures. Three beaches on the western coast of the Black Sea are affected by
down currents from the northern Black Sea. Fragmented pieces of plastics

77
from neighbouring countries and the shipping industry end up on the shoreline,
carried off and deposited onto beaches by the currents and wave action (Topçu
et al. 2011). They are also located within the city of Istanbul, a major urban
area with more than 15 million people, compared to Atakum Beach in Samsun,
a city with 1.3 million people (Turkish Statistical Institute 2019). This leaves
Atakum Beach under less pressure from urban beachgoers, another major
source of plastic waste. A third factor that may have played an important role
in the different composition of beach litter is the presence of Kürtün Creek
right next to Atakum Beach as rivers and creeks are carriers for industrial,
commercial and fisheries-sourced litter (Williams et al. 2016; Aytan et al.
2020; Simeonova and Chuturkova 2020). Recent illegal dumping of industrial
waste shortly before the cleanup began is another possibility. Further
investigation is necessary to determine the cause of this extraordinary situation.

Figure 3. Percentage of all materials collected during the cleanup

The greatest benefit of beach cleanups by volunteers are not their immediate
effect – a clean beach – but their success in raising awareness. Volunteers for
cleanups focus on wayward litter and look at their environment with a
heightened awareness and growing bewilderment at their findings. This leads
them to notice small pieces of litter that they otherwise would have missed
and the greater impact, as well as the novel awareness of humans’ significant
littering potential, makes a lasting impression.

Strong policies, better waste management practices, intergovernmental

cooperation, regional and national monitoring and assessment, raising public
awareness, and reducing the use of plastics in our daily lives are all necessary
to stop the invasion of plastics (Black Sea Commission 2007). An important
example of intergovernmental cooperation is the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD) in the EU countries. MSFD establishes a framework with
11 descriptors to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for the protection

78
and sustainable use of marine ecosystems. Descriptor 10 aims to prevent
damages caused by marine litter. MSFD has been important in establishing a
common methodology for the assessment and monitoring of marine
environments in the EU member states (Bat et al. 2017).

It is important to prevent litter from reaching the shorelines and aquatic

environments. International cooperation is the solution to this all-
encompassing problem, as interconnectedness of seas and oceans prevents the
success of any lone actor in ensuring a pollution-free world.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank participants and companies that worked with us and Prof.
Bayram Öztürk for his encouragement in writing this paper.

References

Abreo, N.A.S., Blatchley, D., Superio, M.D. (2019) Stranded whale shark
(Rhincodon typus) reveals vulnerability of filter-feeding elasmobranchs to
marine litter in the Philippines. Marine Pollution Bulletin 141: 79-83.

Asensio-Montesinos, F., Anfuso, G., Williams, A.T. (2019) Beach litter

distribution along the western Mediterranean coast of Spain. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 141: 119-126.

Aytan, U., Şahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach
(SE Black Sea): density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Şentürk, Y., Usta, R., Şahin, F.B.E., Mazlum, R.E.,
Ağırbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Barboza, L.G.A., Vethaak, A.D., Lavorante, B.R., Lundebye, A.K.,

Guilhermino, L. (2018) Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for
food security, food safety and human health. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133:
336-348.

Bat, L., Öztekin, A., Arıcı, E. (2017) Marine Litter Pollution in the Black Sea:
Assessment of the Current Situation in Light of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive. In: Black Sea Marine Environment: The Turkish Shelf
(eds., Sezgin, M., Bat, L., Ürkmez, D., Arıcı, E., Öztürk, B.) Turkish Marine
Research Foundation (TUDAV), Publication No: 46, Istanbul, Turkey, pp.
476-494.

79
Black Sea Commission (2007) Marine litter in the Black Sea Region: A review
of the problem. Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey,
160 pp.

Cigliano, J.A., Meyer, R., Ballard, H.L., Freitag, A., Phillips, T.B., Wasser, A.
(2015) Making marine and coastal citizen science matter. Ocean & Coastal
Management 115: 77-87.

Corraini, N.R., de Lima, A.D.S., Bonetti, J., Rangel-Buitrago, N. (2018)

Troubles in the paradise: litter and its scenic impact on the North Santa
Catarina island beaches, Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 131: 572-579.

Horton, A.A., Barnes, D.K. (2020) Microplastic pollution in a rapidly

changing world: Implications for remote and vulnerable marine ecosystems.
Science of the Total Environment 738: 140349.

Konecny, C., Fladmark, V., De la Puente, S. (2018) Towards cleaner shores:

Assessing the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup's most recent data on
volunteer engagement and litter removal along the coast of British Columbia,
Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 135: 411-417.

Kühn, S., van Franeker, J.A. (2020) Quantitative overview of marine debris
ingested by marine megafauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 151: 110858.

Lee, R.F., Sanders, D.P. (2015) The amount and accumulation rate of plastic
debris on marshes and beaches on the Georgia coast. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 91(1): 113-119.

Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Sahin, F., Timofte, F. (2016) Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: A
pilot assessment. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 16(1):
213-218.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Microlitter pollution in sea water: a preliminary

study from Sinop Sarikum coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17(7): 1431-1440.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Gökkurt-Baki, O. (2019) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 20(3): 197-205.

Pasternak, G., Ribic, C.A., Spanier, E., Ariel, A., Mayzel, B., Ohayon, S.,
Zviely, D. (2019) Nearshore survey and cleanup of benthic marine debris
using citizen science divers along the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Ocean &
Coastal Management 175: 17-32.

80
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. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 181: 231-
237.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2020) Macroplastic distribution (Single-use

plastics and some Fishing gear) from the northern to the southern Bulgarian
Black Sea coast. Regional Studies in Marine Science 37: 101329.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources
on coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste
Management 105: 139-147.

Topçu, N.E., 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: 301-306.

Topçu, N.E., Tonay, M.A., Dede, A., Amaha Öztürk, A., Öztürk, B. (2011)
Coastal Litter Pollution along Sandy Beaches of Turkish Western Black Sea
Coast. 3rd Bi-annual BS Scientific Conference and UP-GRADE BS-SCENE
Project Joint Conference, Odessa, Ukraine, pp.78.

Topçu, N.E., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B. (2013) Origin
and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western
Black Sea Coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

Turkish Statistical Institute (2019) The Results of Address Based Population

Registration System. Available at: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/
medas/?kn=95&locale=en.

Walther, B.A., Kunz, A., Hu, C.S. (2018) Type and quantity of coastal debris
pollution in Taiwan: A 12-year nationwide assessment using citizen science
data. Marine Pollution Bulletin 135: 862-872.

Williams, A.T., Randerson, P., Di Giacomo, C., Anfuso, G., Macias, A.,
Perales, J.A. (2016) Distribution of beach litter along the coastline of Cádiz,
Spain. Marine pollution bulletin 107(1): 77-87.

Zettler, E.R., Takada, H., Monteleone, B., Mallos, N., Eriksen, M., Amaral-
Zettler, L.A. (2017) Incorporating citizen science to study plastics in the
environment. Analytical Methods 9(9): 1392-1403.

81
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Marine litter problem in the southern Black Sea coastal

area: An overview of the big pressure in Sinop

Ayşah Öztekin, Levent Bat*

Department of Hydrobiology, Fisheries Faculty, University of Sinop, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Marine litter is one of the most important pollution problems of today. It has been observed
in all marine ecosystems and has a big pressure on marine coastal environment. The Black
Sea is one of the most important European seas and gets its share from this pollution. Sinop,
located right at the middle of the southern Black Sea coast, is a settlement with prominent
fishing and tourism and no industrial pollution. The most important components of marine
pollution in the city are domestic solid wastes, urban sewage systems and fishing and
shipping activities. In addition to these components, physical factors such as currents,
waves and winds cause pollution pressure in the region. In this research, pollution
pressure from marine litter has been focused on Sinop, which is a small city with a
relatively low population and pollutant load.

Keywords: Marine litter, plastic, pollution, Sinop, Black Sea

Introduction

General overview of marine litter pollution

Marine litter is defined as “any persistent, manufactured or processed solid

material disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment” (UNEP
2005), and this pollutant is one of the most important pollution problems of today.

Plastics dominate marine litter that is one of the most widely used substances over
the world. Excessive amount of polymeric materials go into the marine
environment where it reaches micron size with degradation process that is
induced by a combination of factors, including thermal oxidation, photo-oxidative
degradation, biodegradation and hydrolysis and finally it is defined as
microplastic (Arthur et al. 2009; Hammer et al. 2012).

Marine litter has been observed in all marine ecosystems, from densely populated
regions to remote areas (UNEP 2001; UNEP and GRID-Arendal 2016). Its
increasing abundance has been reported in recent years on beaches, sea surface
and seafloor (Galgani et al. 2015).

The Black Sea makes significant contributions to the regional economy with
fisheries, tourism, oil production and transport (Bat et al. 2018). It is a semi-

82
enclosed sea, which has suffered important changes caused by human activities
in the last four decades. Total population of the Black Sea’s catchment area
exceeds 160-170 million, which makes extraordinary demands on its resources
and daily activities affecting the Black Sea environment (BSC 2007; Bat et al.
2018). Pollutants from towns and cities, farms and factories contaminate the
Black Sea; some sources come directly from the coast, but most flow with rivers.
Many rivers run off the Black Sea (Danube, Dnieper, Bug, Dniester, Don, Kuban,
Rioni, Kızılırmak, Yeşilırmak etc.) transport noticeable loads of pollutants
(Topcu et al. 2013) and recently it was estimated that 4.2 tonnes of plastic come
to the Black Sea with the Danube river per day (1533 tonnes every year) (Lechner
et al. 2014; Aytan et al. 2016). They cause serious problems in the Black sea and
could cause significant damage to marine wildlife (Bat et al. 2018).

In recent years with consciousness of the problem marine litter pollution

investigations have also increased in the Black Sea. Macro and micro litter
pollution has been reported from sea floor, beaches, seawater and marine biota
(Topçu et al. 2013; Ioakeimidis et al. 2014; Suaria et al. 2015; Aytan et al. 2016;
Terzi and Seyhan 2017; Aytan et al. 2018; Şener et al. 2019; Mukhanov et al.
2019; Aytan et al. 2020; Gedik and Eryaşar 2020) in the Black Sea. The results
of the investigations showed that all areas are seriously contaminated with marine
litter.

A small city in the Black Sea: Sinop

Sinop is located right at the middle of the Turkish Black Sea coast and on the
northernmost point of Turkey (Bat and Gökkurt-Baki 2014). Sinop was
established on the Boztepe peninsula, which stretches out to the north of the Black
Sea coastline. Provincial territory is located between 41˚12´ and 42˚06´ north
latitudes and 34˚14´ and 35˚26´ east longitudes. Sinop coasts are indented shores
and are not steep with comparison to the Eastern Black Sea shores. İnceburun is
also the northernmost point of Anatolia. There are no harbours protected by bays
and gulfs as far as Sinop in the Black Sea Turkish coasts that start from Hopa and
end in the Istanbul Strait (Anonymous 2020; CDR 2018).

Sinop is a settlement with prominent fishing and tourism and no industrial

pollution. The population of Sinop province is 218,243 in 2019. In 2018, average
waste amount was 1.39 kg/person day and the amount of municipal waste was 65
thousand tons/year (TUİK 2020). There is a domestic pollution, which is raised
especially in summer months due to increased population (Bat and Gökkurt-Baki
2014). Factors that cause marine pollution in the city are; household waste waters,
solid wastes and pollution by shipping and fishing activities (CDR 2015).

83
 Figure 1. Sinop region map (adapted from Öztekin and Bat 2017a)

Sources of litter in Sinop

Human activities are the general sources of marine litter, which originate from
both land- and sea-based sources (UNEP 2009). The primary sources of land-
based litter are coastal or inland areas (beaches, piers, harbours etc.), urban
disposal sites settled on the coast, water bodies (rivers, lakes and ponds) used as
illegal dump areas, riverine transport of waste from landfills and other inland
sources, discharges of untreated sewage systems, industrial plants, medical waste,
and tourism (UNEP 2009).

One of the most important component of marine pollution in the city is domestic
solid wastes. Domestic, industrial and medical wastes occurring within the Sinop
city have been accumulated for approximately 10 years since 2002 in the Solid
Waste Irregular Storage Area with an area of approximately 13 decares located in
the Kurtkuyusu area of Abalı Village. Recently, "Solid Waste Regular Storage
and Disposal Facility" has been established in Sinop to ensure that the wastes
resulting from Irregular Storage do not harm the environment and human health.
Domestic solid wastes in Sinop are stored in the Regular Storage and Disposal

84
Facility of the Union of Seaside Municipalities, which operate in Hacıoğlu
Village Meşedağı District (CDR 2018).

Another shortcoming in the region is that there is no company in the province that
has a license for Collection Waste Separation Facility and Recycling Facility. In
order to collect the packaging wastes, a company from Samsun is purchased.
There is also no Medical Waste Storage area in Sinop, the medical wastes
generated in Sinop City Center within the scope of the “Medical Waste Control
Regulation” are collected by the relevant company (CDR 2018).

Large rivers are responsible for a significant amount of pollutant input into the
sea. Due to the high flow rate and the strength of the subcurrents, they can transfer
the wastes to the sea (Acha et al. 2003; Barnes et al. 2009). Çatalzeytin, Ayancık,
Karasu, Kanlıçay (Güzelceçay) and Kabalı streams located in the city of Sinop
are poured into the Black Sea. These relatively small rivers bring pollutants from
their way and eventually into the sea.

Urban sewage systems could also be a source of microplastic pollution. In a study

on wastewater samples taken from the washing machine used at home, it has been
reported that more than 1900 micro-plastic fibers (microfibers) can pass into the
sewer per wash, even from a single synthetic cloth (Browne et al. 2011). Another
factor causing pollution in Sinop is domestic wastewaters. There is no Wastewater
Treatment Plant operating in Sinop. The North and South Deep Sea Discharge
and Akliman WWTP are still under construction. There is only one Wastewater
Treatment Plant belonging to the Municipality in Ayancık District (Pretreatment
+ Deep Sea Discharge) (CDR 2018).

Sea-based sources of marine litter originate from trading shipping, cruise liners
and ferries; fishing activities; military navy and research vessels; pleasure boats;
offshore oil and gas platforms and drilling rigs; and aquaculture installations
(UNEP 2009).

Main sea-based sources of pollution in the Sinop are fishing and shipping
activities. Boztepe peninsula is the most north extended point of Turkish Black
Sea coastline. The three sides of the peninsula are surrounded by the sea so
fisheries have an important means of income and has a significant share in the
economy of Sinop (Bat et al. 2013). As Sinop is naturally a port city, the region
stands out as a mooring point for ships during adverse weather conditions.
Moreover, there is an important official aquaculture site. Due to all these
activities, pollutants originating from the sea are significant for the region. Plastic
litter, which is the main component in the fishing industry, is common in fishing
areas (Galgani et al. 2000; Barnes et al. 2009). Fishing activities in coastal areas
and the shipping traffic in the Black Sea are also among the polluting sources of
the Black Sea. It has been reported that litter originating from fisheries occur quite

85
frequently especially during the peak season of fishing (Terzi and Seyhan 2017;
Öztekin et al. 2020).

Ocean currents, regional-scale topography and wind strongly affect marine litter
dispersion and deposition (UNEP 2009). The current system in the Black Sea
influences the distribution of litter. Oğuz et al. (1995) indicated that the upper
layer waters of the Black Sea are characterized by a dominant cyclonic and
mightily time-dependent basin widespread cycle. The main Black Sea current,
flows over the continental slope, and two large-scale cyclonic gyres are in the
eastern and western parts of the sea; half-constant anticyclonic eddies streams in
the nearshore, like Sinop, Sakarya, Caucasian, Sevastopol, Batumi etc. (Ivanov
and Belokopytov 2013). Once or twice a year in Sinop, for about a season a Sinop
eddy could form repeatedly (Figure 2). This eddy usually depends upon
propagation characteristics of the meanders superimposed on the Rim Current
system (Korotaev et al. 2003). Therefore, Sinop is also under the influence of
regional winds (N, NW, NE and W) which makes this place one of the important
solid waste accumulation point in the Black Sea (Öztekin and Bat 2017a).

Figure 2. Current and wind directions of Sinop (taken from Öztekin et al. 2020)

Current Pollution Status of Sinop

The first interesting situation appeared with the suspicious barrels that turned up
along the Turkish coast at Sinop in 1987-1988. The officials set to investigate the
contents of these barrels but have never provided a sufficient explanation of this

86
phenomenon, which was an issue of public attention throughout 1988 (Bat et al.
2018). These barrels were buried in those years in the Sinop.

Various cleaning organizations have been working over the years in the region
for seabed macro litter in cooperation with the Sinop Municipality, Provincial
Directorate of Security and Sinop University. In this context, cleaning activities
were carried out in different areas of the city and the collected litter items were
exhibited.

Scientific researches in Sinop showed that the presence of macro and micro litter
was detected on the beaches, on the sea floor and in the seawater, it was observed
that the marine species were affected by this pollution and the region in general
is under serious pollution pressure.

Sarıkum Lagoon and its surroundings is one of the important wetlands of the
Black Sea and it have been announced as Natural Protected Area. Lagoon coast
is one of the research sites for marine litter pollution in the region. This area is
exposed to a substantial amount of solid waste accumulation due to its
geographical position through the prevailing winds, waves and currents (Öztekin
and Bat 2017a). Macro and micro litter amount and composition were determined
by a series of research activities conducted seasonal in the region between 2015
and 2016.

Macro litter surveys were conducted seasonally on beach and seafloor in Sarıkum
Lagoon coast. Beach litter density was found that the average number was
1.512±0.578 pieces/m² and the average weight was 31.875±10.684 g/m² in
Sarıkum Lagoon coast (Öztekin et al. 2020). Material types percentages of litter
items were reported as follows: plastic - 95.61%, glass/ ceramics - 1.46%,
cloth/textile - 1.31%, and the others - 1.62% in the region. Foreign origin litter
was found with ratio 2.29% of all litter items and was originated Mainly from
neighbouring countries. Litter items were commonly consisted of mixed
packaging items (41.12%) and unidentifiable items (33.84%) in the Sarıkum
(Öztekin et al. 2020).

At the same time seafloor macro litter amount, distribution and types were
determined with beam trawl in Sarıkum Lagoon coast at four different depths (5
m, 10 m, 20 m and 30 m). The average litter amount was reported as 30.97 pieces
km-2. The litter density was highest in spring and 5 m was the most polluted depth.
The only material was plastic with mainly rope pieces and plastic bags (Öztekin
and Bat 2016).

Seafloor macro litter abundance and composition were determined also in the
northmost point of Turkey, İnceburun coast in 2014. Litter amount was reported
as mean 808.74±215.02 pieces km-2. The maximum litter density was found in 34
m depth. The results were evaluated according to material types, plastic was found

87
at the highest ratio (95.35%) and litter items were commonly consist of plastic
bags (Öztekin and Bat 2017b).

Micro-litter investigations were performed in seawater, beach and seafloor

sediment in Sarıkum Lagoon coast. Beach sediment results showed that the plastic
density of 1-5 mm size class was found as 0.012±0.006 pieces g-1 and
659.22±552.99 pieces m-². Categorization results demonstrated that microplastic
items are mainly composed of polystyrene pieces (58.72%) and hard plastic
pieces (33.99%) followed by resin pellets (4.21%) and unidentifiable pieces
(2.09%). The <1 mm size class plastic density varied from 0.029±0.009 pieces
g-1. The most common colour was white (Öztekin and Bat 2017c).

Microplastic abundance in seafloor sediments in the Sarıkum was investigated at

four different depths (0.5 m, 5 m, 15 m, 30 m). Microplastic density was found as
0.037±0.011 pieces ml-1 and 0.021±0.006 pieces g-1 in sediment samples. Litter
amount was found as maximum in spring and at 5 m depth. Categorization results
showed that microplastic items are mainly composed of plastic fibres (60.24%),
unidentified pieces (19.88%) and hard plastic pieces (16.27%) followed by nylons
(2.41%) and polyurethane and polystyrene pieces (1.2%). The most common
colours were found as blue (38.79%), transparent (19.39%), grey (18.79%) and
white (10.91%) (Öztekin and Bat 2017d).

Microlitter pollution in seawater was investigated both at sea surface and in water
column from at 4 different depths (0.5 m, 5 m, 15 m, and 30 m) in Sarıkum.
Microlitter density was found as 2.6672.325 pieces.m⁻3 and 24.47526.153
pieces m⁻3 for sea surface and water column, respectively. Litter categorization
results showed that most common litter types are other groups for both sample
region (Sea surface: 55.45%; Water column: 54.21%) followed by fibres, hard
plastic pieces and nylons. The other groups were mainly consisted of ship paint
particles. Litter amount was found as maximum in spring in both sample regions.
It was observed that the microlitter density increased on the sea surface as it
moves away from the shore, whereas it increased in the water column as it
approaches the shore. This situation may have caused physical factors such as
current, wind and wave (Öztekin and Bat 2017a).

Recently, a dedicated project was conducted in Sinop coast with the aim to
determine the amount, composition and distribution of macro litter on the
beaches. The surveys were carried out for four seasons on nine different beaches
with different locations and sources of pollution. The result of the project shows
that all the beaches in the region are contaminated with marine litter and the most
common material type is plastic. It is clear that marine litter is originated mainly
from land-based sources. Fisheries related litter items are also frequently
encountered when fishing activities are intense. Foreign originated litter was also
detected on the beaches (Unpublished data from authors).

88
The effects of marine litter were investigated on various demersal fish species on
the Sarıkum coast with no findings. However, the entanglement situations were
registered on two fish species in the Sinop. The one of them was a Dicentrarchus
labrax (Linnaeus 1758) which was the subject of local news (Anonymous 2013)
and the other was the Belone belone (Linnaeus 1760) that was reported from
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Sinop, Gerze (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The entanglements of marine fish in Sinop

Conclusion

The results of the investigation show that Sinop coasts are significantly affected
by marine litter pollution and this is a constantly growing problem. The fact of
this pollution is an important issue and requires further examination on
transportation, origins, types and effects on biota.

The investigations conducted in the region showed that macro litter originates
mainly from land-based sources. In addition, foreign originated litter found in the
region gives information about the Black Sea's unique current system and the
transportation of litter items. Encountered foreign originated litter items confirm
that marine litter is a cross-border problem.

Classifications according to the type of material show that plastics were the most
abundant litter in the Sinop. Degradation time of plastics in nature and products
of decomposition are very important for further consumption by food webs

89
(Aytan et al. 2018), the digestion of these particles also poses the danger of
toxicity.

It is the human activities that constitute the source of marine litter; therefore,
awareness raising activities for the people is one of the measures to be taken to
reduce the production of litter.

Acknowledgment

Research was part of projects supported by TUBITAK; project number: 115Y002 and
Sinop University for Scientific Research Project; project number SÜF-1901-18-48.

References

Acha, E., Hermes,W., Mianzan, A., Iribarne, C., Domingo, A., Gagliardini, C.,
Carlos Lasta, A., Pedro Daleo, D. (2003) The role of the Rio de la Plata bottom
salinity front in accumulating debris. Marine Pollution Bullettin 46: 197-202.

Anonymous (2013) Available at: www.gerzegundemhaber.com.

Anonymous (2020) Available at: http://www.sinop.gov.tr/cografya.

Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H. (2009) Proceedings of the International

Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine
Debris. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30. Sept 9-11, 2008.

Aytan, Ü., Esensoy Sahin, F. B., Senturk, Y. (2018) Microplastic Ingestion by

Calanoid Copepods in the SE Black Sea. MICRO 2018, Fate and Impact of
Microplastics: Knowledge, Actions and Solutions. Lanzarote, 19-23 November
2018.

Aytan, Ü., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach (SE
Black Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms.
Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

Aytan, Ü., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009) Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 364(1526):
1985-1998.

90
Bat, L., Arıcı, E., Sezgin, M., Şahin, F. (2017). Heavy metal levels in commercial
fishes caught in the southern Black Sea coast. International Journal of
Environment and Geoinformatics 4(2): 94-102.

Bat, L., Gökkurt-Baki, O. (2014) Seasonal variations of sediment and water

quality correlated to land-based pollution sources in the middle of the Black Sea
Coast, Turkey. International Journal of Marine Science 4(12): 108-118.

Bat, L., Öztekin, A., Şahin, F., Arici, E., Özsandikçi, U. (2018) An overview of
the Black Sea pollution in Turkey. Mediterranean Fisheries and Aquaculture
Research 1(2): 66-86.

Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E. L., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T.,
Thompson, R.C. (2011) Accumulations of microplastic on shorelines worldwide:
Sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol 45: 9175-9179.

BSC (2007) Marine litter in the Black Sea Region: A review of the problem. Black
Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey, 148 pp.

CDR (2015) Sinop Directory of Environmental and Forestry, Sinop

Environmental Condition Report 2015.

CDR (2018) Sinop Directory of Environmental and Forestry, Sinop

Environmental Condition Report 2018.

Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A.,
Mahe, J.C. (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 40(6): 516-527.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T. (2015) Global distribution, composition and
abundance of marine litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham. pp.
29-56.

Gedik, K., Eryaşar, A.R. (2020) Microplastic pollution profile of Mediterranean

mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) collected along the Turkish Coasts.
Chemosphere 260: 127570.

Hammer, J., Kraak, M.H.S., Parsons., J.R. (2012) Plastics in the marine
environment: The dark side of a modern gift. Reviews of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 220: 1-44.

Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris N.,
Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G. (2014) A comparative study
of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Black Seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 89:1-2.

91
Ivanov, V.A., Belokopytov, V.N. (2013) Oceanography of the Black Sea.
National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Marine Hydrophysical Institute,
Sevastopol. 210 pp.

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.

Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart,
M., Glas, M., Schludermann, E. (2014) The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of
plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river.
Environmental Polluion 188: 177e181.

Mukhanov, V.S., Litvinyuk, D.A., Sakhon, E.G., Bagaev, A.V., Veerasingam, S.,
Venkatachalapathy, R. (2019) A new method for analyzing microplastic particle
size distribution in marine environmental samples. Ecologica Montenegrina 23:
77-86.

Oguz, T., Malanotte-Rizzoli, P., Aubrey, D. (1995) Winds and thermohaline

circulation of the Black Sea driven by yearly mean climatology forcing. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Oceans 100(C4): 6845-6863.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2016) Seafloor Litter In Sinop Sarikum Lagoon coast in the
southern Black Sea. FABA 2016: International Symposium on Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences Abstract Book 3-5 November 2016, Antalya/Turkey.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017a) Microlitter pollution in sea water: A preliminary

study from Sinop Sarikum coast of the Southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17(7): 1431-1440.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017b) Seafloor litter in the Sinop İnceburun Coast in the
Southern Black Sea. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics
4(3): 173-181.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017c) Sinop Sarıkum Lagoon: A Microplastic Beach.

Ecology Symposium, 11-13 May, Kayseri TURKEY.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017d) Microplastic in sea bed from Sinop Sarıkum Lagoon
coast in the southern Black Sea. Ecology Symposium, 11-13 May, Kayseri
TURKEY.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Gokkurt-Baki, O. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 20(3): 197-205.

92
Suaria, G., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Ion, G., Aliani, S. (2015) First
observations on the abundance and composition of floating debris in the North-
Western Black Sea, Marine Environmental Research 107: 45-49.

Şener, M., Doğruyol, P., Balkaya, N. (2019) Microplastic pollution in the Black
Sea Coast of the Anatolian side of Istanbul, Turkey. Desalination and Water
Treatment 172 (2019): 351-358.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 120(1-2): 154-158.

Topcu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Ozturk, A.A., Ozturk, B. (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
Coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

TUIK (2020) Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at:

https://www.tuik.gov.tr/tr/

UNEP (2001) Trash that Talks. United Nations Environment Programme,

Sweden. 18 pp.

UNEP (2005) Marine Litter, An Analytical Overview. United Nations

Environment Programme, Nairobi. 58 pp.

UNEP (2009) Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. United Nations Environment

Programme, Nairobi. 232 pp.

UNEP and GRID-Arendal (2016) Marine Litter Vital Graphics. United Nations
Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal. Nairobi and Arendal.
www.unep.org, www.grida.no

93
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Program:

Marine litter studies in the Black Sea coasts of Turkey

Hakan Atabay1*, Ibrahim Tan1, Mustafa Yiğit Konya1,

Gökhan Kaman1, Alper Evcen1, Hacer Selamoğlu Çağlayan2,
Ebru Olgun Eker2, Çolpan Polat Beken1
1 TUBITAK- MRC, Institute of Environment and Cleaner Production, Gebze, Kocaeli,
TURKEY
2 Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey, Directorate General of

Environmental Impact Assessment Permit and Inspection/Dept. of Laboratory,

Measurement and Monitoring Gölbaşı, Ankara, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Marine litter is one of the crucial problems for the ecosystem health, and most of its sources
are anthropogenic. The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive is focused on Marine
Litter under the descriptor 10 in order to achieve levels of marine litter that do not cause
harm to the coastal and marine environment. However, there is insufficient data to evaluate
marine litter. To fill in this lack of data, macro and micro litter surveys were performed as
a part of the Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Programme. In this programme, two
microplastic stations and one beach litter surveys were conducted in Black Sea. Two
microplastic stations show that the fluctuation of data is heavily influenced by the inputs
from the rivers. However, microplastic concentrations in the water column were found to
be similar at both stations. Beach litter survey showed that amongst the percentage
distributions of the total number of garbage counted in the area, plastic had the highest
percentile of 91. Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Program 2020-2022, aims to
increase the microplastic and beach litter sampling stations, as well as to reveal short,
medium and long-term plans for monitoring and reducing the marine litter.

Keywords: Macroplastic, microplastic, beach litter, trawl, National Monitoring

Programme, Black Sea

Introduction

Marine litter has become the most pervasive type of human-induced pollution
(Green et al. 2018). Litter items are classified into different size classes (macro,
micro) and groups (plastic, glass, etc.). In this classification, microplastics and
their effects have just been understood, and the studies on this subject is very
limited on the global scale (MoEU and TUBITAK-MRC 2017).

Solid wastes that are comprised of persistent, manufactured or processed

materials, build up on the coastline and the sea floor as a result of long-term
transportation within the water mass through direct discharge, carriage through
rivers, currents, waves and the effects of wind causing significant loss of habitats,

94
various adverse effects on living organisms and pollution. Besides, solid wastes
are also responsible for causing social and economic loss. Wastes may remain in
the marine environment for tens, even hundreds of years; therefore conducting
only source evaluations should not be deemed sufficient and observations should
be done in the field.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) defines marine litter as, “any
persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of or
abandoned in the marine and coastal environment”. Descriptor 10 of the MSFD
titled “Marine Litter” is focused mainly on the properties and quantities of waste
discharged into marine waters and aims to achieve levels of marine litter that do
not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment (TUBITAK-MRC and
MoEU-GDEM 2014).

In this study, marine litter is studied at pilot scales through the “Integrated Marine
Pollution Monitoring Programmes”. Table 1 shows the comparison with the
indicators of MSFD under Descriptor 10, only D10C4 indicator is not covered in
the monitoring programme (MoEU and TUBITAK-MRC 2017, 2019).
“Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Programme” has been coordinated and
implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization/General
Directorate of EIA, Permit and Inspection/ Department of Laboratory,
Measurement and by TUBITAK Marmara Research Center Environment and
Cleaner Production Institute since 2014.

95
Table 1. Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Program (2014-2022) Marine Litter Criteria and indicators for GES in The Black Sea Coasts of
Turkey (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017)

MSFD Descriptor 10
Characteristics and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.
Criteria elements Criteria Scope / method Description (Monitoring, 2014-2020)

Case study: Sarısu Beach/ TR Black Sea

08 November 2018
D10C1 — Primary
Litter (excluding micro-litter), In the 2020-2022 monitoring program, it is planned to
The composition, amount D10C1: amount of litter per
classified in the following increase the number of beach litter stations
and spatial distribution of category in number of items:
categories: artificial polymer
litter on the coastline, in the - per 100 metres (m) on the
materials, rubber, cloth/textile, In 2021, macro litter will be monitored on sea surface
surface layer of the water coastline,
paper/cardboard, 2 along certain sections.
column, and on the seabed, - per square kilometre (km ) for
processed/worked wood, metal,
are at levels that do not surface layer of the water column
glass/ceramics, chemicals, Trawl / beam trawl seabed study was performed
cause harm to the coastal and for seabed,
undefined, and food waste. between 2016 and 2019.
and marine environment.
(2016: 26 trawl+21 beam trawl stations; 2019: 44 trawl
stations; planned at the same stations in 2021)

D10C2 — Primary: D10C2: amount of micro-litter per Microplastic level determination studies in the Black
The composition, amount category in number of items and Sea were carried out in 2 stations (Giresun (TRK46)
and spatial distribution of weight in grams (g): and Trabzon (TRK53)) at pilot scales in summer
Micro-litter (particles <5mm), micro-litter on the seasons between 2015-2016.
classified in the categories coastline, in the surface - per square metre (m2) for surface
‘artificial polymer materials’ and layer of the water column, layer of the water column, Levels in sea sediment, surface water and water
‘other’. and in seabed sediment, are column in 2016 were provided as 3 replications.
at levels that do not cause - per kilogram (dry weight) (kg) of
harm to the coastal and sediment for the coastline and for In the 2020-2022 monitoring program, it is planned to
marine environment. seabed, increase the number of stations.

96
 Table 1. Continued

Criteria elements Criteria Scope / method Description (Monitoring, 2014-2020)

D10C3 — Secondary:
Litter and micro-litter classified
D10C3: amount of litter/micro- Gasters and intestines of 263 fish individuals
in the categories ‘artificial
The amount of litter and litter in grams (g) and number of belonging to 3 fish species (Trachurus trachurus,
polymer materials’ and ‘other’,
micro-litter ingested by items per individual for each Merlangius merlangus, Mullus barbatus) were
assessed in any species from the
marine animals is at a level species in relation to size (weight examined within the scope of sampling carried out in
following groups: birds,
that does not adversely or length, as appropriate) of the 9 different regions for detection of impacts of
mammals, reptiles, fish or
affect the health of the individual sampled, microplastic pollution on biota at the Black Sea coasts.
invertebrates.
species concerned.

D10C4 — Secondary:

The number of individuals

Species of birds, mammals, D10C4: number of individuals
of each species, which are
reptiles, fish or invertebrates, affected (lethal; sub-lethal) per -
adversely affected due to
which are at risk from litter. species.
litter, such as by
entanglement, other types
of injury or mortality, or
health effects.

97
Microplastics

Determination of abundance and classification of microplastics were performed

at 2 stations (Figure 1) with different matrices (surface layer, water column and
sediment) during 2015-2016. A manta net with a regular opening 50 cm wide x
20 cm deep lined with a 3 m long 333 µm net fitted with a 25 x 12 cm2 screw-fit
collecting bag was used to sample the surface layer of the sea. The manta was
trawled alongside the vessel (R/V TÜBİTAK MARMARA) for 30 min at 2 knots.
The water column was sampled with a zooplankton net and a standard Van Veen
Grab of 0.1 m2 was used for sediment samplings.

Figure 1. Microplastic and Beach litter stations

Estimating and monitoring microplastic concentration is crucial to understand

human effects on the sea. Microplastic monitoring in the two stations shows that
the flotation of data is heavily influenced by the inputs from the rivers. For
example, surface water concentrations of microplastic in TRK53 station, which
is under the influence of Değirmendere Creek, were found much higher than the
TRK46 station in 2015. However, the situation was reversed in 2016 (Table 2).
Microplastics concentration in the water column was found similar at both
stations. Levels of sediment contamination were also similar to each other in
2015, although a prominent increase was observed in terms of microplastic
amount in TRK53 compared to TRK46 in 2016 (Table 2).

98
 Table 2. Microplastic levels detected in 2015-2016
Surface layer Water column Sediment
Station Replicate 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015
(n/km2) (n/km2) (n/m3) (n/m3) (n/m3) (n/m3) (n/L) (n/L)

R1 4008065 942857 20.04 4.71 19.86 91.88 920 2000

TRK46 R2 844262 - 4.22 - 10.69 - 1580 -

R3 998390 - 4.99 - 7.81 - 1300 -

R1 1378357 2306000 6.89 12.23 9.631 - 2780 1780

TRK53
R2 482.315 - 2.41 - 9.723 - 3940 -

R3 599042 - 3.00 - 4.722 - 1240 -

Beach Litter

Anthropogenic sources are responsible for ~80% of the plastic debris. The vast
majority of this waste comes from fishing and aquaculture activities. The rest of
debris arises from beach litter (Andrady 2011). The sampling study of the beach
littler was conducted according to the JRC guidelines (JRC 2013).

Beach litter survey was conducted in a selected beach in the South Eastern Black
Sea (40° 08’ 22.11” N, 30° 08’ 54.07” E) in 2018. The beach is located in Kandıra
province (Figure 1) with a high population in summer (400.000 citizens) at 58 km
north of Kocaeli city (~ 1.780.000 people in 2020 census). Total length of the
beach is 797 m with a 5 m width. The swimming period on the beach is between
June and August.

Beach litter was collected in 100 m transect according to the waste classification
system established by the "MSDF marine waste assessment working group" (JRC
2013 and DISSP 2017). After being classified, the collected garbage, was
weighed and photographed in the laboratory. 1728 pieces of garbage (0.292
pieces / m2) collected from the sampling area (approximately 5.921m2), were
divided into 7 categories: plastic, rubber, textile, paper, wood, metal and glass /
ceramic (Figure 2a). Cigarette butts were scanned and 13 cigarette butts (5.5
grams) were detected in the 10-meter shoreline (approximately 536 m2). The
weight of the garbage in the whole area was determined as 25.403 kg (0.043 kg /
m2). The garbage collected in an area of approximately 5921 m2 was mostly in
the plastic (approximately 60%) category, followed by 21% wood material and
6% metal material. According to the percentage distributions calculated over the
total number of garbage counted in the area (5921m2), plastic was found again at
the highest level of 91% (Figure 2b). This is followed by metal waste with 4%

99
and paper waste with 2%. It was determined that 6 litter items found in the study
area belonged to the foreign originated products.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Distribution of weight (a) and number (b) of litter in Sarısu Beach

Conclusion

The increasing trend of human-induced pollution will result in an increase of

plastic debris in the marine environment. Therefore, determining the composition,
amount and spatial distribution of marine litter on the coastline, on sea surface
and at the seabed is essential to achieve good environmental status and sustainable
use of marine resources. It is also crucial to determine the hot spot areas to
develop strategies and plans for preventing marine litter pollution. In this context,
during the Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Program 2020-2022, it is
aimed to increase the microplastic and beach litter sampling stations, as well as
to reveal short, medium and long-term plans for monitoring and reducing the
marine litter. It is planned also to work on floating litter in certain transects on the
Black Sea in 2021.

Acknowledgments

The present study, was carried out with the programme called “Integrated Pollution
Monitoring in Turkish Seas (ÇŞB/ÇEDİDGM TÜBİTAK/MAM; 2014-2016)” supported
by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Turkey.

References

Andrady, A.L. (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 62: 1596-2605.

100
DISSP (2017) Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, TUBITAK-MRC
Standardization of Marine Monitoring Project (DİSSP)- Marine Monitoring
Guidelines, Gebze-Kocaeli.

Green, D.S., Kregting, L., Boots, B., Blockley, D.J., Brickle, P., Costa, M.,
Crowley, Q. (2018) A comparison of sampling methods for seawater
microplastics and a first report of the microplastic litter in coastal waters of
Ascension and Falkland Islands, Marine Pollution Bulletin 137: 695-701.

JRC (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas,

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

MoEU, TUBITAK-MRC (2017) Ministry of Environment and Urbanization

“Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring 2014-2016 Programme: The Black Sea
Summary Report, TÜBİTAK-MRC Press, Kocaeli.

MoEU, TUBITAK-MRC (2019) Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,

“Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring 2017-2019 Programme: 2018 The Black
Sea Final Report, TÜBİTAK-MRC Press, Kocaeli.

TUBITAK-MRC, MoEU-GDEM (2014) Marine and Coastal Waters Quality

Determination and Classification Project (DeKoS). ÇTÜE 5118703, Report No.
ÇTÜE.13.155 (Final Report), February 2014, Gebze-Kocaeli, Turkey.

101
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Studies regarding the seafloor litter on the Romanian

Black Sea coast

Madalina Galatchi*, Eugen Anton

NIMRD – National Institute for Marine Research and Development Grigore Antipa,
Constanta, ROMANIA
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

The marine litter from various sources is a persistent problem of pollution along the Black
Sea coast, both in the water and on the seabed. It is also a transboundary problem in this
enclosed sea basin which displays a very dynamic current system, enabling transportation
of any matter from a given location in the basin to almost any coastal area. Regarding the
quantitative composition of the marine litter, a considerable amount is brought from the
Danube River, especially in seasons with heavy rains. As respects of the qualitative
information, plastic dominated in samples. Even if the trend in marine litter is decreasing,
the small amounts of litter might threaten the biodiversity of the basin.

Keywords: Seafloor litter, Romanian Black Sea coast, quantitative and qualitative data

Introduction

Marine litter have been considered since the early 1960s as an acute problem for
marine life, but since then the volume of these wastes, associated with
environmental, social and economic growth, has been globally increasing. Marine
litter, originating either from the vessels or from the shores or rivers, is a persistent
pollution problem along the coasts of the Black Sea, in the deep sea and on the
bottom of the sea. Marine litter is also a transboundary problem in this enclosed
sea basin which displays a very dynamic current system, enabling transportation
to almost any coast. Most of the marine litter items in this region is of a non-
biodegradable nature, which is not only an aesthetic problem, but might threaten
the biodiversity of the basin.

Recently, several national and regional actions have been taken in Romania to
initiate and implement marine litter monitoring. Currently, there is still no
national action plan for marine litter monitoring in the Romanian Black Sea area.
At EU level, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is the mandatory
legal instrument dedicated to the assessment, monitoring, targeting and achieving
of Good Environmental Status (GHG) for marine litter. A group of technical
experts appointed by Member States to assist them in achieving good
environmental status for marine litter is co-chaired by the Joint Research Center
(JRC), which has developed, “Guidance for monitoring of marine litter in
European seas” and, more recently, thematic reports on waste sources, monitoring

102
of river / river waste and damage caused by marine litter; this guide was used at
the begining of Romanian Black Sea ML assessment.

In our country, the monitoring of the existing waste on the seabed (waste
originated from discards or loss) started in 2011 with voluntary monitoring by the
National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”,
facilitated by the surveys that targeted bottom trawl fishery to obtain data and
information needed to assess demersal fish stocks. Starting with 2013, along with
becoming partners in the project “Towards a Clean, Litter-Free European Marine
Environment through Scientific Evidence, Innovative Tools and Good
Governance”, there was the opportunity to address a new research direction to
ease obtaining data and information on marine litter in the Romanian Black Sea
area. These investigations helped to determine the biological, social and economic
impact of marine wastes and to set out new monitoring, collection and recycling
techniques and technologies and to draw-up measurement proposals to support
policies aimed at mitigating the impact thereof, respectively.

Materials and Methods

NIMRD conducted research surveys between 2011 and 2014 (NIMRD, in

Galgani et al. 2015) with sampling trawl (bottom trawl) for demersal fish stock
assessment, enabling the collection of litter for assessing litter density,
composition, and sources. A 21/22-34 m bottom trawl was employed in southern,
central and northern part of Romania, at depths ranging between 15 - 90 m.

Results and Discussion

During the monitoring period 2011-2014, a total number of 168659 items of

various types have been identified and inventoried. In 2012, most of hardly
biodegradable materials (plastic) were found in the close vicinity of the Constanta
and Mangalia harbours approx. 96.61%, (259.39 kg) of the total amount of such
wastes collected from the seabed (268.48 kg), where vessel traffic is also the
busiest. In 2014, 27 hauls (1625 km2) were operated, collecting 329.18 kg (420
items) of waste, with plastic representing 27% of weight (48 % by number). The
largest amounts of metal and plastic were located in the areas around the ports of
Constanta, Cape Midia and Mangalia with an intense naval traffic. Nearly in the
majority of hauls were identified plastic items (bags, bottles, bags, buckets, cans,
linoleum, etc.) Figure 1.

A considerable contribution of plastic waste makes it through the three discharge

mouths (Chilia, Sulina, Sf. Gheorghe) of the Danube River. Many fragments were
from lost or abandoned fishing gear (seines, trawl, purse, etc.), also from other
countries because of illegal fishing, and wood were brought from the three arms
of the Danube carried by the currents along the shoreline in both offshore and
shallow waters.

103
Figure 1. Marine litter types identified in the research survey
(NIMRD original photos, 2012)

104
 Figure 2. Different types of marine litter identified on the seabed
(NIMRD original photos, 2019)

Abundance, spatial distribution and qualitative composition of seafloor marine

litter have been also investigated in a study area of Constanta Bay (Ioakemidis et
al. 2014) after 16 trawling tows (9 m width, 20 mm mesh) and 76 km of sampling

105
trawl. Plastic accounted for 45.2 ± 4.8 % of total litter (14.3 and 12.9 for bottles
and bags) and 22% of debris were made of metal. In Constanta Bay the highest
density (1068 items/km2) was recorded in front of the Danube mouth, whereas no
consistent distribution pattern in relation to depth was observed on the shelf (<60
m), except for metals that seems to accumulate in the deeper parts of the surveyed
areas. The overall results highlight the importance of the Danube River and
fishing activities as a source of marine litter in the area. Significant amount of
small sized items showed the trend of marine litter to fragmentation.

The activities were repeated in 2019 at the Romanian Black Sea coast. The
collection of litter from the seabed was carried out at depths between 14 and 64
m during the assessment activities for demersal fish populations (Figure 2). Two
expeditions each for 10 days were carried out with the bottom trawling. From 81
trawls, only in 48 marine litter was identified.

Figure 3. Metal objects identified on the seabed (NIMRD original photos, 2019)

106
The 48 trawls covered an area of 2133135 m2. All the collected waste weighted
883 kg (of which 74% were metal objects and pieces) and amounted 549 items
(of which 26% represented metal objects, Figure 3); with an average density 0.41
g/m2 and 0.0003 litter items/m2.

Classifying by material, the waste was represented by metal objects, plastics, lost
or abandoned fishing nets, bottles, and textile fabrics. The percentage in kg and
number of items is presented on the figures below (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Figure 4. Typology (in percentages %) of sea floor litter along

Figure 5. Number of items (in percentages %) of sea floor litter along Romanian Coast
in 2019 (NIMRD data)

Compared to previous years, except for metal, the other categories showed lower
values (g / m2) with low oscillations from one year to another.

107
Regarding the seafloor litter, from all the methods assessed, bottom trawling
(otter trawl) has been shown to be the most suitable for large-scale evaluation and
monitoring (Goldberg 1995; Galgani et al. 1995, 1996, 2000). Nevertheless, there
are some restrictions in rocky areas and in soft sediments for this method and it
could underestimate the quantities presented.

The international bottom trawling surveys such as IBTS (Atlantic), BITS (Baltic)
and MEDITS (Mediterranean/Black Sea) provide useful and valuable means for
seafloor litter monitoring. For the Mediterranean Region, the protocol is derived
from the MEDITS protocol (see the protocol manual, Bertrand et al. 2007). It is
also a reference protocol for associated countries, including Romania and
Bulgaria in the Black Sea. The hauls are positioned following a depth stratified
sampling scheme with random drawing of the positions within each stratum. The
number of positions in each stratum is proportional to the surface of these strata
and the hauls are made in the same position from year to year. The determined
depths intervals (10 – 50; 50 – 100; 100 – 200; 200 – 500; 500 - 800 m) are fixed
in all areas as strata limits. The total number of hauls for the Mediterranean Sea
is 1385; covering the shelves and slopes from 11 countries. The haul duration is
fixed at 30 minutes on depths less than 200 m and at 60 minutes at depths over
200 m (defined as the moment when the vertical net opening and door spread are
stable), using the same GOC 73 trawl with 20 mm mesh nets (Bertrand et al.
2007) and sampling between May and July, at 3 knots between 20 and 800 m
depth.

On board of the vessel, the litter collected is weighted as total and divided into
the categories and sub-categories as reported in the list below. It is mandatory to
record or estimate total weight and number of items for each main category. It is
facultative to register weight by categories and number of items by sub-category.
In case of large amount of litter in the catch, all big sized objects of litter must be
recorded while a subsample could be analysed for small sized litter (e.g. lids).
Litter should be coded as total, by category and sub-category. Detailed data on
total weight and litter composition must be reported in the corresponding
protocol.

Qualitative and quantitative data, necessary metadata and characteristics of the

haul (Date, code of haul, the GPS positions of the haul (start and end), trawled
distance, average speed, characteristics of the haul (horizontal opening), depth of
haul etc.), should be contained in the dedicated TA file. Information related to the
fishing set and gear performance allows calculating the sampled surfaces for each
haul and estimating a standardized index of litter abundance per square kilometre.

108
Conclusion

Reduction of marine litter is globally acknowledged as a major community

challenge of our times due to its significant environmental, economic, social,
political and cultural implications (Cheshire et al. 2009). Marine litter is one of
the most harmful kinds of pollution and it is dominated by plastics (Coe and
Rogers 1997). The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), adopted in
June 2008, commits Member States to apply an ecosystem approach managing
the marine environment. By this directive, member states aim to achieve good
environmental status (GES) of its marine waters by 2020 described by 11
descriptors.

The overall results highlight the importance of the Danube River and fishing
activities as a source of marine litter in the Romanian Black Sea area. Monitoring
the environmental status and managing the coastal area through the
implementation of knowledge on ecosystem’s biodiversity, functions and services
are crucial actions to ensure the long-term sustainability and to establish the Good
Environmental Status (GES) thresholds. MSFD aims to achieve a statistically
measurable and significant overall reduction of sea floor litter by 2020. Despite
natural fluctuations (annual variability, storm effects, etc.) that may affect the
quantities dumped on shore and local applicability and technical feasibility, trend-
based thresholds may be appropriate in the absence of other applicable
methodologies.

References

Bertrand, J., A. Souplet, L., Gil de Soula, G., Relini, C., Politou (2007)
International bottom trawl survey in the Mediterranean (Medits), Instruction
manual, Version 5. pp. 62. Available at: http://www.sibm.it/SITO%20MEDITS
/file.doc/Medits-Handbook_V5-2007.pdf

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.,
Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (1997) Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T. (2015) Global Distribution, Composition and
Abundance of Marine Litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann,
M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.). Springer, Cham. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-16510-3_2.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey,
S., Thompson, R.C., van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Mira Veiga,
J., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H.,

109
Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in
European Seas. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Report EUR 26113 EN, 128
pp.

Galgani, F., Jaunet, S., Campillo, A., Guenegan, X., His, E. (1995) Distribution
and abundance of debris on the continental shelf of the North-western
Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 30: 713-717.

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): 516-527.

Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y. (1996) Accumulation of debris on the deep
sea floor off the French Mediterranean coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series
142: 225–234.

Goldberg, E.D. (1995) Emerging problems in the coastal zone for the twenty-first
century. Mar Poll Bull 31: 152-158.

Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Cristea, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N.,
Galgani, Fr., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G. (2014) A comparative study
of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Black Seas. Mar Poll Bull 89: 296-304.

Westphalen, G. (2009) UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of

Marine Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical
Series No. 83: xii, 120 pp.

110
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Distribution and composition of marine litter on seafloor

in the western Black Sea, Turkey

Uğur Uzer*, Taner Yildiz, F. Saadet Karakulak

Department of Fisheries Technology and Management, Faculty of Aquatic Sciences,

Istanbul University, Istanbul, TURKEY
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The present study aims to determine the composition, abundance, density and
accumulation areas of marine litter on the seafloor of the Turkish coastal part of the western
Black Sea. The marine litter was collected with the trawl net, designed in accordance with
the MEDITS trawl net plan. The survey was carried out in autumn 2019 with 14 trawl
hauls in total. The duration time of the hauls was 30 minutes at a constant speed of 3 knots
and depths 10-80 m in the coastal area. Litter items were identified according to the
methodology and protocols of MEDITS (2017). The average abundance of marine litter on
the western Black Sea seafloor was calculated as 111±37.40 items km-2 (between 30 and
390 items km-2) and average weight 86.31±59.17 kg km-2 (between 0.30 and 831 kg km-2).
The ratio of marine litter in the study area was 71.43%. Plastic was the most common
material with average abundance 79.28 ± 26.42 items km-2. The abundance and weight of
seafloor litter increased from western to eastern part of the studied area. The obtained data
could be useful as a baseline for the future studies of seafloor marine litter in the Black
Sea.

Keywords: Marine litter, Black Sea, trawling, pollution, seafloor

Introduction

The result of human activities causes more waste with an increasing population
(Hoornweg et al. 2013). Solid waste could reach the aquatic habitats by different
reasons. When it reach to the sea, marine litter can float over long distances or
sink to the seafloor and accumulate in areas of low hydrodynamics (Engler 2012;
Ioakeimidis et al. 2014; Pham et al. 2014; Romeo et al. 2015). Marine litter is
defined as any permanent, processed, produced solid material that are deliberately
discarded, disposed of or abandoned into river or marine or coastal environment;
indirectly, brought to the marine environments by rivers, drainage systems,
sewage, winds (OSPAR 2007). It is divided into two main categories of litter
sources as land-based and sea-based. Litter from the land such as urban areas,
industry or tourism fields can be transported into the marine habitat, through rain,
rivers, wind, storm water, and sewage pipes, or can be directly disposed at the
beaches and the sea (Ioakeimidis et al. 2014; UNEP 2009). Sea-based sources are
shipping, fishing vessels, ferries, recreational activities and aquaculture farms

111
(Galgani et al. 2013; CIESM 2014; Strafella et al. 2015; Pasquini et al. 2016;
Melli et al. 2017).

Marine litter is a major threat for marine habitats and has negative effects on
economic sectors such as transportation, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture
(Mouat et al. 2010). Recently it has become an important global environmental
issue and one of the priorities at international, regional and local managements
(Derraik 2002; UNEP 2009; Galgani et al. 2010; Elliott 2014; Sardà et al. 2014;
UNEP 2016a; 2016b).

It was estimated that 15% of marine litter is floating on the sea surface, 15% stays
in the water column and 70% is on the sea floor (UNEP 2005). It comprises of
such products as packages, bags, facial cleansers and other household items.
Every year in the world, 8 million tons of plastic debris ends up in the marine
ecosystem (Jambeck et al. 2015; UNEP/MAP 2015; Villarrubia-Gómez et al.
2018). It can be found in all sea areas around the world and poses ecologic,
economic and social impacts (Cheshire et al. 2009; Thompson et al. 2009). It
could cause the fish mortality by ingestion and also reduce the catch amount
indirectly. Hence, studies about the amounts and weight of marine litter are
important also for stock assessments (UNEP and GRID-Arendal 2016).

There are many international and regional sea conventions and other initiatives
regarding marine litter issue such as the Convention for the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (The London Convention
1972); the Barcelona Convention for Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against
Pollution, 1976; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL 73/78); UN Convention of the Laws of the Sea, targeting the
prevention, reduction and control of pollutants in the oceans from land and marine
sources (UNCLOS 1982); the Convention on the Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (The Basel Convention 1989); the
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (the Bucharest
Convention 1992); Helsinki convention on the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 1992; Convention for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the North - East Atlantic (OSPAR 1992); UNEP global
program of action for the protection of marine environment from land based
activities 1995; EU Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship -
generated waste and cargo residues, 2000; UNEP global initiative on marine litter
2009, etc. (Allsopp et al. 2006; Carroll 2014; UNEP 2016a).

The Black Sea is a semi-closed sea, which is characterized by high river

discharge. It is vulnerable to pollution due to the enormous drainage area created
by more than 170 million people from 21 countries, concentration of settlements
in the coastal zone, intensive fishing activities and ship traffic (BSC 2007). In the
report of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution,
marine litter is reported to be the most difficult and urgent pollution problem in

112
the Black Sea (BSC 2007). The human activities like shipping, fishing, tourism,
mining, and military exercises affect the ecological situation of the Black Sea.
Moreover, marine litter generates problems regarding international, regional and
national regulations (BSC 2007). It could be transported on long distances
through the sea, e.g. on the beaches of the Turkish part of western Black Sea items
from other Black Sea countries were found (Topçu et al. 2013). Recently, with
increasing number of marine litter studies in the Black Sea, the data was reported
on beaches (Güneroğlu 2010; Topçu et al. 2013; Terzi and Seyhan 2017;
Simeonova and Chuturkova 2019; Aytan et al. 2020; Terzi et al. 2020; Öztekin
et al. 2020), seafloor (Topçu and Öztürk 2010; Terzi and Seyhan 2013;
Ioakeimidis et al. 2014; Öztekin and Bat 2017) and in water column (Aytan et al.
2016; Öztekin and Bat 2017). Determining the current situation, possible sources
and ways of transportation are of great importance in reducing and taking
necessary measures at local, regional, national and international level to this
cross-border problem that grows day by day (Karacan 2017).

Studies on marine litter in the Black Sea were mainly done on beach litter. Studies
on floating marine litter and sea floor litter have been very limited. There was a
study carried out by divers in Istanbul, where litter items were categorized (BSC
2007). In all other studies, marine litter at certain depths was examined by using
bottom trawls (Topçu and Öztürk 2010; Anton et al. 2013; Terzi and Seyhan
2013; Ioakeimidis et al. 2014).

This study aims to determine the composition, abundance, weight, density and
location of marine litter in the coastal zone of the Turkish part of western Black
Sea to provide valuable information relying on standardized methodology and
protocols of MEDITS 2017.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The Black Sea is one of the largest areas of the Mediterranean General Fisheries
Commission (GFCM) and one of the most complex ecosystems in the region
(GFCM 2012). The Black Sea is connected with the Mediterranean and ocean
system by the Bosphorus (Istanbul Strait), the Marmara Sea and the Dardanelles
(Çanakkale Strait). Its maximum depth is 2212 m (Degens and Ross 1974). The
surface waters of the southwestern Black Sea enter the Bosphorus as a
homogeneous layer of 40-45 m and flow towards the Marmara Sea. At the bottom
of the Bosphorus partially diluted salty waters of the Mediterranean flow from
Marmara to the Black Sea (Özsoy et al. 1988, 1994; Beşiktepe et al. 1994). There
is a large shelf area in the northern and western part of the Black Sea (Erinç 1984).
Currents in the Black Sea are circular in character and counterclockwise (Zaitsev
2008). Due to the two large cyclonic discharge systems, the Black Sea basin is
characterized by dividing it into two parts as east and west (Oğuz et al. 1991;

113
Oğuz and Beşiktepe 1999; Sur et al. 1994). The Black Sea is roughly oval-shaped,
the maximum width of the Black Sea in east-west direction is 1175 km, while the
shortest distance in north-south direction is 260 km from the coast of the Crimea
to Kerempe Cape in Turkey (BSC 2008).

The Black Sea is the largest meromictic basin, characterized by a permanent

halocline (Sorokin 1983). Permanent pycnocline separates water from substrate,
where density is approximately 17 kg/m3, from shallow upper layer waters, where
density is approximately 11 kg/m3. The vertical mixture in the water column is
limited to the top layer, so more dense waters are isolated from the oxygen source
and become stable and anoxic. The pycnocline centered on about 100 m is the
primary physical barrier for the vertical mixture and is the root of the stability of
the anoxic interface (Murray 1989).

Annual fresh water inflow to the Black Sea via rivers is 400 km3. The most
important part of this is the Danube River (200 km3). The maximum water
discharge into the Black Sea coast in Turkey is coming from Sakarya, Kızılımak,
and Yeşilırmak rivers and the amount of water each carry each year is about 6
km3 (Çelikkale et al. 1999). Western Black Sea surface waters are constantly
polluted, especially with the nutrient salts and organic matter carried by the
Danube River (Oğuz and Rozman 1991; Mee 1992; Cociasu et al. 1996, 1997).

Southwestern bottom sediments of the Turkish Black Sea coasts are under the
influence of substances coming from the Sakarya River, the Bosphorus, and
streams. Terrestrial originated substances transported with these waters settle in
the sea according to their grain size. The sedimentation, currents, waves,
topographic features of the land, submarine morphological structure, bathymetry,
coastal shapes and wind play an important role marine litter distribution. The
main dominant unit of the surface sediment in the study area is sand, silt, clay and
mud (Eryılmaz et al. 2002).

In Turkey's western Black Sea coasts agriculture and fishing, coal mining,
shipping and touristic activities during the summer months are carried out. There
are ten large cities in the region (According to the statistics of 2019; Kırklareli
360.860 population, Tekirdağ 1.030.000 pop., İstanbul 15.520.000 pop., Kocaeli
1.906.000 pop., Sakarya 1.029.650 pop., Düzce 387.844 pop., Bartın 198.999
pop., Zonguldak 213.544 pop., Kastamonu 383.373 pop., and Sinop 219.733
pop.).

Data collection and analysis

In autumn 2019 a trawl survey was carried out within the scope of the "Integrated
Pollution Monitoring Program in the Sea" conducted by the Ministry of
Environment and Urbanization and coordinated by TÜBİTAK-MAM ÇTÜE.
Bottom trawl hauls were taken with R/V Yunus S 32 m long. The horizontal

114
opening width of the upper collar of the trawl net was 24 m, and the mesh size of
the cod-end was 14 mm (stretched mesh size). This trawl net, designed in
accordance with the MEDITS trawl net plan, was hauled for 30 minutes at a
constant speed of 3 knots for a total of 14 trawl hauls (Figure 1, in the coastal area
between 10-80 m). The litter items from the trawl cod-end were counted,
weighted and divided into nine categories: plastic, rubber, metal, glass/ceramics,
cloth/textiles, processed/worked wood, paper/cardboard, other debris and
undefined (Galgani et al. 2013). Plastics were divided into six subgroups: plastic
bags, drink bottles, food wraps, hard plastic, ropes and fishing gear pieces. After
that litter items have been categorized according to the methodology and
protocols of MEDITS (2017). The abundance and weight of litter were calculated
according to the investigated area (Sparre and Venema 1992).

Figure 1. Study area and trawl stations

The trawl hauling area was divided into three parts according to the depths: 0-20
m (1), 20-50 m (2) and 50-100 m (3). The significance of differences between the
compositions of marine litter at different depths has been tested in the PRIMER
V6 software program using non-parametric analysis of similarity (ANOSIM)
(Clarke and Gorley 2006). The abundance (items km-2) of each group of marine
litter was used for this analysis. Data were transformed using the log (x + 1)
transform before calculating the Bray-Curtis similarity (Bray and Curtis 1957).
Similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER) test was applied to determine the
percentage of difference between depths.

Results

The average abundance of marine litter on the western Black Sea seafloor was
calculated as 111 ± 37.40 items km-2 (between 30 and 390 items km-2) and average
weight 86.31 ± 59.17 kg km-2 (between 0.30 and 831 kg km-2). The highest total
seafloor litter concentration was found to be 832 kg km-2 at a depth of 32 m and
lowest was as 0.30 kg km-2 at 49 m. There was no litter at four stations. The ratio
of seafloor litter in the study area was 71.43%. The abundance and weight of
seafloor litter calculated according to the stations are given in Figure 2. The

115
abundance and weight of seafloor litter were increasing in the study area from
west to east.

During the survey, high values of coal and wood log items were found in many
stations which is due to the presence of coal deposits in the region and the drift of
tree items into the marine environment through the river. These materials were
not included in the evaluation since they are of nature origin.

450 900
400 800
350 700
kg/km2
300 600
kg/km2

Items/km2

Items/km2
250 500
200 400
150 300
100 200
50 100
0 0
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 K14
Stations

Figure 2. The abundance and weight of seafloor litter in the western Black Sea

Plastic and rubber materials were the most common materials, where plastics
were the dominant group by amount (71.2%) and rubber by weight (73.5%)
(Figure 3). Plastic bags, bottles, wrapping papers, hard plastics, lost fishing nets
and ropes were found in the plastics group. In the Rubber group, car tires were
found at the station K13 (Figure 4), while personal clothing products such as
shoes and boots were also identified. No glass/ceramic, processed wood and
paper/cardboard were found in the study area.

116
 Number Cloths Others 3,8%
(items/km2) 3,8%
Metal
7,7%

Rubber
13,5%

Plastic
71,2%

Weight Cloths Others

Metal 0,2% 1,6%
(kg/km2) Plastic
2,7% 21,9%

Rubber
73,5%
Figure 3. Distribution of seafloor litter by number and weight percentage

The composition of seafloor litter in the sampling stations is given in Figure 4.

Plastic was the most common material in the study area. The average abundance
of plastics was 79.28±26.42 items km-2 (Figure 5), followed by rubber
(15.00±10.78 items km-2), metal (8.57 ±3.76 items km-2), cloths (4.29±4.29 items
km-2) and others (4.29±2.91 items km-2). The presence of plastic bags within the
plastic group was 35.71%, followed by plastic bottles 28.57%, food wraps
21.43%, ropes 14.29%, hard plastics 7.14% and fishing nets 7.14% (Table 1).

117
 400 Others Cloths Metal Rubber Plastic

350

300

250
items/km2

200

150

100

50

0
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 K14

Figure 4. The abundance and composition of seafloor litter in the western Black Sea

90
80
70
60
Items/km2

50
40
30
20
10
0
Plastic Rubber Metal Cloths Others

Figure 5. Average number of seafloor litter in the western Black Sea according to the
material type (mean number of items km-2)

118
 Table 1. The ratio, abundance and weight of seafloor litter in the western Black Sea by
material type

Object Type Occurrence % Items km-2 kg km-2

Plastic 64.29 79.28±26.42 18.94±12.57
Plastic bags 35.71 32.14±16.18 2.87±2.05
Drink bottles 28.57 19.28±9.23 4.24±30.3
Ropes 14.29 12.86±10.76 0.66±0.64
Food wraps 21.43 8.57±4.90 0.12±0.09
Hard plastic 7.14 4.29±4.29 0.33±0.33
Fishing nets 7.14 2.14±2.14 10.71±10.71
Rubber 21.43 15.00±10.78 63.42±57.55
Metal 28.57 8.57±3.76 2.34±1.47
Cloths 7.14 4.29±4.29 0.21±0.21
Others 14.29 4.29±2.91 1.39±1.09

Trawling operations in the study area were made in three depth contours. No
marine litter was found at depths of 0-20 m. The most common marine litter was
plastics at 20-50 m and 50-100 m. Rubber was seen only at depths of 20-50 m
and was the most dominant litter type in this depth by weight (Figures 6 and 7).
There were some other litter items collected with the trawl operations within this
study as illustrated on Figure 8.

others 50-100 m

20-50 m
Cloths
0-20 m
Metal

Rubber

Plastic

0 100 200 300

Number (items km-2)

Figure 6. Average abundance of seafloor litter in the western Black Sea according to
depth contours

119
 50-100 m
others
20-50 m
Cloths
0-20 m

Metal

Rubber

Plastic

0 50 100 150
Weight (kg km-2)

Figure 7. Average weight of seafloor litter in the western Black Sea according to depth
contours

a b c d

e f g h

Figure 8. Some examples of marine litter collected from seafloor. (a) Log pieces; (b)
Plastic bottles; (c) Metal teapot; (d) Nylon bag pieces; (e) Polymer sponge piece; (f) Log
pieces, plastic boot and can; (g) Car tires; (h) Fishing nets for turbot (ghost fishing nets)

According to the one-way ANOSIM results, there are significant differences in

the composition of marine litter between depth contours (global R=0.331;
p<0.001). According to SIMPER analysis, plastic was the most abundant
material. Contribution rate at 20-50 m depth was 85.96% and 60.91% at 50-100
m depth (Table 2). The highest average dissimilarity was found between 0-20 m
and 20-50 m and 0-20 m and 50-100 m depth groups (Table 3).

120
 Table 2. SIMPER results for the similarity of seafloor litter composition in the western
Black Sea
Depth Average Litter Average similarity/ Contribution
group category similarity Std. %
similarity deviation
Plastic 29.07 0.85 85.96
20-50 m 33.82
Rubber 2.54 0.26 7.52
Plastic 42.02 - 60.91
50-100 m 68.98
Others 26.96 - 39.09

Table 3. SIMPER results for the dissimilarity of seafloor litter composition in the
western Black Sea
Comparison Average Litter Average Dissimilarity/ Contribution
dissimilarity category dissimilarity Std. deviation %
Plastic 66.29 1.76 66.29
Metal 19.26 0.57 19.26
20-50&0-20m 100
Rubber 14.46 0.72 14.46
Others 20.29 4.42 31.16
Plastic 17.67 1.1 27.14
20-50&50-100m 65.12 Cloths 11.76 0.93 18.06
Metal 10.35 0.93 15.89
Plastic 43.43 102.99 43.43
Others 27.01 21.37 27.01
0-20&50-100m 100
Cloths 15.51 0.87 15.51
Metal 14.05 0.87 14.05

Discussion

This study was carried out to determine the distribution and quantity of seafloor
litter in the coastal area in the western Black Sea. The average density was 111 ±
37.4 items km-2 and 86.3 ± 59.2 kg km-2. Due to the fact that the Mediterranean
and Black Sea are a semi-closed seas, it is considered as the areas most affected
by marine litter (Galil et al. 1995; 2014; Ioakeimidis et al. 2014; Stanev and
Ricker 2019). In the studies conducted in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black
Sea regions, the density of seafloor litter was found to be high compare to the
North Sea (Table 4). Topçu and Öztürk (2010) reported that the density of sea
floor litter in the western Black Sea was higher than that in the Mediterranean.
The results of this study show lower densities in comparison with previous studies
in the western Black Sea. For efficient management of resources and prevention
of environmental pollution caused by plastic bags the Ministry of Environment
and Urbanization launched an application for charging plastic bags in 2019. It
mighthelp in reducing of the amount of plastig bag enters to the Black Sea.
However, the most abundant material of marine litter was still plastic.

121
Table 4. Comparison of seafloor litter densities in the North Sea, Mediterranean
Sea and Black Sea
Location Items km-2 kg km-2 Depth range References
(m)
North Sea
24.3 - inshore
Celtic Sea
21.6 - offshore
Maes et al. 2018
49.1 - inshore
Greater North Sea
40.5 - offshore
Mediterranean Sea
Adriatic Sea - 85±26 0-100 Strafella et al.. 2015
North and Central 913 82 35-260 Pasquini et al. 2016
Adriatic Sea
North and Central - 103±42 8-100 Strafella et al. 2019
Adriatic Sea
Gulf of Alicante - 0-11.6 50-700 García-Rivera et al.
(Spain) 2017
Balearic Island - 1.39±0.13 38-800 Alomar et al. 2020
72-437 6.7-47.4 15-320 Koutsodendris et al.
Greece
2008
Island of Sardinia 58.6±5.7 17.1±3.4 0-800 Alvito et al. 2018
Saronikos Gulf 1211±594 - 50
Gulf of Patras 641±579 - 50
Ioakeimidis et al. 2014
Echinades Gulf 416±379 - 50
Limassol Gulf 24±28 - 50
Antalya Bay 13.3-651 0.02-559 10-300 Olguner et al. 2018
Black Sea
Romania - 554.53 15-90 Anton et al. 2013
Constanta Bay 291±237 - 50 Ioakeimidis et al. 2014
Southern Black Sea 121-366 - 45-50 Terzi and Seyhan
(Samsun) 2013
541 - 49-77 Topçu and Öztürk
Western Black Sea
2010
Western Black Sea 808±215 - 20-39 Öztekin and Bat 2017
Western Black Sea 111 ± 37.4 86.3±59.2 10-80 This study

The distribution, type and amount of marine litter reaching the seafloor varies
depending on different factors such as hydrography, geomorphology, vicinity to
urban areas, coastal activities, shipping, fishing and aquaculture (Bauer et al.
2008; Schlining et al. 2013; Pham et al. 2014; Bergmann et al. 2015; Consoli et
al. 2018). The light items such as plastics could float large distances before
sinking, while heavy items sink to the seafloor (Carlson et al. 2017). UNEP
(2015) reported that marine litter from land-based sources, makes up about 80%
of the total loads found in the world's oceans. Therefore, more anthropogenic litter
inlet is expected in shallow sea areas near densely populated cities (Galimany et
al. 2019). In this study, the density of seafloor litter was found to be quite low in
Istanbul coastal area with the highest population compared to other regions. The

122
currents circulation model could explain it where a cyclonic cycle takes water
bodies from north to south in the eastern Black Sea and the Istanbul Strait flow
system.

The marine litter collected from the seafloor during this research, was consisted
mostly of plastic materials (71.2% plastic, 13.5% rubber, 7.7% metal, 3.8% cloths
and 3.8% others), which are more likely to float and are easier for transportation.
Similarly, in many studies conducted in different parts of the world, plastic was
reported as the most common material on the seafloor (Table 5). The domination
of plastic could be explained by its cheapness and widely application. Floating
leads to its fast distribution and accumulation on both coastal shelf and deep sea
areas.

Inadequate management of plastic waste has caused to increased contamination

of freshwater and marine environments. It is estimated that between 4.8 million
and 12.7 million tons of plastic waste entered to the oceans in 2010 (Lusher et al.
2017). The main problem is the accumulation of plastic garbage in the marine
environment, since most of these materials do not decompose or do it very slowly.
Plastics tend to degrade over time into small particles called microplastics. Litter
at sea could be transported to large distances with ocean currents and is persistent
in all marine environments (Werner et al. 2016). Ingestion of microplastics and
associated toxic contaminants by aquatic organisms leads to the formation of a
microplastic hazard in the marine environment (Lusher et al. 2017). Microplastic
has been observed in the digestive systems of many fish and invertebrate species
(Karakulak et al. 2009; Lusher 2015; Fossi et al. 2018). This situation poses a
danger to food safety and human health.

Fisheries industry and artisanal/small scale fishing is of major importance for the
economy of Turkey. The artisanal fleet in the western Black Sea is using a variety
of gear types and targeting a large range of species. In the western Black Sea, a
great amount of fishing nets were found lost (Yıldız and Karakulak 2016). Ghost
fishing is an invisible and undesirable fishing caused by lost, discarded or
abandoned fishing gears largely confined to passive gears such as gillnet (Breen
1990). Many of the abandoned fishing nets belong to Turkish, Bulgarian and
Romanian fishermen which is shown in another study investigating sea bottom
litter on the Romanian shelf (Anton et al. 2013). In this study, a bottom turbot
gillnet was found as lost or abandoned during the bottom trawl operation.
Inherently, it is well known that turbot is a highly prized species and can be
illegally targeted using bottom (turbot) gillnets (Radu et al. 2011), and some
illegal fishermen leave abandoned their turbot nets (Yildiz 2010). The fishing gear
losses have many impacts continuing capture of wildlife, interaction with
endangered species, and physical impact on the seafloor, introduction of synthetic
material into the marine food web (Macfadyen et al. 2009). For the protection of
marine organisms, restriction measures should be implemented to solve the
derelict fishing gear problems.

123
 Table 5. The percentage of plastic in seafloor litter collected by trawl operations in
different regions.
Area Plastic Depth range References
(%) (m)
North Sea
Celtic Sea 77 inshore Maes et al. 2018
94 offshore
Greater North Sea 65 inshore
79 offshore
Baltic Sea 35 6-128 Zablotski and Kraak 2019
Mediterranean Sea
Gulf of Alicante (Spain) 68.1 50-700 García-Rivera et al. 2017
Balearic Island (Spain) 66 38-800 Alomar et al. 2020
Mediterranean (France) 71 10-800 Gerigny et al. 2019
Mediterranean (France) 68 <200 Galgani et al. 1996
Island of Sardinia (Italy) 59.4 0-800 Alvito et al. 2018
North and Central Adriatic Sea 80 0-100 Pasquini et al. 2016
North and Central Adriatic Sea 43 0-100 Strafella et al. 2019
Adriatic Sea, Slovenia 89 20-25 Vlachogianni et al. 2017
Saronikos Gulf (Greece) 95 50 Ioakeimidis et al. 2014
Gulf of Patras (Greece) 59.9 50
Echinades Gulf (Greece) 67.4 50
Limassol Gulf (Cyprus) 67.4 50
North Lakonikos Gulf (Greece) 80 15-320 Koutsodendris et al. 2008
Antalya Bay (Turkey) 72.1 10-300 Olguner et al. 2018
Mersin Bay (Turkey) 73 19-178 Eryaşar et al. 2014
Black Sea
Constanta Bay (Romania) 45.2 50 Ioakeimidis et al. 2014
Southern Black Sea (Turkey) 95.35 20-39 Öztekin and Bat 2017
Western Black Sea (Turkey) 73.6 21-58 Topçu and Öztürk 2010
Western Black Sea (Turkey) 71.2 10-80 This study

The problem of marine litter was admitted by the UN General Assembly in 2005,
and the General Assembly called for national, regional and global actions to
address the problem of marine litter. This proposal of the General Assembly
expresses a lack of information and data on marine deposits, encouraging states
to cooperate with industry and civil society, urge States to incorporate marine
deposits into their national environmental strategies, and to develop and
implement common prevention and recovery programs on marine deposits and to
join efforts in a regional and sub- regional context. In response to this call, UNEP
(PEP and Regional Seas Program) has taken leadership through the Global
Marine Litter Initiative to address this issue, among other issues, and in this
context, offered help for 11 Regional Seas worldwide (Baltic Sea, Black Sea,
Caspian Sea, East Asian Seas, East Africa, Mediterranean, Northwest Pacific,

124
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, South Asian Seas, South East Pacific and Wider
Caribbean).

As a developing region, the population on the coastline of the Black Sea Basin is
dense and there are many activities in the region, such as high-energy
consumption, transportation, tourism and fishing. The main issue of the marine
litter problem is solid waste materials, which originate from land and sea-based
sources. This problem causes negative effects on population, wildlife, abiotic
nature and some economic sectors such as tourism, fishing and sea traffic. The
main ways for land-based marine litter are rivers and discharge waters. Another
problem is sunken litter in the sea basin apart from on the coastline or litter
floating on the sea surface. Since the Black Sea is an enclosed sea with a very
dynamic currents system, the marine litter problem in this region emerges as a
transboundary problem (MARINTURK 2018).

The present study reports the data on marine litter collected from the seafloor in
the western Black Sea and provides the information to overview the plastics
management system as plastics confirmed to be the most common material of
marine litter in the region where trawl surveys were performed. It is well known
that plastic materials are dangerous for marine life and human health as well
because of being toxic chemicals. The data also could be useful for the future
comparisons regarding the marine litter to fill in the existing gaps in knowledge.
Furthermore, a corresponding legislation to reduce the plastic production and
consumption in the Black Sea is strongly recommended.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by “Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring 2017-2019
Programme” carried out by Ministry of Environment and Urbanization/General
Directorate of EIA, Permit and Inspection/ Department of Laboratory, Measurement and
coordinated by TUBITAK- MRC ECPI. We would like to acknowledge Istanbul
University Faculty of Aquatic Sciences Research Vessel R/V Yunus S crew for their
efforts.

References

Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D., Johnston, P. (2006) Plastic Debris in the
World’s Oceans. Greenpeace, Amsterdam. Available at:
https://www.greenpeace.org/ archive-international/en/publications/reports/plasti
c_ocean_report/

Alomar, C., Compa, M., Deudero, S., Guijarro, B. (2020) Spatial and temporal
distribution of marine litter on the seafloor of the Balearic Islands (western
Mediterranean Sea). Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers
103178. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.dsr.2019.103178.

125
Alvito, A., Bellodi, A., Cau, A., Moccia, D., Mulas, A., Palmas, F., Pesci, P.,
Follesa, C.M. (2018) Amount and distribution of benthic marine litter along
Sardinian fishing grounds (CW Mediterranean Sea). Waste Management 75: 131-
140.

Anton, E., Radu, G., Țiganov, G., Cristea, M. and Nenciu, M. (2013) The situation
of marine litter collected during demersal surveys in 2012 in the Romanian Black
Sea Area. Cercetări Marine 43: 350-357.

Aytan, Ü., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach (SE
Black Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms.
Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Mar Environ Res 119: 22-30.

Bauer, L.J., Kendall, M.S., Jeffrey, C.F.G. (2008) Incidence of marine debris and
its relationships with benthic features in Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary,
Southeast USA. Mar Pollut Bull 56: 402-413.

Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (2015) Marine Anthropogenic Litter.

Springer, Berlin, pp. 447.

Beşiktepe, Ş., Sur, H.I., Özsoy, E., Latif, M.A., Oğuz, T., Ünlüata, Ü. (1994) The
circulation and hydrography of the Marmara Sea. Progress in Oceanography 34
(4): 285-334.

Bray, R. J., Curtis J.T. (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of
southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27: 325-349.

Breen, P.A. (1990) A review of ghost fishing by traps and gillnets. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Marine Debris, 2–7 April
1989, Hawaii. NOAA Technical Memo. pp. 561-599.

BSC (2007) Marine litter in the Black Sea Region: A review of the problem. Black
Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 1–60. Available at:
http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-ML.asp.

BSC (2008) State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2001-2006/7). Black Sea
Commission Publications, 2008-3, Istanbul, Turkey, 419 p.

Carlson, D.F., Suaria, G., Aliani, S., Fredj, E., Fortibuoni, T., Griffa, A., Russo,
A., Melli, V. (2017) Combining litter observations with a regional ocean model

126
to identify sources and sinks of floating debris in a semi-enclosed basin: the
Adriatic Sea. Front Mar Sci 4 (Article 78).

Carroll, C. (2014) Existing legislation and related initiatives. In: Plastic Debris in
the Ocean: The Characterization of Marine Plastics and their Environmental
Impacts (eds., Thevenon, F., Carroll, C., Sousa, J.) IUCN Gland.

Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S.,
Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan,
L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B.,
Westphalen, G. (2009) UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of
Marine Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical
Series No. 83 (xii + 120).

CIESM (2014) Marine litter in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. In: CIESM
Workshop Monograph no 46. (ed., Briand, F.), CIESM Publisher, Monaco, pp.
180.

Clarke, K.R., Gorle R.N. (2006) Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E,
Plymouth.

Cociasu, A., Diaconu, V., Popa, L., Buga, L., Nae, I., Dorogan, L., Malciu, V.
(1997) The nutrient stock of the Romanian shelf of the Black Sea during the last
three decades, In: Sensitivity to Change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North Sea
eds., Özsoy, E., Mikaelyan, A.) NATO ASI Series, 2. Environment-Vol 27,
Springer, pp. 49-63.

Cociasu, A., Dorogan, L., Humborg, C., Popa, L. (1996) Long-term ecological
changes in the Romanian coastal waters of the Black Sea. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 32(1): 32-38.

Consoli, P., Andaloro, F., Altobelli, C., Battaglia, P., Campagnuolo, S., Canese,
S., Castriota, L., Cillari, T., Falautano, M., Pedà, C., Perzia, P., Sinopoli, M.,
Vivona, P., Scotti, G., Esposito, V., Galgani, F., Romeo, T. (2018) Marine litter
in an EBSA (Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area) of the central
Mediterranean Sea: abundance, composition, impact on benthic species and basis
for monitoring entanglement. Environ Pollut 236: 405-415.

Çelikkale, M.S., Düzgüneş, E., Okumuş, İ. (1999) Turkey Aquaculture Sector

Potential, Current Status, Problems and Solutions. Istanbul Chamber of
Commerce, Publishment No: 1999-2. (in Turkish).

127
Degens, E.T., Ross, D.A. (1974) The Black Sea-Geology, Chemistry and
Biology. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Tulsa, Oklahoma, 633
p.

Derraik, J.G.B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris:
A review. Mar Pollut Bull 44: 842-852.

Elliott, M. (2014) Integrated marine science and management: wading through

the morass. Mar Pollut Bull 86: 1-4.

Engler, R.E. (2012) The complex interaction between marine debris and toxic
chemicals in the ocean. Environ Sci Technol 46: 12302-12315.

Erinç, S. (1984) Morphometry of the geomorphological and structural features of

the Black Sea. Istanbul University Institute of Marine Sciences and Geography
Bulletin 1: 15-22. (in Turkish).

Eryaşar, A.R., Özbilgin, H., Gücü, A.C., Sakınan, S. (2014) Marine debris in
bottom trawl catches and their effects on the selectivity grids in the north eastern
Mediterranean. Mar Pollut Bull 81(1): 80-84.

Eryılmaz, M., Türker, A., Aydın, Ş. (2002) South-west Black Sea (İğneada-
İstanbul Strait-Kefken) Current sedimentary distribution map, 55, Turkey
Geological Congress, 11–15 March 2002, Ankara (in Turkish).

Fossi, M.C., Coppola, D., Baini, M., Giannetti, M., Guerranti, C., Marsili, L.,
Panti, C., de Sabata, E., Clò, S. (2014) Large filter feeding marine organisms as
indicators of microplastic in the pelagic environment: The case studies of the
Mediterranean basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and fin whale (Balaenoptera
physalus). Mar Environ Res 100: 17-24.

Galgani, F., Fleet, D., Van Franeker, J., Katsavenakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J.,
Oosterbaan, L., Poitou, I., Hanke, G., Thompson, R., Amato, E., Birkun, A.,
Janssen, C. (2010) In: Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 10
Report Marine Litter (ed., Zampoukas, N.) JRC Scientific and technical report,
ICES/JRC/ IFREMER Joint Report (no 31210 - 2009/2010), pp. 1-57.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., De Vrees, L. (2013) Marine litter within the
European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES J Mar Sci 70: 1055-1064.

Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y. (1996) Accumulation of debris on the deep
sea floor off the French Mediterranean coast. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 142(1–3): 225-
234.

128
Galil, B.S., Golik, A., Tuerkay, M. (1995) Litter at the bottom of the sea. A sea-
bed survey in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30 (1):
22-24.

Galil, B.S., Marchini, A., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., Minchin, D., Narščius, A.,
Ojaveer, H., Olenin, S. (2014) International arrivals: Widespread bioinvasions in
European seas. Ethol Ecol Evol 26(2–3): 152–171.

Galimany, E., Marco-Herrero, E., Soto, S., Recasens, L., Lombarte, A., Lleonart,
J., Abello, P., Ramon, M. (2019) Benthic marine litter in shallow fishing grounds
in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Waste Management 95: 620-627.

García-Rivera, S., Lizaso, J.L.S., Millán, J.M.B. (2017) Composition, spatial

distribution and sources of macro-marine litter on the Gulf of Alicante seafloor
(Spanish Mediterranean). Mar Pollut Bull 121: 249-259.

Gerigny, O., Brun, M., Fabri, M. C., Tomasino, C., Le Moigne, M., Jadaud, A.,
Galgani, F. (2019) Seafloor litter from the continental shelf and canyons in French
Mediterranean Water: distribution, typologies and trends. Mar Pollut Bull 146:
653-666.

GFCM (2012) Background document on the Black Sea fisheries for the First
meeting of the GFCM Working Group on the Black Sea, Constanta, 16-18
January, 2012. Meeting Report, Trabzon, Turkey.

Güneroğlu, A. (2010) Marine litter transportation and composition in the coastal

southern Black Sea region. Scient Res Essays 5: 296-303.

Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., Kennedy, C. (2013) Environment: waste

production must peak this century. Nature 502: 615-617.

Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N.,
Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G. (2014) A comparative study
of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Black Seas. Mar Pollut Bull 89: 296e304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbu
l.2014.09.044.

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.

Karacan, F. (2017) Assessment of Marine Litter on Saraykoy Beach of Rize.

Master Thesis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, Department of Fisheries, Turkey.

129
Karakulak, F.S., Salman, A., Oray, I.K. (2009) Diet composition of bluefin tuna
(Thunnus thynnus L. 1758) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Turkey. J Appl
Ichthyol 25(6): 757-761.

Koutsodendris, A., Papatheodorou, G., Kougiourouki, O., Georgiadis, M. (2008)

Benthic marine litter in four Gulfs in Greece, Eastern Mediterranean; abundance,
composition and source identification. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77: 501-512.

Lusher, A. (2015) Microplastics in the marine environment: Distribution,

interactions and effects. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M.,
Gutow, L., Klages, M.) Cham, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing. pp.
245-307.

Lusher, A.L., Hollman, P.C.H., Mendoza-Hill, J.J. (2017) Microplastics in

fisheries and aquaculture: status of knowledge on their occurrence and
implications for aquatic organisms and food safety. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 615. Rome, Italy.

Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R. (2009) Abandoned, lost or otherwise

discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. Rome, UNEP/FAO. 115 p.

Maes, T., Barry, J., Leslie, H.A., Vethaak, A.D., Nicolaus, E.E.M., Law, R.J.,
Lyons, B.P., Martinez, R., Harley, B., Thain, J.E. (2018) Below the surface:
twenty-five years of seafloor litter monitoring in coastal seas of North West
Europe (1992–2017). Sci Total Environ 630: 790-798.

MARINTURK. (2018) Capacity Development in the Context of the Marine

Strategy Framework Directive in Turkey. EuropeAid/135965, Niras, Ankara,
340p, (in Turkish).

MEDITS Working Group. (2017) MEDITS Handbook, Instruction Manual

Version 9. 106p.

Mee, L.D. (1992) The Black Sea in crisis: The need for concerted international
action. Ambio 21: 278-286.

Melli, V., Angiolillo, M., Ronchi, F., Canese, S., Giovanardi, O., Querin, S.,
Fortibuoni, T. (2017) The first assessment of marine debris in a site of community
importance in the north-western Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean Sea). Pollution
Bulletin 114: 821-830.

Mouat, J., Lozano, R. L., Bateson, H. (2010) Economic Impacts of marine litter.
KIMO International, pp. 105. Available at: http://www.seas-at-

130
risk.org/1mages/Economic%20impacts%20of%20marine%20litter%20KIMO.p
df

Murray, J.W., Jannash, H.W., Honjo, S., Anderson, R.F., Reeburgh, W.S., Top,
Z., Friederich, G.E., Codispoti, L.A., İzdar, E. (1989) Unexpected changes in the
oxic/anoxic interface in the Black Sea. Nature 338: 411-413.

Oğuz, T., Besiktepe, S. (1999) Observations on the Rim Current structure, CIW
formation and transport in the western Black Sea. Deep Sea Research Part I:
Oceanographic research papers 46(10): 1733-1753.

Oğuz, T., Latif, M.A., Sür, H.I., Ozsoy, E., Ünlüata, Ü. (1991) On the Dynamics
of the Southern Black Sea, In: The Black Sea Oceanography. E. Izdar and J.M.
Murray (Eds.), NATO/ASI Series, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers 43-
63.

Oğuz, T., Rozman, L. (1991) Characteristics of the Mediterranean underflow in

the southwestern Black-Sea continental-shelf slope region. Oceanologica Acta
14(5): 433-444.

Olguner, M.T., Olguner, C., Mutlu, E., Deval, M.C. (2018) Distribution and
composition of benthic marine litter on the shelf of Antalya in the eastern
Mediterranean. Mar Pollut Bull 136: 171-176.
OSPAR (2007) OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter:
Monitoring of Marine Litter on Beaches in the OSPAR Region. Report. OSPAR
Commission, London, UK.

Özsoy, E., Latif, M.A., Beşiktepe, Ş., Oğuz, T., Güngör, H., Ünlüata, Ü., Gaines,
A.F., Tuğrul, S., Baştürk, Ö., Yilmaz, A., Yemenicioğlu, S., Saydam, C.,
Salihoğlu, İ. (1994) Monitoring via Direct Measurements of the Modes of Mixing
and Transport of Wastewater Discharges into the Bosphorus Underflow
(Hydrography, Sea-Level, Current and Flux Measurements in the Bosphorus
Strait, and Acoustical Chemical and Rhodamine-B Dye Tracer Studies of the
Ahirkapı Waste Discharge). METU Institute of Marine Sciences, Erdemli, İçel,
Turkey.

Özsoy, E., Oguz, T., Latif, M.A., Ünlüata Ü., Sur, H.İ., Beşiktepe, Ş. (1988)
Oceanography of the Turkish Straits-Second Annual Report Volume I: Physical
oceanography of the Turkish Straits. Middle East Technical University Institute
of Marine Sciences, Erdemli, İçel.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Seafloor Litter in the Sinop İnceburun Coast in the
Southern Black Sea. Int. J. Environ. Geoinform 4: 173-181.

131
Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Gokkurt-Baki, O. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 20(3):197-205.

Pasquini, G., Ronchi, F., Strafella, P., Scarcella, G., Fortibuoni, T. (2016) Seabed
litter composition, distribution and sources in the Northern and Central Adriatic
Sea (Mediterranean). Waste Manage 58: 41-51.

Pham, C.K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C.H.S.S., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M.,
Canals, M., Company, J.B., Davies, J., Duineveld, G., Galgani, F., Howell, K.L.,
Huvenne, V.A.I.I., Isidro, E., Jones, D.O.B.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: e95839.

Radu, G., Anton, E., Golumbeanu, M., Raykov, V., Yankova, M., Panayotova,
M., Shlyahov, V., Zengin, M. (2011) State of the main Black Sea commercial fish
species correlated with the ecological conditions and fishing effort. Journal of
Environmental Protection and Ecology 12(2): 549-557.

Romeo, T., Pietro, B., Peda, C., Consoli, P., Andaloro, F., Fossi, M.C. (2015)
First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the
Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 95(1): 358-361.

Sardà, R., O’Higgins, T., Cormier, R., Diedrich, A., Tintore, J. (2014) A proposed
ecosystem-based management system for marine waters: linking the theory of
environmental policy to the practice of environmental management. Ecol Soc 19
(4): 51.

Schlining, K., VonThun, S., Kuhnz, L., Schlining, B., Lundsten, L., Jacobsen
Stout, N., Chaney, L., Connor, J. (2013) Debris in the deep: using a 22-year video
annotation database to survey marine litter in Monterey Canyon, Central
California, USA. Deep Sea Res Part I 79: 96-105.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2019) Marine litter accumulation along the

Bulgarian Black Sea coast: categories and predominance. Waste Manage 84: 182-
193.

Sorokin, Yu. I. (1983) The Black Sea. In: Ecosystems of the World Estuaries and
Enclosed Seas (ed., Ketchum, B.H.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 253-291.

Sparre, P., Venema, S.C. (1992) Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment,
Part 1-manual, FAO Fisheries technical paper 306-1 rev. 1. 376 pp.

132
Stanev, E.V., Ricker, M. (2019) The fate of marine litter in semi-enclosed seas:
A case study of the Black Sea. Front Mar Sci 6: 660.

Strafella, P., Fabi, G., Spagnolo, A., Grati, F., Polidori, P., Punzo, E., Fortibuoni,
T., Marceta, B., Raicevich, S., Cvitkovic, I., Despalatovic, M., Scarcella, G.
(2015) Spatial pattern and weight of seabed marine litter in the northern and
central Adriatic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 91: 120-127.

Strafella, P., Fabi, G., Despalatovic, M., Cvikovic, I., Fortibuoni, T., Gomiero,
A., Guicciardi, S., Marceta, B., Raicevich, S., Tassetti, A.N., Spagnolo, A.,
Scarcella, G. (2019) Assessment of seabed litter in the Northern and Central
Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean) over six years. Marine Pollution Bulletin 141: 24-
35.

Sur, H.I., Özsoy, E., Ünlüata, U. (1994) Boundary current instabilities, upwelling,
shelf mixing and eutrophication processes in the Black Sea. Progress in
oceanography 33(4): 249-302.
Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste Management
105: 139-147.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2013) Preliminary investigation of benthic marine litter on

the eastern Black Sea coast of Turkey, a case study of trawl fishery. In: The First
International Fisheries Symposium in Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus, Girne,
p. 38.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Mar Pollut Bull 120(1-2): 154-158.

Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H. (2009) Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos Trans
Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 364: 2153–2166.

Topçu, E.N., Öztürk, B. (2010) Abundance and composition of solid waste

materials on the western part of the Turkish Black Sea seabed. Aquat Ecosyst
Health Manage 13: 301-306.

Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B. (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
Coast. Mar Environ Res 85: 21-28.

UNEP (2005) Marine Litter: An Analytical Overview. Intergovernmental

Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation.

133
UNEP (2009) Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Technical Report. United
Nations Environment Program. pp.232.

UNEP/MAP (2015) Marine litter assessment in the Mediterranean 2015. In:

United Nationals Environmental Program/Mediterranean Action Plan, (Ed.),
Athens.

UNEP, and GRID-Arendal. (2016) Marine Litter Vital Graphics. United Nations
Environment Programme; GRID-Arendal. Nairobi; Arendal. www.unep.org,
www.grida.no.

UNEP (2016a) Cities and Coastal Areas. Available at:

http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/issues/coastal_zones.asp.

UNEP (2016b) Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics - Global Lessons and
Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi, Available at: https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/
unep/document/marine-plastic-debris-and-microplastics-global-lessons-and-
research-inspire-action-and-guid.

Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Cornell, S.E., Fabres, J. (2018) Marine plastic pollution

as a planetary boundary threat the drifting piece in the sustainability puzzle. Mar
Policy 96: 213-220.

Vlachogianni, T., Anastasopoulou, A., Fortibuoni, T., Ronchi, F., Zeri, C. (2017)
Marine litter assessment in the Adriatic & Ionian seas. In: The IPA-Adriatic
DeFishGear Project.

Werner, S., Budziak, A., Van Franeker, J., Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T.,
Matiddi, M., Nilsson, P., Oosterbaan, L., Priestland, E., Thompson, R., Mira
Veiga, J., Vlachogianni, T. (2016) Harm caused by Marine Litter. EUR -
Scientific and Technical Research Reports, Publications Office of the European
Union doi: 10.2788/690366.

Yildiz, T. (2010) Determination of Amount of Lost Fishing Gear which Cause to

Ghost Fishing in Istanbul Artisanal Fisheries. MsC Thesis. Istanbul University.
Turkey. (in Turkish).

Yıldız T., Karakulak F.S. (2016) Types and extent of fishing gear losses and their
causes in the artisanal fisheries of Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Applied
Ichthyology 32(3): 432-438.

Yılmaz, A.B., Başusta, N., İşmen, A. (2002) A study on plastic materials

accumulation in the the south-eastern Iskenderun Bay. Ege J Fish Aquat Sci 19
(3).

134
Zablotski, Y., Kraak, S.B.M. (2019) Marine litter on the Baltic seafloor collected
by the international fish-trawl survey. Marine Pollution Bulletin 141: 448-461.

Zaitsev, Y. (2008) An Introduction to the Black Sea Ecology. Smil Editing and
Publishing Agency Ltd, Odessa, 228 p.

135
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Distribution and composition of seafloor marine litter in

the southeastern Black Sea

Nazlı Kasapoğlu1*, Murat Dağtekin1, Salih İlhan1, Gökhan Erik1,

Uğur Özsandikçi2, Ferhat Büyükdeveci3
1 CentralFisheries Research Institute, Yomra, Trabzon, TURKEY
2 Sinop University, Faculty of Fisheries, Dibekli, Sinop, TURKEY
3 Sarıçam Directorate of Provincial Agriculture and Forestry, Sarıçam, Adana, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate seafloor marine litter abundance between Samsun
(Yakakent) and Hopa within the scope of Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring Project
(ÇŞB/ÇEDİDGM-TÜBİTAK/MAM) in summer 2019. Totally, the trawl hauling
operations were successfully performed in 30 stations. The works were done according to
the MEDITS protocol: sampling was done at 3 different depths (0-20 m, 20-50 m and 50-
100 m), marine litter was classified in 9 categories. At all sampling stations marine litter
was assessed by weight and amount. The most common marine litter group was L2
tire/rubber by weight (53%) and amount (67%) when L1 plastic group - 25% by weight
and L5 fabric and natural fibres - 12% by amount. Especially in the L2 group, the car and
truck tires were dominated in weight of CB5 (Trabzon- Sürmene) and CB3 (Trabzon)
stations.

Keywords: Marine litter, plastic, pollution, southeastern Black Sea

Introduction

The sea is very important for the human life in terms of natural resources such as
food, energy and tourism. Overfishing, pollution, eutrophication, ocean
acidification and global warming accompanied by sea-level rise as a result of
rapid glacier melting and thermal expansion of sea water are apparent effects of
man-made pressures (IPCC 2014). Public awareness and research is required to
manage these problems caused mostly by human effects. In recent years, the
pollution of the sea/oceans by anthropogenic litter has been validated as a serious
global environmental apprehension. Marine litter is described as any lasting,
machined, manufactured solid wastes that are lost, dropped, discharged via
drainage systems, erosion, storm water or rivers from the land such as urban areas,
industry or tourism fields to the coastal and marine environment by humans
(OSPAR 2007; UNEP 2009). It is a major threat for marine environment and has
negative effects for all economic sectors such as shipping, tourism, fisheries and
aquaculture (Mouat et al. 2010). 8 million tons of plastic are dumped in to the
ocean every year (UNEP/MAP 2015). There are many international and regional
conventions and directives related to the Marine Litter such as the London

136
Convention (1972); the Barcelona Convention (1976); the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78); UN
Convention of the Laws of the Sea, targeting the prevention, reduction and control
of pollutants in the oceans from land and marine sources (UNCLOS 1982); the
Basel Convention (1989); the Bucharest Convention (1992); the Helsinki
Convention (1992); the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the North - East Atlantic (OSPAR 1992); UNEP global program of action for
the protection of marine environment from land based activities (1995); EU
Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ships - generated waste and
cargo residues, 2000; UNEP global initiative on marine litter (2009) (Allsopp et
al. 2006; Carroll 2014; UNEP 2016a) and European Commission Marine Strategy
Framework Directive for Good Environmental Status Technical Subgroup on
Marine Litter (MSFD 2008).

The Black Sea ecosystem has experienced serious changes since the 1960s which
has occurred as large-scale marine ecosystems disruptions and were mentioned in
the scientific literature. The main factors aforementioned disruptions are
increasing eutrophication due to river inputs and significant amount of
phytoplankton biomass increase, development of opportunistic dominant species
changes in the fish stocks, overgrowth of gelatinous species, changes in
biochemical cycles, climatic changes occurred in the overcooling in the 1980s
and overheating in the 1990s (Oguz et al. 2008). In addition, constantly increasing
overfishing also caused fluctuations in amount of catch and fish biodiversity. Due
to insufficient research, the level and negative consequences of these changes
could not be predicted, and then it could occur as a sudden decrease like in
anchovy stocks in 1989, which causes ecological and socio-economic losses.

The aim of the present study was to conduct a quantitative assessment of seafloor
marine litter in the South-Eastern Black Sea coastal areas applying the
methodology recommended by International bottom trawl surveys in the
Mediterranean (MEDITS) Protocol (2017) in line with the Marine Strategy
Directive Framework (Directive 2008/56/EC).

Materials and Methods

Bottom trawl surveys were realized with R/V Sürat Araştırma-1 (Table 1) of the
Central Fisheries Research Institute on the South-eastern coast of the Black Sea
on 20th of August and 14th of September 2019. The surveys were conducted at 30
stations in three different depth contours (0-20 m, 20-50 m and 50-100 m)
considering 30 minutes bottom trawl hauling on each station (Figure 1) in
accordance with MEDITS protocol adapted to the Black Sea conditions in the
littoral region between Sinop and Artvin (Table 2).

137
 Table 1. Properties of R/V Sürat Araştırma-1
Renovation year 2011
Length 28.5 m
Width 9.6 m
Draft 2.2 m
Number of staff 18
Engine power 720 HP+360 HP
Generator power 55 kW +30 kW
Fishing nets Mid-water and bottom trawl
Cranes 3 cranes (Hydraulic, electrical and A frame)
Fuel capacity 18 tons
Water capacity 20 tons
Research Tools Scientific eco-sounder, radar, Fishing net sensor, CTD, rosette
sampler

Figure 1. The technical features of the bottom trawl net

138
 Table 2. Sampling stations
Coordinates Haul
Stations Haul time speed Depth
Locations
No Starting Ending (Minute) (Nautical (m)
Mile)
Trabzon-
CB1 Havaalanı 41°0'25"N 39°47'39"N 40°59'66"N 39°45'90"E 30 2.8 15
Trabzon-
CB2 Havaalanı 40°59'87"N 39°48'58"N 40°0'44"N 39°47'18"E 30 2.8 28
Trabzon-
CB3 Havaalanı 41°0'64"N 39°47'23"N 41°0'90"N 39°48'62"E 30 2.8 55
CB4 Sürmene 40°55'61"N 40°7'75"N 40°58'73"N 40°9'10"E 30 2.8 68.5
CB5 Sürmene 40°55'68"N 40°10'79"N 40°55'97"N 40°12'10"E 30 2.8 43
CB6 Çayeli 41°9'77"N 40°47'20"N 41°8'86"N 40°46'7"E 27 2.8 35
CB7 Çayeli 41°08'02"N 40°44'77"N 41°9'18"N 40°46'13"E 30 2.8 52
CB8 Fındıklı 41°15'81"N 41°6'64"N 41°14'86"N 41°5'33"E 30 2.8 30
CB9 Fındıklı 41°14'64"N 41°4'66"N 41°15'50"N 41°6'2"E 27 2.9 50
CB10 Hopa 41°22'97"N 41°20'67"N 41°25'54"N 41°22'63"E 30 2.9 27
SB1 Yakakent 41°39'6"N 35°34'19"N 41°38'75"N 35°35'70"E 25 2.9 30
SC1 Yakakent 41°42'24"N 35°28'72"N 41°42'35"N 35°30'52"E 30 2.9 59
SA1 Yakakent 41°41'18"N 35°26'9"N 41°40'83"N 35°26'74"E 25 2.9 18
SA6 Azot 41°15'76"N 36°27'7"N 41°16'13"N 36°29'16"E 30 2.9 23
SB6 Azot 41°18'7"N 36°28'84"N 41°18'46"N 36°30'63"E 30 2.9 32
Kızılırmak
SC4 East 41°28'662"N 36°16'68"N 41°27'45"N 36°16'96"E 30 3 56
Kızılırmak
SB4 East 41°27'67"N 36°14'78"N 41°26'14"N 36°15'85"E 30 2.9 36
Kızılırmak
SA4 East 41°26'26"N 36°13'56"N 41°24'63"N 36°14'31"E 30 2.9 16
SC6 Azot 41°20'74"N 36°30'14"N 41°20'7"N 36°31'42"E 28 2.9 52
SA10 Ünye 41°10'7"N 37°8'66"N 41°9'37"N 37°10'19"E 30 2.9 16

139
 Table 2. Continued
CB11 Melet 41°0'65"N 37°57'46"N 41°0'44"N 37°57'33"E 31 2.9 62
CB12 Melet 40°59'72"N 37°59'21"N 41°0'21"N 37°56'51"E 30 2.9 29
CB13 Melet 40°59'78"N 37°57'24"N 40°59'40"N 37°58'82"E 30 2.9 15
Yeşilırmak
SC8 East 41°24'39"N 36°49'98"N 41°23'80"N 36°51'33"E 20 2.9 55
Yeşilırmak
SB8 East 41°23'46"N 36°49'65"N 41°22'85"N 36°51'97"E 26 2.9 29
Yeşilırmak
SA8 East 41°22'27"N 36°49'98"N 41°21'70"N 36°52'17"E 30 2.9 16
SB10 Ünye 41°10'46"N 37°12'28"N 41°10'58"N 37°10'5"E 30 2.9 33
SC10 Ünye 41°13'4"N 37°9'39"N 41°11'74"N 37°11'28"E 30 2.9 52
CB14 Çarşıbaşı 41°4'45"N 39°19'38"N 41°3'91"N 37°17'53"E 30 2.9 50
CB15 Çarşıbaşı 41°3'87"N 39°18'6"N 41°4'52"N 39°20'12"E 30 2.9 30

140
In each trawl sampling, after the trawl net was taken into the deck, the whole catch
was measured afterwards it was separated according to group categories in the
MEDITS Protocol (Table 3), count and recorded by the researchers. The biomass
was calculated using the “Swept Area” method for 1 km2 (Sparre and Venema
1992);
𝑛
𝐴. 𝐶̅𝑖
∑ 𝐵̂𝑖 =
𝑎𝑖 . 𝑞
İ=1

𝐵̂ : Estimate of Average Biomass

Ci: Average amount of catch in i-eth sampling
A: The total survey area (1 km2)
ai: Swept area in i-eth sampling
q: Catchability coefficient of the trawl net (The q was evaluated according to
“0,75 and 1”).
Table 3. Marine litters MEDITS Protocol category list
Number Weight
L1 a. Bags
Plastic b. Bottles
c. Food wrappers
d. Sheets (table-cover, etc.)
e. Hard plastic objects (crates, containers, tubes,
ash-trays, lids, etc.)
f. Fishing nets
g. Fishing lines
h. Other fishing related (pots, floats, etc.)
i. Synthetic ropes/strapping bands
L2 a. Tyres
Rubber b. Other (gloves, floats, boots/shoes, sanitaries)
L3 a. Beverage cans
Metal b. Other food cans/wrappers
c. Middle size containers (of paint, oil,
chemicals)
d. Large metallic objects (barrels, pieces of
machinery, electric appliances)
e. Cables
f. Fishing related (hooks, spears, etc.)
L4 a. Bottles
Glass/Ceramic/Concrete b. Pieces of glass
c. Ceramic jars
d. Large objects (ceramic basins, etc.)
L5 a. Clothing (clothes, shoes, etc.)
Cloth (textile)/Natural fibres b. Large pieces (carpets, mattresses, etc.)
c. Natural ropes
d. Sanitaries (diapers, cotton buds, etc.)
L6 Wood processed
(palettes, crates, etc.)
L7 Paper and cardboard
L8 Other
L9 Unspecified

141
Results

Seafloor marine litter obtained from bottom trawl sampling at 30 stations between
Hopa-Samsun was classified in nine categories in accordance with the protocol.
As a result, litter items were not found at stations CB6, SC6, SB4, SA8, SB8,
SC8, SB10, CB12 and CB15. The most common and heavily weighted marine
litters group is L1 plastic and L2 rubber materials, respectively. The distribution
of the marine litter groups is shown in Figure 2 according to the q=0.75 and q=1.
The average density of marine litter was calculated as 195.16±107.76 kg/km2 in
weight, 261.61±89.42 units/km2 for q=1, 261.43±144.03 kg/km2 in weight,
351.63±118.19 units/ km2 for q=0.75 (Table 4).

Figure 2. Overall distribution of seafloor marine litter during bottom trawl sampling at
30 stations between Hopa-Samsun

In the L2 group, especially car and truck tires create dominance in terms of weight
at CB5 and CB3 stations. After these two groups, L5 includes clothing-carpet-
natural fibres and hygiene materials, which have remarkable high values.

The evaluation by weight showed that the amount of L2 tire/rubber is more than
50% of the total amount of marine litter. In addition, the amount of L1 plastics
was determined as 67%. The reason of the high amount of L2 is that car tires were
included in sampling (Figure 3).

142
 Table 4. Distribution of seafloor litter by stations
Station Weight Weight N N (unit/km2)
Code (kg/km2) (kg/km2) (unit/km2) q=0.75
q=1 q=0.75 q=1
CB1 45.17 60.23 600.78 801.37
CB2 69.53 92.72 734.28 979.05
CB3 1054.81 1443.48 1067.29 1335.08
CB4 1406.37 1873.15 1980.34 2640.46
CB5 2843.68 3791.56 1602.06 2136.10
CB6 0 0 0 0
CB7 225.31 301.71 467.26 623.03
CB8 2.67 3.56 44.5 59.34
CB9 3.34 4.46 47.74 63.66
CB10 4.72 6.3 64.45 85.94
SA1 14.31 19.08 103.12 137.49
SB1 0.43 0.57 42 57.29
SC1 9.88 13.18 21 28.65
SA6 41.99 56.05 85.93 114.59
SB6 0.22 0.29 21.48 28.65
SC6 0 0 0 0
SA4 9.67 12.89 21.48 28.65
SB4 0 0 0 0
SC4 0.21 0.28 20.77 27.69
SA8 0 0 0 0
SB8 0 0 0 0
SC8 0 0 0 0
SA10 6.45 8.59 214.84 286.45
SB10 0 0 0 0
SC10 1.44 1.92 33.92 45.23
CB11 93.87 125.16 374.23 499.02
CB12 0 0 0 0
CB13 8.91 11.89 171.87 229.16
CB14 11.82 15.76 128.9 341.87
CB15 0 0 0 0
Total 5854.8 7842.83 7848.24 10548.77
Mean 195.16 261.43 261.61 351.63
Variance 348389.91 622111.2 239869.77 419071.96

As a result of the sampling surveys, marine litter was not found in Çayeli,
Kızılırmak, Yeşilırmak, Ünye, Melet river and Azot station named in Samsun
Tekkeköy offshore (Figure 4).

143
 Figure 3. Seafloor litter samples

Figure 4. Distribution of marine litter by kg/km2 (a: q=1 in weight; b: q=0.75 in weight;
c: q=1 in number; d: q=0.75 in number)

The amount of marine litter could vary due to many factors such as surface
structure, distance to urban areas and different flow systems. In some stations,

144
wood blocks with excessive weight were observed. These objects were not
included in the evaluation due to the organic origin. It is hard to say how
distribution of marine litter is related to the depths. Seems there is no direct
correlation between sampling depths and amount and weight of marine litter
detected (Table 5 and 6).

Table 5. Distribution of marine litter in number according to the depth

Station Depth N (km2) q=1
Code (m) L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
CB1 0-20 445.0 0 22.2 0 0 0 0 44.5 89
CB2 20-50 600.7 0 22.2 0 22.25 0 0 66.7 22.2
CB3 50-100 578.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 244.7 66 0 0 44.5
CB4 50-100 1490.8 44.5 0 44.5 356.0 0 0 22.2 22.2
CB5 20-50 890.0 311.5 44.5 44.5 200.2 0 0 22.2 89
CB6 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB7 50-100 111.2 66.75 22.2 200.2 44.5 0 0 22.2 0
CB8 20-50 44.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB9 50-100 47.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB10 20-50 42.9 0 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA1 0-20 77.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.7
SB1 20-50 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0
SC1 50-100 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA6 0-20 64.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.4
SB6 20-50 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC6 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA4 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.4 0
SB4 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC4 50-100 20.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA8 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB8 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC8 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA10 0-20 171.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.9 0
SB10 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC10 50-100 33.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB11 50-100 353.4 0 0 0 20.7 0 0 0 0
CB12 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB13 0-20 128.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.9
CB14 50-100 128.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB15 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N (km2) q=0.75
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
CB1 0-20 593.3 0 30 0 0 0 0 59.3 118.6
CB2 20-50 801.0 0 29.6 0 29.6 0 0 89 29.6
CB3 50-100 771.3 59.3 59.3 59.3 326.3 0 0 0 59.3
CB4 50-100 1987.7 59.3 0 59.3 474.6 0 0 29.6 29.6
CB5 20-50 1186.7 415.3 59.3 59.3 267.0 0 0 29.6 118.6

145
 Table 5. Continued
CB6 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB7 50-100 148.3 89 29.6 267.0 59.3 0 0 29.6 0
CB8 20-50 59.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB9 50-100 63.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB10 20-50 57.2 0 28.6 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA1 0-20 103.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.3
SB1 20-50 57.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC1 50-100 28.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA6 0-20 85.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.6
SB6 20-50 28.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC6 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA4 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.6 0
SB4 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC4 50-100 27.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA8 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB8 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC8 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA10 0-20 229.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.2 0
SB10 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC10 50-100 45.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB11 50-100 471.2 0 0 0 27.7 0 0 0 0
CB12 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB13 0-20 171.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.2
CB14 50-100 171.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 85
CB15 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 6. Distribution of marine litter in weight according to the depth

Station Depth Weight (kg/km2) q=1

Code (m) L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
CB1 0-20 12.2 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 5.2 27.4
CB2 20-50 48.0 0 0.7 0 8.2 0 0 1.5 11.0
CB3 50-100 138.4 498,4 10.7 9.7 314.7 45.6 0 0.00 37.2
CB4 50-100 663.7 378,8 0 17.1 222.2 0 0 51.7 72.7
CB5 20-50 414.1 2207.9 148.1 6.1 57.2 0 0 3.1 7.1
CB6 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB7 50-100 20.3 32,3 0.7 88.7 76.7 0 0 6.7 0
CB8 20-50 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB9 50-100 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB10 20-50 3.3 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA1 0-20 12.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2
SB1 20-50 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC1 50-100 9.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA6 20-50 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.2
SB6 20-50 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC6 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA4 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.6 0
SB4 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

146
 Table 6. Continued
SC4 50-100 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA8 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB8 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC8 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA10 0-20 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0
SB10 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC10 50-100 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB11 50-100 92.3 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0
CB12 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB13 0-20 8.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
CB14 50-100 11.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB15 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Weight (kg/km2) q=0.75
CB1 0-20 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
CB2 20-50 16.3 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 6.9 36.4
CB3 50-100 64.1 0 0.9 0 10.9 0 0 14.7 2,1
CB4 50-100 244.6 644.5 14.2 13.1 416.,6 60.8 0 0 49.6
CB5 20-50 884.9 505.1 0 22.8 296.2 0 0 66.9 97.0
CB6 20-50 552.1 2943.9 197.4 8.2 76.3 0 0 4.2 9.5
CB7 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB8 20-50 26.9 44.4 0.9 118.2 102.4 0 0 8.9 0
CB9 50-100 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB10 20-50 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA1 0-20 4.4 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB1 20-50 16.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9
SC1 50-100 0.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA6 20-50 13.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB6 20-50 1.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.2
SC6 50-100 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA4 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB4 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.9 0
SC4 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA8 0-20 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB8 20-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC8 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SA10 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SB10 20-50 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0
SC10 50-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB11 50-100 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB12 20-50 123.1 0 0 0 2.1 0 0 0 0
CB13 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB14 50-100 11.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4
CB15 20-50 15.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CB1 0-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

147
Discussion

In this study, the bottom trawl sampling was carried out to determine the
distribution of marine litter at 30 stations located between Hopa and Sinop
(3820000m² of total swept area). The majority of marine litter consists of rubber
group in weight (53%) and in amount (67%), followed by plastic group in weight
(25%), cloth, and natural fibre group in amount (12%). In 2016, plastic (62%) and
cloth/natural fibres (31%) have constituted the majority for the Eastern Black Sea
during the Environment and Urbanization, TUBITAK-MRC survey (2017). It
could be a sign that plastic origin products consumption has increased during the
last three years. The total amount of marine litter was estimated as 5854.8 kg
(q=1) in weight and 7848.24 kg/km2 in amount (q=1). These numbers were higher
than Terzi et al. (2020), Terzi and Seyhan (2017), Anton et al. (2013), Moncheva
et al. (2016) and Ioakeimidis et al. (2014). It could be explained by extensive
survey areas in comparison with mentioned studies. At the same time marine litter
density (litter item per km2) was lower than Topçu and Öztürk (2010)’s research
for the western part of the Black Sea. It is well known, that the western part of the
Black Sea is under higher pressure of urbanization, industrialization, shipping,
tourism besides it has an intensive river flows from the all countries coasts.
Therefore, density of marine litter is higher there than in the other part of the
Black Sea. The density of plastics (especially plastic bags) was found quite high
in comparison with rubber. Plastic as light, flexible and long lasting material is a
highly distributed material. At the same time, it can be easily carried by the wind
and currents. The EU has defined plastic bag as a most important threat for the
marine environment in the world (Ioakeimidis et al. 2014). In early 2019 Turkish
Government has limited of the usage of plastic bag e and promoted the natural
fibres bags usage to decrease the plastic pollution. The effects of these measures
could be seen in the upcoming years. There were also found fishing gears
especially gillnets among the marine litter samples. These types of fishing gears
continue ghost fishing in the Black Sea seabed. Topçu and Öztürk (2010) have
found a lot of fishing gears in their sampling area in the Western Black Sea.
Considering the distribution of marine litter samples depending on depths, the
density was mostly 50-100 m depth in Trabzon and its surrounding stations,
whereas in Ordu and Samsun stations density were mostly 0-20 m. Moncheva et
al. (2016) explained this situation with vicinity of land-based resources, human
activities and weak currents. It could be also connected with sea bottom structure,
which it is shallow in Samsun shelf area in comparison with deeper areas at
Trabzon stations.

Conclusion

This research presents distribution and composition of marine litter in the South-
eastern Black Sea. The Black Sea has an enclosed area and dynamic current
system, intensive river flows and high anthropogenic pressure, which are
considered to be the main pathways of marine litter pollution in the Black Sea.

148
There are some studies on this topic for the last years but not enough data to
predict the status of pollution. All riparian countries should increase cooperation
in monitoring, control measures, standardization of methodologies for studying
and combating marine litter. The plastic materials should be limited for everyday
use by regional legislation and public awareness should be increased.

Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by “Integrated Marine Pollution Monitoring 2017-2019
Program” carried out by Ministry of Environment and Urbanization/General Directorate
of EIA, Permit and Inspection/Department of Laboratory, Measurement and coordinated
by TUBITAK-MRC ECPI.

References

Anton, E., Radu, G., Țiganov, G., Cristea, M., Nenciu, M. (2013) The situation
of marine litter collected during demersal surveys in 2012 in the Romanian Black
Sea area. Cercetări Marine 43: 350-357.

Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D., Johnston, P. (2006) Plastic Debris in the
World’s Oceans. Greenpeace, Amsterdam. Available at:
https://www.greenpeace.org/archiveinternational/en/publications/reports/plastic
_ocean_report/.

Carroll, C. (2014) Existing legislation and related initiatives. In: Plastic Debris in
the Ocean: The Characterization of Marine Plastics and their Environmental
Impacts (eds., Thevenon, F., Carroll, C., Sousa, J.), IUCN Gland.

Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N.,
Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G. (2014) A comparative study
of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Black Seas. Mar Pollut Bull 89: 296e304.

IPCC (2014) Climate change: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups

I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 151.

MEDITS Working Group (2017) Medits Handbook, Instruction Manual Version

9. pp. 106.

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, TUBITAK-MRC (2017) Integrated

Marine Pollution Monitoring 2014-2016 Programme: Eastern Black Sea Report,
TÜBİTAK-MRC Press, Kocaeli.

149
Mouat, J., Lozano, R. L. & Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts of marine litter.
KIMO International, pp. 105. Available at: http://www. seas-at-
risk.org/1mages/Economic%20impacts%20of%20marine%20litter%20KIMO.p
df

Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Sahin, F., Timofte, F. (2016) Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: A pilot
assessment. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 16: 213-218.

MSFD (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the
field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
(Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 Special edition in
Croatian: Chapter 15 Volume 026 P. 136-157.

Oğuz, T., Fach, B., Salihoğlu, B. (2008) Invasion dynamics of the alien
ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its impact on anchovy collapse in the Black
Sea. Journal of Plankton Research 30(12): 1385-1397.

OSPAR (2007) OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter:

Monitoring of Marine Litter on Beaches in the OSPAR Region. Report. OSPAR
Commission, London, UK.

Sparre, P., Venema, S.C. (1992) Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment,
Part 1-manual, FAO Fisheries technical paper 306-1 rev. 1. 376 pp.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste Management
105: 139-147.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 120(1-2): 154-158.

Topçu, E.N., Öztürk, B. (2010) Abundance and composition of solid waste

materials onthe western part of the Turkish Black Sea seabed. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health & Management 13(3): 301-306.

UNEP (2009) Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Technical Report. United

Nations Environment Program. pp. 232.

UNEP/MAP (2015) Marine litter assessment in the Mediterranean 2015. In:

United Nationals Environmental Program/Mediterranean Action Plan, Athens.

UNEP (2016a) Cities and Coastal Areas. Available at: http://www.unep.org/urb

an_environment/issues/coastal_zones.asp.

150
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Marine plastics in the fishing grounds in the Black Sea

Yahya Terzi*, Kadir Seyhan

Faculty of Marine Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61530 Sürmene, Trabzon,

TURKEY
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Marine plastics are considered as a major threat to the marine ecosystem and coastal
economies. The plastics in the marine environment have direct and indirect negative
effects on the economic income derived from the marine environment. Marine plastics
also affect fisheries, one of the most important sectors providing food and income at local
and international levels. Possible impacts of the marine plastics on the Black Sea
fisheries were discussed along with a case study of a seafloor litter. A total of five trawl
surveys were carried out the southern Black Sea trawling areas of the Samsun province.
67 litter items weighing 10 kg were collected during the surveys. The most abundant
litter items were nylon (61.26%), plastic (21.52%) and, metal (5.38%) in total. Nylon has
a considerably high surface-area-to-volume ratio, which results in blocking the codend in
the trawl fishery and increases by-catch. The metal and plastic items in the catch can
damage both the fishing gear and the catch, which may reduce the income and increase
the repair costs. The field data on the direct and indirect effect of the marine plastics on
the fisheries are limited. More comprehensive studies are needed to determine the levels
of the impacts on fisheries. Unless reduction and prevention measures are implemented,
the accumulation of the plastics in the marine ecosystem may cause even more economic
loss and risk to human health.

Keywords: Fisheries, marine plastics, economic impacts, Black Sea, bottom trawl

Introduction

Marine litter has been an object of research in the last decade due to the
uncertainties of its state and effects in the marine environment. It is increasingly
recognized as a serious, worldwide concern (Galgani et al. 2019). In the
beginning, researchers mainly focused on the spatiotemporal distribution and
the composition in the marine environment. These studies revealed that from
busy coasts to most remote ones, including polar were contaminated with
marine litter and they were found to be accumulated on the surface, coasts, and
benthic zones of the marine ecosystem (Galgani et al. 2015). In addition, it is
well documented that the composition of the litter items is mostly dominated by
plastic, which is from anthropogenic origin. Unless preventive measures taken
and applied strictly, due to a wide range of usage, growing production, and
durability, continuous accumulation of plastic items in the marine environment
is inevitable.

151
Marine plastics pose an impact on marine wildlife, habitats, coastal economies,
and even human health. A wide range of marine and terrestrial organisms were
affected including vertebrates, invertebrates, and microbiota (Galloway et al.
2017; Law 2017). Vertebrates are the most reported organisms, interacted with
marine plastics (Ozturk and Altinok 2020) since they are relatively more
detectible and recognizable. This can involve bias and under estimation of the
interaction of small marine invertebrates and microorganisms. Entanglement
and ingestion are the most reported interaction type especially by marine
mammals, turtles, seabirds, and fishes (Thiel et al. 2018). Beyond direct effects
on living organisms, marine plastics have potential economic impacts on
fishing, shipping, tourism activities (Galgani et al. 2019).

Recently, a considerable literature has grown up around the theme of marine

litter in the Black Sea (Paiu et al. 2017; Terzi and Seyhan 2017; Simeonova and
Chuturkova 2019; Aytan et al. 2020; Miladinova et al. 2020; Oztekin et al.
2020; Terzi et al. 2020). Similar to the global trend, the litter items in the Black
Sea environment mostly consist of plastic. Circulation of the currents results in
the build up of floating waste in certain marine areas and along some coastal
zones. A recent study using mathematical models confirmed by field
observations, show the effects of currents in the Black Sea on the distribution
and concentrations of this type of waste (Miladinova et al. 2020).

Figure 1. Most exploited stocks in the Black Sea and share of the stakeholder countries
(Data from 2017 was used for visualization. Sources: FAO (2020) and TUIK (2020)

152
The Black Sea is a young and enclosed sea with a unique ecosystem. It is
surrounded by six countries with different socio-economic structures. Each
country has their exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and regulations on fisheries
management (Düzgüneş and Erdoğan 2014). The stocks, especially small
pelagic fishes are being exploited by the surrounding countries at different
levels (Figure 1). In addition to the fishing, the stocks in the Black Sea are under
the pressure of different types of pollution as well (Bat et al. 2018). In this
study, potential effects of the marine plastics on the Black Sea fisheries are
discussed along with a case study of a seafloor litter.

Impacts of marine plastics on fisheries

Fisheries highly rely on the well-being of marine flora and fauna. While the
fisheries sector is considered as a source of marine plastics (Lively and Good
2019), it is also subject to economic costs itself. Fishing vessels and aquaculture
facilities can be shown as the main sources of nets, ropes, pots, feedbags, and
polystyrene boxes.
There are numerous ways that marine plastics bring impact to fisheries
including, but not limited to: damage to fishing gear and vessel, interruption of
the fishing operation, restricted catch, and contamination of fish and shellfish
with plastics.
Damage to Fishing Gear and Vessel
Marine plastics can damage the fishing vessel and gear when encountered. This
creates a direct economic impact resulting in repair or replacement of the
damaged or lost gear. Wallace (1990) reported that over 45% of the fishing
vessels had their propellers entangled, over 30% had their gear fouled, and
almost 40% had their engine cooling system blocked by plastic debris at some
point in time in the Eastern US. The direct effect of marine litter (repair costs
and direct losses in revenue etc.) to Scottish fishing vessels was reported
between €17,000 and €19,000 per vessel annually (Mouat et al. 2010). An
estimation by Acoleyen et al. (2013) showed that the annual cost of the marine
litter on the European fishing fleet is 61.67 million euros which is nearly 1% of
the revenue generated by the EU fishing fleet (Table 1).
Table 1. The estimated cost of marine litter on the EU fishing fleet
(Acoleyen et al. 2013)
Annual Number of Total annual
cost per vessels cost EU
vessel (€) in the EU (m€)
Cost of reduced catch revenue (trawlers) 2.340 12 238 28.64
Cost of removing litter from fishing gear 959 12 238 11.74
(trawlers)
Cost of broken gear & fouled propellers 191 87 667 16.79
Cost of rescue services 52 87 667 4.54
Total 61.67

153
Interruption of Fishing Operation

Entangled propellers restrict and/or slowdown the movement of the fishing

vessel and obstructed cooling systems cause engines to overheat which interrupt
the fishing operation. Marine plastics can entangle and damage fishing gear. The
cleaning of entangled plastic items on the fishing gear creates a downtime and
workforce loss.

Restricted Catch

The accumulation of marine litter in the trawl can block the grid and cause
commercial losses (Eryaşar et al. 2014). The static nets contaminated with the
litter items, become more visible to fish and causes a reduction in yield. Benthic
and suspended plastic items can make it difficult to detect marine organisms for
divers which reduces the amount of catch.

Contamination of fish and shellfish with plastics

An increasing amount of marine plastics are found among the fisherman’s catch
which consumes time to remove and damage the freshly caught fish. The
ingestion of microplastics by the molluscs leads to economic losses as a result of
perceived risk by consumers.

Human Casualties

Marine plastics especially the derelict fishing gear, and ropes are a major threat
to divers who harvest marine organisms from the seafloor. It can be difficult to
spot these items since they are designed to be less visible under water
conditions. Once entangled the divers face difficulties escaping and/or call for
help. Incidents resulting in the death of divers because of lost nets have been
reported in Korea (NOWPAP MERRAC 2013).

Materials and Methods

The survey was conducted with a commercial fishing vessel on the southern
Black Sea trawling areas of the Samsun province in December 2012 (Figure 2).
The area is located between two large rivers namely Kızılırmak, and Yeşilırmak
and is very busy during the fishing season. A total of five bottom trawl hauls
were performed on randomly selected routes by the captain to assess the benthic
litter items.

154
 Figure 2. Map of the sampling area and location of trawl shots.

A bottom trawl net with 25 m mouth opening and 22 mm mesh size was used to
collect the litter items. The hauls were performed at the speeds between 2.8–3.2
knots, for 1–1.5 hours (Table 2).
Table 2. Details of the trawl hauls
Haul number Swept area (km2) V (knot) Duration (hours) Depth (m)
1 0.05 2.8 1 45.00
2 0.08 2.8 1.5 47.30
3 0.07 2.9 1.3 50.00
4 0.06 3.2 1 45.50
5 0.08 2.8 1.5 47.30

Collected litter items were distinguished by material (nylon, plastic, textile,

paper, rubber, metal, and glass) and subcategories (nylon pieces, general
packaging, beverage, fishing gear, clothing, food packaging, newspaper,
medical, mechanical parts, tires, and undefined). The categorization of materials
were done according to OSPAR (2010), however no standard procedure was
followed while defining the subcategories. Although nylon is a type of plastic
and commonly used for general packaging, due to high abundance it was
assessed separately. Also, a tire collected during the survey was excluded from
calculations, because of its highweight. The litter items were counted and
weighed to estimate number and weight of the items per km2. Analyses and data
visualizations were done by using R 4.0.0 (R Core Team 2020).

Results and Discussion

A total of 67 litter items weighing 10 kg were collected from five trawl surveys.
The density of litter items ranged between 121–366 items/km2 in terms of
number and 2.30–24.58 kg/km2 in terms of weight (Table 3). Abundance was
relatively lower compared to other studies conducted on the Turkish coast of the
Black Sea (Topçu and Öztürk 2010; Öztekin and Bat 2017).

155
 Table 3. Density of litter items (Terzi and Seyhan 2013).
Density
Number of haul items/km2 kg/km2
1 366 17.41
2 296 24.58
3 121 2.30
4 185 19.76
5 142 10.45
Mean 222 14.90

Nylon (61.26%) was the most abundant material followed by plastic (21.52%)
and, metal (5.38%) in total (Figure 3a). Regarding subcategories nylon pieces
(40.17%) were the most abundant followed by general packaging (25.12%) and,
beverage containers (13.08%) (Figure 3b). Although the litter density is
different, the composition of dominant litter categories was in accordance with
Topçu and Öztürk (2010).

Figure 3. Composition of the collected litter items by material (a) and subcategories (b)
(Terzi and Seyhan 2013).

Our findings revealed that the composition of litter items was dominated by
nylon pieces from carrier packs and another packaging. These items are light-
weighted so that they can be easily transported by the winds. The surface-area-
to-volume ratio of nylon is very high compared to other collected litter items.
Because of this feature nylon is more prone to sink which may be the reason for
the dominance in the composition on benthic zone. Thanks to their wide surface
area they can cover the codend and effect the selectivity (Eryaşar et al. 2014).
Conclusion and Recommendations

Mismanagement of a high amount of plastic waste has brought a sprawling

international problem. This problem has been recognized as a major global

156
environmental issue by international organizations such as the United Nations
and European Commission. Actions were planned in national and international
scale to reduce and minimize the plastics in the marine environment (European
Commission 2010; OECD 2019).

The field data on the direct and indirect effect of the marine plastics on the
fisheries is very limited not only in the Black Sea but also in other seas of the
world. However, it is clear from the limited data that the marine plastics have
negative impacts on the fisheries. Unless reduction and prevention measures
implemented, the accumulation of the plastics in the marine ecosystem may
cause more economic loss and even risk to human health.

There are several ways to reduce the entrance of plastic items to the marine
environment. The most cost-efficient way is reduction at source. The use of
biodegradable materials instead of single-use plastics can reduce production and
entrance. Deposit refund system is also a good practice of reduction at source
for single-use plastics. A successful example is the Norsk Resirk refund system
which was started in 1999. An environmental fee is added to the basic fee for
single-use beverage packing for sale in Norway. When the packaging was
returned by the customers, they are refunded the environmental fee. According
to the 2018 annual report, 88.6% of participating plastic bottles and 87.3% of
participating cans were returned and recycled (Infinitum AS 2018).

Strict waste management, high waste collection, and recycling are more costly,
compared to reduction of source, which allows plastics to be collected before it
reaches the marine environment. Clean-up operations such as beach cleanups
can be conducted to remove the plastics that are already marine environment.
Not only beaches but also fishing grounds can be cleaned with fishing vessels
with the implementation of a buyback.

References

Acoleyen, M., Laureysens, I., Lambert, S., Raport, L., van Sluis, C., Kater, B.,
van Onselen, E., Veiga, J., Ferreira, M. (2013) Marine litter study to support the
establishment of an initial quantitative headline reduction target. Final report –
SFRA0025. 315 pp.

Aytan, U., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach
(SE Black Sea): density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms, Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 20(2): 137-145.

Bat, L., Öztekin, A., Şahin, F., Arıcı, E., Özsandıkçı, U. (2018) An overview of
the Black Sea pollution in Turkey, Meditarrenean Fisheries and Aquaculture
Research 1(2): 67-86.

157
Düzgüneş, E., Erdoğan, N. (2014) Fisheries Management in the Black Sea
Countries, Trabzon Su Ürünleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü, 7 July.

Eryaşar, A.R., Özbilgin, H., Gücü, A.C., Sakınan, S. (2014) Marine debris in
bottom trawl catches and their effects on the selectivity grids in the north eastern
Mediterranean, Marine Pollution Bulletin 81(1): 80-84.

European Commission (2010) Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on

criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine
waters (notified under document C (2010) 5956)(2010/477/EU). Official
Journal of the European Union 232: 12-24.

FAO (2020) Fishery Statistical Collections, Global Production, available at:

http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-production/en.

Galgani, L., Beiras, R., Galgani, F., Panti, C., Borja, A. (2019) Editorial:
Impacts of Marine Litter. Frontiers in Marine Science doi:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00208

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T. (2015) Global Distribution, Composition and
Abundance of Marine Litter BT - Marine Anthropogenic Litter, in Bergmann,
M., Gutow, L. and Klages, M. (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, Cham,
pp. 29-56.

Galloway, T.S., Cole, M., Lewis, C. (2017) Interactions of microplastic debris

throughout the marine ecosystem. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 0116.

Infinitum AS (2018) Infinitum Annual Report. Available at:

https://infinitum.no/english/infinitum-annual-report-2018.

Law, K.L. (2017) Plastics in the Marine Environment. Annual Review of Marine
Science, Annual Reviews 9(1):205-229.

Lively, J.A., Good, T.P. (2019) Chapter 10 - Ghost Fishing, in Sheppard,

C.B.T.-W.S. an E.E. (Second E. (Ed.),, Academic Press, pp. 183-196.

Miladinova, S., Macias, D., Stips, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E. (2020) Identifying

distribution and accumulation patterns of floating marine debris in the Black
Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 153: 110964.

Mouat, J., Lozano, R. L., Bateson, H. (2010) Economic Impacts of marine

litter. KIMO International, pp. 105.

NOWPAP MERRAC (2013) Negative Impacts of Marine Litter in the

NOWPAP Region : Case Studies. Available at:

158
https://www.unenvironment.org/nowpap/sites/default/files/pictures/negativeimp
actsofmlinthenowpapregion_0.pdf.

OEDC (2019) Improving Resource Efficiency to Combat Marine Plastic Litter.

Issue Brief, G20 Ministerial Meeting on Energy Transitions and Global
Environment for Sustainable Growth.

OSPAR (2010) Guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the
OSPAR maritime area, OSPAR Commission: London, UK, p. 84.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Seafloor Litter in the Sinop İnceburun Coast in the
Southern Black Sea International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics
4(3): 173-181.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Gokkurt-Baki, O. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 20(3):197-205.

Oztekin, A., Bat, L.,Baki, O.G. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop Sarikum
Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 20( 3): 197-205.

Ozturk, R.C., Altinok, I. (2020) Interaction of plastics with marine species.

Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences20(8): 647-658.

Paiu, A., Cândea, M.M., Paiu, R.M.,Gheorghe, A.-M. (2017) Composition and
spatial distribution of marine litter along the Romanian Black Sea Coast.
Cercetări Marine 47: 232-239.

R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical

Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2019) Marine litter accumulation along the

Bulgarian Black Sea coast: Categories and predominance. Waste Management
Pergamon 84: 182-193.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste Management
105: 139-147.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2013) Preliminary investigation of benthic marine litter

on the central Black Sea coast of Turkey a case study of trawl fishery. The First
International Fisheries Symposium in Northern Cyprus, 24 - 27 March 2013.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on

159
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 120(1-2): 154-158.

Thiel, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Álvarez-Varas, R., Gallardo, C., Hinojosa, I.A.,
Luna, N., Miranda-Urbina, D., Morales, N. Ory, N., Pacheco, A. S., Portflitt-
Toro, M., Zavalaga, C. (2018) Impacts of Marine Plastic Pollution From
Continental Coasts to Subtropical Gyres—Fish, Seabirds, and Other Vertebrates
in the SE Pacific, Frontiers in Marine Science doi:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00238.

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): 301-306.

TUIK (2020) Turkish Statistical Institute, Fishery Statistics. Available at:

https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=97&locale=en.

Wallace, B. (1990) How much do commercial and recreational fishermen know

about marine debris and entanglement? Part 1. In: Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Marine Debris April 2–7, 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii.
(eds., Shomura, R.S., Godfrey, M.L.), NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.
Washington, DC: Dept of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, pp. 1140-1148.

160
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Composition of floating macro litter across the Black Sea

Maria Pogojeva1,7*, Daniel González-Fernández2, George Hanke3,

Nino Machitadze4, Yuliia Kotelnikova5, Iryna Tretiak5,
Oksana Savenko5,6, Nino Gelashvili4, Kakhaber Bilashvili4,
Dmitry Kulagin7, Aleskey Fedorov7
1 N.N. Zubov’s State Oceanographic Institute, Roshydromet, Moscow, RUSSIA
2 Department of Biology, International Campus of Excellence of the Sea (CEIMAR),
University Marine Research Institute (INMAR), University of Cádiz, SPAIN
3 EC Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ITALY
4 Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, GEORGIA
5 Ukrainian Center of Ecology of the Sea, Odessa, UKRAINE
6 National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine, Kyiv, UKRAINE
7 Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RUSSIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

This work represents the results of the first multinational integrated assessment of floating
marine macro litter (FMML) pollution of the Black Sea. In the frame of the EMBLAS
project (‘Improving environmental monitoring in the Black Sea’) basin-crossing
exploration surveys (Joint Open Sea Surveys, JOSS), specific national surveys (National
Monitoring Studies, NMS) and surveys from ships-of-opportunity, all including
opportunistic monitoring of floating litter, were performed during 2016-2019 in the Black
Sea. The surveys involved scientists from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine, while scientists
from Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey participated to accompanying workshops and
trainings. These pilot studies demonstrated the importance of harmonization of reported
data for comparison of results between different surveys and areas. Litter was monitored
by trained observers, acquiring georeferenced data through a tablet computer application,
developed by Joint Research Centre, Ispra (JRC) using for the first time a harmonized
MSFD approach. The observations confirmed that marine litter was present in all Black
Sea areas and consists mostly from plastic. The aim of this study is to provide a Top FMML
items list and to compare the abundance, composition, material and size categories of
found items in the Black Sea surveys.

Keywords: Marine litter, pollution monitoring, floating macro litter, marine litter
categories, Black Sea

Introduction

Marine litter has been recognised as threat for marine wildlife by the European
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Regional Sea Conventions and by
international provisions, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.
Monitoring data are needed in order to assess the spatial distribution of litter in

161
the different environmental compartments and to identify the sources of litter in
order to plan appropriate and efficient measures.

Floating debris constitutes the fraction of debris in the marine environment, which
is transported by wind and currents at the sea surface and is thus directly related
to the pathways of litter at sea. Floating litter items can be transported by the
currents until they sink to the seafloor, be deposited on the shore or degrade over
time (Andrady 2015). Floating marine macro litter (FMML) represents a direct
threat to marine wildlife and is the precursor of marine micro litter.

In the frame of the EMBLAS project (Improving environmental monitoring in the

Black Sea) basin-crossing multinational exploration surveys (Joint Open Sea
Surveys, JOSS), specific national surveys (National Monitoring Studies, NMS)
and surveys from ships-of-opportunity, all including opportunistic monitoring of
floating litter, were performed during 2016-2019 in the Black Sea. The surveys
involved scientists from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine, while scientists from
Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey participated to accompanying workshops and
training.

As methodologies for monitoring of floating macro litter are still under

development, the EMBLAS surveys provided opportunities for discussion,
testing approaches and contributing to the further development of the monitoring
tools. The harmonization of monitoring and the providing of guidance is essential,
as operationally defined parameters are being quantified. The aim of this study is
to provide a top items list composition and to compare the abundance,
composition, material and size categories of the found items in the Black Sea
surveys.

Materials and Methods

The monitoring of FMML is based on visual observations. Observation position

and observed transect width are chosen in order to ensure the monitoring of target
size ranges. Harmonization of reported item classes and size information is
important for comparison of results between different surveys and areas. The Joint
Research Centre (JRC) “Floating Litter Monitoring” Tablet App provides a tool
for a harmonized monitoring and facilitates the recording of metadata such as
position, transect information, ship speed, and etc. The main objective of the
EMBLAS project was to obtain comparable results from all participating
countries (Georgia, Russia and Ukraine), and the JRC Tablet App provides a
common approach to this (González-Fernández and Hanke 2017).

FMML monitoring was performed in EMBLAS projects surveys in the period

2016-2019 by trained observers, acquiring georeferenced data along the vessels
route with the “Floating Litter Monitoring” Tablet App and according to the

162
‘Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas’ (Galgani et al.
2013).

During the EMBLAS monitoring activities in 2016-2019, the observers

performed 555 transects (observation sessions) in total. These transects
corresponded to observations over a length of 5410 km and covered an area of
127 km². (Table 1, Figure 1).

Table 1. FMML monitoring EMBLAS activities main characteristics in 2016-2019.

Indicators 2016 2017 2019 Sum
Number of transects 193 192 170 555
Distance covered (km) 238 3140 2032 5410
Area observed (km2) 9 88 30 127

Figure 1. EMBLAS floating macro litter monitoring effort: transects 2016, 2017 and
2019

Results and Discussion

Top items

In total, during the EMBLAS monitoring surveys of 2016-2019, the observers had
identified 10217 litter items. The most common litter items were plastic pieces
(39.7%) and polystyrene pieces (11%), meaning fragments represented 50 % of
the floating litter. Unidentified items, classified as other plastic/polystyrene items,
scored second in the ranking (15.8%). Other relevant categories included
cover/packaging (9.9%), plastic bags (7.0%), foam (37%), plastic bottles (2.8%),
plastic sheets (1.8%), plastic containers (1.3%), synthetic rope (1.2%) and other
paper items (1.2%). The rest of litter categories showed limited individual
contributions <1% (Table 2).

163
Table 2. FMML top items identified during the EMBLAS monitoring activities in 2016-
2019.
Rank ML Items Number % of total % Cumulative
1 Plastic pieces 4056 39.70 39.70
2 Other plastic/polystyrene items 1609 15.75 55.45
3 Polystyrene pieces 1120 10.96 66.41
4 Cover / packaging 1007 9.86 76.27
5 Bag 719 7.04 83.30
6 Foam 382 3.74 87.04
7 Plastic bottle 291 2.85 89.89
8 Sheets 185 1.81 91.70
9 Plastic container 137 1.34 93.04
10 Synthetic rope 125 1.22 94.26
11 Other paper 124 1.21 95.48
12 Paper packaging 86 0.84 96.32
13 Other metal 63 0.62 96.94
14 Other rubber 59 0.58 97.51
15 Wood boards 49 0.48 97.99
16 Beams / Dunnage 44 0.43 98.42
17 Fish boxes - polystyrene 28 0.27 98.70
18 Cans 21 0.21 98.90
19 Other textiles 17 0.17 99.07
20 Balloons 16 0.16 99.23
21 Rubber boots 15 0.15 99.37
22 Buoys 10 0.10 99.47
23 Not identified litter items 9 0.09 99.56
24 Table cloth 8 0.08 99.64
25 Fishing net 8 0.08 99.72
26 Fish boxes - plastic 5 0.05 99.77
27 Newspapers and magazines 5 0.05 99.81
28 Balls 3 0.03 99.84
29 Wire 3 0.03 99.87
30 Clothing 3 0.03 99.90
31 Rope / string and nets 3 0.03 99.93
32 Pallets 2 0.02 99.95
33 Tyres and belts 2 0.02 99.97
34 Gloves 2 0.02 99.99
35 Barrels 1 0.01 100.00
Grand Total 10217

The ranking list of the 10 top marine litter items in beaches at European level has
been derived using the total abundance method (i.e. total sum of items collected
in each survey, and normalized with transect lengths of 100 m), based on a
compiled 2016 pan-European data set (Table 3) (Addamo et al. 2017). There are
clear correlations when comparing the top floating and beach litter items. In both
lists, the first positions include plastic and polystyrene pieces. Many other plastic
litter categories are commonly found in both lists (e.g. packaging of different
origin like cover/packaging and crisps packets/sweet wrappers, plastic bags, and
other plastic/polystyrene items). On the contrary, there are widely spread litter

164
items on the beaches that would sink at sea (e.g. string/cord, cigarette butts/ filters,
plastic caps and lids, cotton bud-sticks, paraffin/wax), which are not present
floating at sea.

Table 3. Top ten marine beach litter items at European scale and the total amount per
each item, listed by total abundance. Detailed information indicate the TG ML-General
Code (ID), Material and Name of each item, following the MSFD Master List of Litter
Item Categories (Addamo et al. 2017)
TOP ID Material Name Amount
1 G76+G79+G82 Plastic
Plastic/polystyrene pieces 52999
2.5cm > < 50 cm
2 G75+G78+G81 Plastic Plastic/polystyrene pieces 49198
0-2.5 cm
3 G50 Plastic String and cord 48919
(diameter less than 1 cm)
4 G27 Plastic Cigarette butts and filters 21854
5 G20+G21+G22+G23+ G24 Plastic Plastic caps and lids (drinks, 18732
chemicals, detergents (non-
food), unidentified)/plastic
rings from bottle caps/lids
6 G95 Plastic Cotton-bud-sticks 13579
7 G213 Chemicals Paraffin/wax 10305
8 G30 Plastic Crisp packets/sweet wrappers 10267
9 G124 Plastic Other plastic/polystyrene 10142
items (identifiable)
10 G2+G3+G4+G5 Plastic Plastic bag (Shopping bags, 6197
small plastic bags, e.g.
freezer bags, plastic bag
collective role;
what remains from
rip-off plastic bags)

The prevailing material during all the EMBLAS surveys were artificial polymer
materials (commonly known as plastics) – 94.9% in total. Paper/Cardboard
reached 2.1% of total amount, and processed/worked wood, rubber, metal,
cloth/textile constituted less than 1% (Table 4, Figure 2).

The materials distribution at sea corresponds well with European beach litter
observations, where the percentage of plastic litter was 84% (Figure 3). The
prevalence of plastics in FMML investigations in comparison with beach litter
could be explained by higher buoyancy and durability characteristics of plastics
materials. The later could facilitate the accumulation of floating plastic litter at
sea.

165
Table 4. FMML the most abundant materials during the EMBLAS monitoring activities in
2016-2019.
Material Proportion (%)
Artificial polymer materials 94.86
Paper/Cardboard 2.10
Processed/worked wood 0.93
Rubber 0.93
Metal 0.86
Cloth/textile 0.23
Not identified 0.09

Figure 2. FMML the most abundant materials during the EMBLAS monitoring activities
in 2016-2019

166
Figure 3. Beach litter material at the European scale. The abundance is expressed as the
percentage of total litter amounts (Addamo et al. 2017).

Size distribution of Top 10 items

Overall results show that smaller items were the most abundant. On figure 4, the
clear dependence is demonstrated, being larger items much less frequent.

% of Total Items
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2.5 - 5cm 5 - 10cm 10 - 20 - 30 - > 50cm
20cm 30cm 50cm
Figure 4. Total items size distribution

167
Figure 5. Top 10 litter items size distribution

168
The size distribution of the most common litter items is more diverse. Plastic
pieces, polystyrene pieces, other plastic/polystyrene items and foam repeat the
overall picture showing the frequency decrease with the size increase. The most
abundant sizes are 2.5-10 cm. Other top litter items have different abundance in
size categories. Cover/packaging, plastic bags and sheets vary in all size classes,
the most frequent range for cover/packaging was from 2.5 cm to 30 cm, for plastic
bags 10-50 cm, for plastic sheets 2.5-20 cm. Plastic bottles were mostly presented
by size 10-30 cm and plastic containers 10-20 cm. Synthetic rope was estimated
as more than 50 cm in most cases (Figure 5).

These are the results of the first multinational integrated assessment of floating
marine macro litter composition in the Black Sea, based on large-scale
exploration surveys performed during 2016-2019 in the frame of the EMBLAS
project, where the abundance, composition and size classes of more than 10
thousand litter items were analysed.

Conclusions

The prevailing floating litter material is artificial polymers, i.e. plastics, reaching
up to 94.9% of all found litter items. The most common litter items were plastic
pieces, other plastic/polystyrene items and polystyrene pieces (representing all
three together 66.4%), cover/packaging (9.9%), plastic bags (7.0%), foam (3.7%),
plastic bottles (2.8%), plastic sheets (1.8%), plastic containers (1.3%), synthetic
rope (1.2%). The abundance of litter items decreases with the size. The most
frequent litter size ranges cover from 2.5 to 20 cm. In comparison with beach litter
top items, higher percentage of plastics were determined in FMML, which could
be explained by buoyancy and durability characteristics of plastic material,
facilitating accumulation areas at sea.

References

Addamo, A.M., Perrine, L., Hanke, G. (2017) Top Marine Beach Litter Items in
Europe. EUR 29249 EN, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/jrc.

Andrady, A.L. (2015) Persistence of plastic litter in the oceans. In: Marine
Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.) Springer,
Cham. pp. 57-72.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey,
S., Thompson, R.C., van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Veiga, J.
M., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H.,
Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in
European seas, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Report EUR 26113 EN.
Available at: https://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/201702074014.pdf

169
González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G. (2017) Toward a harmonized approach for
monitoring of riverine floating macro litter inputs to the marine environment.”
Frontiers in Marine Science doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00086.

170
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Results of the monitoring of the marine and riverine

floating macro litter in the Black Sea, Georgia
Nino Machitadze1,2*, Kakhaber Bilashvili3,
Daniel González-Fernández4, Vakhtang Gvakharia1,2,
Nino Gelashvili1,2, Inessa Kuzanova3, Vazha Trapaidze3
1 Al.Janelidze Institute of Geology of Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,
GEORGIA
2 Scientific Research Firm GAMMA. Tbilisi, GEORGIA
3 Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,

GEORGIA
4 Department of Biology, International Campus of Excellence of the Sea (CEIMAR),

University Marine Research Institute (INMAR), University of Cádiz, SPAIN

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The paper reviews the floating macro litter surveys conducted in 2016-2019 within the
Georgian sector of the Black Sea to identify and assess the density and sources of marine
litter. The survey was conducted as a part of “EMBLAS II” and “EMBLAS Plus”
projects. Observation of floating litter was determined by the 10-th descriptor of the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive and was used to assess environmental status of
marine environment. Four essential rivers: Chorokhi, Supsa, Natanebi and Rioni were
monitored. The data were collected by visual observation sessions from bridges during 1
hour. On the sea surface, the floating macro litter was observed from the board of the
vessels. According to the observations of rivers, litter flux was varied from 300 to 700
items.h-1 for non-litter and 50 to 130 items.h-1 for plastic litter with the majority of
packaging materials, bottles and containers. According the data of sea floating macro
litter survey along the Georgian seashore in 2016, the mean density of litter was 76.3
items.km-2. The main source of litter was land-based sources. Meanwhile, the possible
sea based sources were container ships queued on the outer raid (north of the port of
Poti).

Keywords: Floating macro litter, plastic, pollution, Georgia, Black Sea

Introduction

Marine litter is considered as a crucial and complicated environmental problem

in the Black Sea basin (BSC 2007). The majority of the litter originates on land
and river flow is the main source of litter into the basin. The amount of marine
debris in the marine environment has shown a steady increase in time (Ryan
2015; Galgani et al. 2015). Plastic typically constitutes the main part of marine
litter with a proportion varying between 60% and 80% of the total marine
debris. Thus, globally, there is a rising concern about the risks and possible
adverse effects of marine debris accumulation. It is obvious that litter enters the

171
ocean from either marine or land based sources. The method of visual counting
is focusing on macro plastics (> 2.5 cm), field measurements count from macro
plastics to larger 2.5 cm plastic items (Lechner et al. 2014; van der Wal et al.
2015), while statistics often disregard the litter size. Floating litter items can be
transported by the currents until they sink to the seafloor, be deposited on the
shore or degrade over time (Andrady 2015). It is expected that the quantities of
litter will increase in the environment as a consequence of further direct
introductions, however the likely paths and potential sinks or hot spots of
accumulation are not clear.

The paper reviews the surveys conducted in 2016-2019 at the Georgian sector of
the Black Sea, aimed to identify the categories of litter floating on the surface of
rivers and seas as well as assess the nature and sources of distribution. The
survey was conducted as part of EMBLAS II and EMBLAS Plus projects
(2016-2019). Observation of floating litter is determined by the 10-th descriptor
of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and is used to assess environmental
status of marine environment.

Materials and Methods

The assessment of floating litter and its impact need to be performed with
harmonised methodologies to obtain comparable data that allows a prioritization
of efforts when designing litter-reducing activities. Methodology for floating
litter monitoring on the sea and rivers surface (Galgani et al.2013) envisage the
counting and classification of litter items by categories and size range. Count
and classification of different litter items at the rivers and sea surface was based
on the Riverine Litter Observation Network (RiLON) activities. Data was
collected by visual observations and documented using the JRC “Floating Litter
Monitoring Android Application Version 2.0” for mobile devices that allows a
harmonized reporting and is compatible with the MSFD Master List of
Categories of Litter Items (EU 2016; González‐Fernández and Hanke 2017).
Consequently, the use of a common list allowed a harmonized data processing
and analysis, facilitating the ranking of the most frequent observed litter items.
Method was agreed via international collaboration.

Six specific surveys were carried out within EMBLAS II and EMBLAS Plus
projects at Georgian rivers and sea area (Machitadze et al. 2018; Pogojeva et al.
2018; Ozturk and Pogojeva 2019). The surveys of riverine floating macro litter
were conducted from the bridges, existing close to the rivers’ mouths (Figure 1).

172
 Figure 1. Riverine floating macro litter survey sites

There were four essential rivers: Chorokhi, Supsa, Natanebi and Rioni. The data
were collected by visual observation sessions during 1 hour, from bridges, with
at least two trained observers (Figure 2). The height of the bridges from the river
surface permitted to identify litter items in sizes > 2.5 cm size, across the width
of the river. Observers recorded only floated litter or suspended in the river
surface layer using the mentioned Litter Monitoring Apps. Data obtained with
the JRC Table App was sent to the Black Sea Commission and to the JRC
RIMMEL Database for the analysis. Riverine floating data of Georgian rivers
are regularly published in the RiLON reports (González‐Fernández and Hanke
2016).

173
 Figure 2. Riverine floating macro litter observations from the bridges

Sea surface floating macro litter monitoring was conducted from the board of
vessels. Floating litter at sea surface was monitored during NPMS/JOSS surveys
in 28 - 31 May 2016, by observations from Research Vessel “Mare Nigrum”,
using the same JRC Tablet Computer Application “Floating Litter” (Figure 3).
Observations took place along of the transects between the sampling stations, in
conditions of 5 knots speed of vessel. The sea surface floating litter survey
sessions of 2019 were carry out on the board of the boat “Gagra”, State
Hydrographic service of Georgia, and Training Vessel of Batumi State Maritime
Academy.

Figure 3. Floating macro litter observations on board of Mare Nigrum

Results and Discussion

Floating Riverine Macro Litter
Two categories of the litter were presented on the surface of rivers: natural
organic (leaves, peelings, bird feathers), and artificial materials (plastics, rubber,
textiles, etc.). The mobile app was used to categorize both types of litter. From
the summary data of 6 monitoring sessions on mentioned rivers, it is deduced
that the estimated loading values (whole rivers cross-section), ranging from 50

174
to 130 (in average 81) items·h-1 of plastic litter, and from 300 to 700 (in average
403) items·h-1 of Non-Litter (Table 1).

Table 1. Rivers surface floating macro litter summary

(total number of items.h-1)
Observation River River River River
Type of Litter
date Chorokhi Natanebi Supsa Rioni
Litter 10.2016 9 43 67 12
Litter 04.2017 22 38 12 8
Litter 07.2017 41 2 14 52
Litter 11.2017 6 14 7 20
Litter 08.2019 1 14 38 7
Litter 11.2019 18 25 5 9
Average - 16.2 22.7 23.8 18.0
Average of
single 20.2
observation
Non-Litter 10.2016 126 334 94 97
Non-Litter 04.2017 83 106 52 51
Non-Litter 07.2017 95 153 54 125
Non-Litter 11.2017 30 167 38 27
Non-Litter 08.2019 16 168 246 58
Non-Litter 11.2019 114 63 24 102
Average - 77.3 165.2 83.8 76.7
Average of
single 100.8
observation

Analysis of the results shows that largest amount of the natural material was
brought by the Natanebi River to the Black Sea (Figure 4). During our
observations, their number ranged from 63 to 334 items.h-1 (Table 1), in average
166 items.h-1. The minimum amount of this type of litter was detected in the
Rioni River varied between 27 items.h-1 and 126 items.h-1, with an average 77
items.h-1. Comparing the average plastic flux data, the lowest average load was
observed in the river Chorokhi (16 items.h-1), and the highest on the Supsa River
(24 items.h-1)(Figure 5).

175
 Figure 4. Number of floating non-litter items in rivers

Figure 5. Number of floating macro litter items in rivers

Average loading of litter for the single observation was 20.2 items·h-1 (Table 1).
This level of loading from our observed rivers is close to flux from European
rivers (18 items·h-1) (González‐Fernández and Hanke 2018).

176
The results of plastic litter categories (Figure 6) show that the packaging
material (21.5%), plastic bottles (16.1%) and containers (15.3%) were the most
common items observed, followed by plastic bags (12.4%).

Figure 6. Composition of riverine floating macro litter

Floating Marine Macro Litter

Chemical and biological studies were conducted at 15 hydrographic stations in

the territorial waters of Georgia during the National Pilot Monitoring Studies in
2016. Observation of floating macro litter was carried out between the stations
on 19 transects. The total length of the studied sections was 114 km and the
width of the observations was 10 m, covering 1.14 km2 surface area.

A total of 478 items of litter were recorded across the surveyed area, with 87
items of them was natural organic material. Figure 7 represent the litter
composition and distribution in the surveyed area. The density of litter equals to
76.3 items.km-2 (up to 91.7% of total litter was plastics). According to the
results of the observations, the artificial material was dominated by packaging
material (more than 25% of the total quantity) and plastic pieces (>2.5 cm -50<
cm)(16% of the total quantity).

Floating marine macro litter surveys were conducted twice: in early September
and at the end of October in 2019, as part of the “EMBLAS Plus” project. Early
in September, during the 90-minute observations on Batumi-Chakvi transect, 28
items of litter and 50 items of non-litter were identified (Figure 8). On the
observed area of this transect (0.33 km-2), the density of litter was founded 85
items per sq km (up to 92.8% plastics).

177
 Plastic Bags 79
Cover / packaging 121
Plastic bottle 28
Plastic container 18
Plastic pieces 78
2.5cm - 50cm
Synthetic rope 14
Foam 6
Paper packaging 20
Other rubber 7
Other textiles 3
Metal 1
Other wood 75
Feathers 12
Total Litter 375
Total Non-Litter 87
Litter patch >20 16
items

Figure 7. Composition and concentration of floating macro litter along the

Georgian coastal zone

No floating macro litter were observed during the 2-hour observations on

Kobulteti-Tsikhisdziri transect. The specific composition of litter was noticeable
during the observations of Poti transect (Figure 9). In particular, there was an
increased number of plastic bottles and polystyrene fragments (Figure 10),
moving by the sea flow in the direction of the shore. Presumably, the source of
their origin could have been container ships queueing on the outer raid (north of
the port of Poti). This argument is based on the number of facts: the uniform
compositions of the litter - polystyrene fragments that are used for industrial
packages and plastic bottles, present on the shipping vessels; In addition, this
litter is not degraded, indicating to the fact that they were not present in the sea
for a long time. Therefore, the litter in this area most likely originates from the
sea based sources such as shipping vessels, from where it possibly gets in the
sea and subsequently on the beaches. The highest density of litter (448
items.km-2 ) was observed on the Poti transect (11-km long).

Floating marine macro litter observations conducted on Batumi-Kobuleti

transect at the end of October 2019 and the transect layout is demonstrated in
Figure 11. On Batumi-Kobuleti coastal water (0.3 km-2), mean floating macro
litter density was 47 items.km-2 (up to 92.8% of total litter was plastics).

178
 Litter Item
Categories Numbe
r
Plastic Bags 9
Plastic bottles 1
Food containers 6
Cover / 4
packaging
Polystyrene 4
pieces 2.5 cm -
50cm
Synthetic rope 2
Paper packaging 2
Total Litter 28
Total Non- 50
Litter
Figure 8. Composition and concentration of floating macro litter in the Batumi-Chakvi

Litter Categories Item Number

Plastic bottle 34
Food containers 7
Cover / packaging 3
Gloves 1
Polystyrene pieces
21
2.5 cm - 50cm
Plastic pieces 2.5cm
3
- 50cm
Foam 1
Other paper 2
Rubber (balls) 1
Proceeded wood 2
Total Litter 75
Total Non-Litter 7

Figure 9. Composition and concentration of floating macro litter in the

Poti transect

179
 Figure 10. Litter items observed in the Poti transect

Item
Litter Categories
Number
Plastic bottle 1
Cover / packaging 6
Polystyrene pieces 2.5
cm - 50cm 5
Metal Cans 1
Paper
Paper packaging 1
Total Litter 14
Total Non-Litter 56

Figure 11. Composition and concentration of floating macro litter in the

Batumi –Kobuleti transect

180
Conclusion

The study of the floating macro litter was conducted in the Black Sea waters of
Georgia in accordance with the methodology recommended by the European
Union Directive. Natural and artificial litter reclamation was carried out and
distribution channels were detected. According to the observations of rivers
Chorokhi, Natanebi, Supsa and Rioni in 2016-2019, it was detected the density
of litter from 300 to 700 items.h-1 of Non-Litter and 50 to 130 items.h-1 of
plastic litter with the majority were packaging materials, bottles and containers.
According the data of survey along the Georgian seashore in 2016, sea floating
macro litter mean density was 76.3 items.km-2. The large number of plastic bags
and packaging materials were detected on the sea surface during the
observations along the Georgian coastal waters in 2016 and 2019. The density
of litter varried from 47.2 to 448 items.km-2. Land based sources were likely to
be the main sources of litter. The possible sea based sources were container
ships queued on the outer raid (north of the port of Poti).

References

Andrady, A.L. (2015) Persistence of plastic litter in the oceans. In: Marine
Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.), Springer,
Berlin, pp. 57-72.

BSC (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: A Review of the Problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007–1, Istanbul-Turkey, 160 pp.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T. (2015) Global distribution, composition and
abundance of marine litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann,
M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.), Springer, Berlin, pp. 29-56.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D.,
Kinsey, S., Thompson, R.C., van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M.,
Veiga, J. M., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A.,
Leslie, H., Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on monitoring of marine
litter in European seas, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Report EUR 26113
EN. Available at: https://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/201702074014.pdf

González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G. (2016) Riverine Litter Monitoring - Options

and Recommendations. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter - Thematic Report.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. 52p.

González‐Fernández, D., Hanke,G. (2018) Floating macro litter input from

rivers to the European Seas. Available at: http://internationalmarinedebrisconfe
rence.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/StTropez_031518_2PM_Gonzalez_web-
version-Daniel-González-Fernández.pdf.

181
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart,
M., Glas, M. Schludermann, E. (2014) The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of
plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environ
Pollut 188: 177-181.

Machitadze, N., Gelashvili, N., Gvakharia, V., Bilashvili, K., Trapaidze, V.,
Gaprindashvili, N., Maglakelidze A. (2018) Monitoring of marine beach and
riverine floating litter within Georgian Black Sea coastal area. Journal of
Environmental Protection and Ecology 19(2): 583-591.

Ozturk, B., Pogojeva, M. (2019) State of the Environment of the Black Sea
(2009-2014/5). Edited by Anatoly Krutov. Publications of the Commission on
the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (BSC) 2019, Istanbul, Turkey,
811 pp. Chapter 1.2.7 Marine Litter. pp. 212-222.

Pogojeva, M., Machitadze, N. Gelashvili, N., Gvakharia, V., Bilashvili K.

(2018) Floating marine macro litter monitoring in the Black Sea: EMBLAS II
experience. Sixth International Marine Debris Conference. March 12-16, 2018,
San Diego, California, USA. Book of Abstracts.

EU (2016) The European Commission's science and knowledge service

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/new-app-helps-scientists-map-
riverine-litter-entering-european-seas.

Ryan, P.G. (2015) A brief history of marine litter research. In: Marine
Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.), Springer,
Berlin, pp. 1-25.

van der Wal, M., van der Meulen, M., Tweehuijsen, G., Peterlin, M., Palatinus,
A., Kovač Viršek, M., Coscia, L., Kržan, A. (2015) SFRA0025: Identification
and assessment of riverine input of (marine) litter. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/goodenvironmental-status/descriptor-
10/pdf/iasFinal%20Report.pd.

182
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Anthropogenic litter input through rivers in the Black Sea

Daniel González-Fernández1*, Maria Pogojeva2,7, George Hanke3,

Nino Machitadze4, Yuliia Kotelnikova5, Iryna Tretiak5,
Oksana Savenko5,6, Nino Gelashvili4, Kakhaber Bilashvili4,
Dmitry Kulagin7, Aleksey Fedorov7, M. Çağan Şenyiğit8,
Ülgen Aytan8
1 Department of Biology, International Campus of Excellence of the Sea (CEIMAR),
University Marine Research Institute (INMAR), University of Cádiz, SPAIN
2 N.N.Zubov’s State Oceanographic Institute, Roshydromet, Moscow, RUSSIA
3 EC Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ITALY
4 Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, GEORGIA
5 Ukrainian Center of Ecology of the Sea, Odessa, UKRAINE
6 National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine, Kyiv, UKRAINE
7 Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RUSSIA
8 Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Faculty of Fisheries, Rize, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The sources and quantities of marine litter and plastic pollution in the Black Sea
are yet unknown. It is important to identify the main pathways in order to enable
mitigation strategies to reduce the input of plastic waste to the marine
environment. In this sense, rivers in this region are expected to play an important
role in transporting mismanaged waste to the sea, but data on this matter is still
very limited. This study presents a first compilation of riverine floating macro
litter data collected in rivers flowing into the Black Sea. Visual observations
provided indicative information on the most frequent litter items and rates of
riverine litter fluxes in ten rivers from Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Turkey. Top
items presented an 83.7% of plastics, including cover / packaging, bottles, pieces
and bags as main contributors. Riverine litter fluxes were variable, showing
median values between 4 and 75 items/hour in the different rivers, and maximum
values up to 700 items/hour in the individual monitoring sessions. The
establishment of future monitoring programmes require the implementation of
harmonized approaches and consistent frequency in the data collection to improve
the representativeness of results, enabling appropriate comparable assessments of
riverine litter inputs in the Black Sea.

Keywords: Riverine litter, plastic pollution, monitoring, floating litter, macro litter

183
Introduction

The fact that most of the anthropogenic litter is produced inland suggests that
rivers can act as an important pathway in transporting mismanaged wasted from
land-based sources to the marine environment (Lebreton et al. 2017). Litter, and
therefore plastics, that are present in the river basins are exposed to transport
mechanisms (e.g. winds, rain, and runoff) that allow them to reach the freshwater
waterways to continue their journey downstream towards the seas. This is of
especial interest in the Black Sea, a semi-enclosed water body with great potential
for litter accumulation because of its very limited interchange with other seas. In
this sense, the Black Sea is subject to a high anthropogenic pressures because it
receives freshwater inputs from several large rivers (Danube, Dnieper, Dniester,
Don, Kuban, Sakarya, Southern Bug, etc.) draining an extensive land surface, and
numerous small-medium rivers along its densely populated coast (Jaoshvili 2002;
Stanev and Ricker 2019).

It is only in the recent years that researchers have started measuring the quantities
of plastics in rivers and their inputs to the ocean, offering very limited data in
terms of temporal and geographical coverage (Emmerik and Schwarz 2020).
Further, monitoring approaches were not in place and data collection was biased
to microplastic measurements, resulting in a general lack of information on macro
litter fluxes in rivers for most regions in the world (González et al. 2016). In order
to start covering these data gaps, a methodological approach for riverine floating
macro litter monitoring was developed under the project RIMMEL led by the
Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (González-Fernández
and Hanke 2017), which further facilitated a collaboration within the EMBLAS
project for the implementation of the first floating litter monitoring collecting data
in rivers draining freshwater into the Black Sea (EMBLAS 2020).

The value of the information gathered from riverine litter data collection is linked
to the global issue of Marine Litter and, in the case of the European Regional
Seas, it can provide input to the implementation of the Descriptor 10 (Marine
Litter) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Commission
2008) and the Regional Sea Convention for the Black Sea: Black Sea Commission
(http://www.blacksea-commission.org/).

This study analyse the first compilation of riverine floating macro litter data
collected in rivers flowing into the Black Sea, considering monitoring efforts
under the EMBLAS project in Ukraine, Russian Federation and Georgia, and
additional data from two rivers in Turkey. Results provide a top items ranking list
for floating litter in the region and an overview on the estimated litter flux values
per river, derived from visual observations.

184
Materials and Methods

The EMBLAS project collected data in the following rivers: Danube, Dniester in
Ukraine; Aderba and Don in Russia, and Chorokhi, Natanebi, Rioni and Supsa in
Georgia. Further, the same approach was implemented by Turkish colleagues in
the rivers Firtina and Taslidere. Figure 1 shows the rivers and their corresponding
monitoring sites.

Figure 1. Riverine floating macro litter monitoring: Rivers and monitoring Stations in
Ukraine (Danube and Dniester, Russia (Don and Aderba), Georgia (Rioni, Supsa,
Natanebi and Chorokhi) and Turkey (Firtina and Taslidere) (Blue areas showing the
drainage area of the surveyed rivers).

The monitoring setup followed a harmonized approach as described in González-

Fernández and Hanke (2017). In brief, data collection consisted of visual counting
from vantage points (e.g. bridges) made by trained observers to register the
number and identity of floating macro litter items (>2.5 cm) passing by in the
river water surface layer. Data was registered during short monitoring sessions
(30-60 minutes) using a Floating Litter Monitoring application developed by the
JRC. Monitoring sites were selected in the last reach of the rivers to account for
litter input to the sea. The application sets a common list of litter items for the
harmonization of data reporting that is based on the litter categories described in
‘Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas’ (Galgani et al.
2013). The observers scanned for floating litter on a predefine observation track
width that allows extrapolating the results to the total river width, assuming equal
distribution across the river.

The data compilation gathered 91 monitoring sessions, corresponding to almost

73 hours of observations, which were performed during different periods in the

185
timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The river basin area and monitoring effort details
are included in Table 1.

Table 1. River basins and monitoring effort distribution

River basin Distribution of Number of Hours of
area (km2) monitoring sessions* monitoring monitoring
sessions
Aderba 194 2017 (1) 1 0.5
2016 (1), 2017 (3), 2019
Chorokhi 22,065 6 6.1
(2)
Danube
(Kiliya 802,032 2017 (11) 11 8.3
branch)
Dniester 72,531 2017 (13), 2019 (12) 25 24.1
Don 429,400 2016 (7), 2017 (14) 21 11.0
2016 (1), 2017 (3), 2019
Natanebi 687 6 6.1
(2)
2016 (1), 2017 (3), 2019
Rioni 14,667 6 6.1
(2)
2016 (1), 2017 (3), 2019
Supsa 1,112 6 6.0
(2)
Taslidere 326 2020 (6) 6 3.0
Firtina 1,155 2020 (3) 3 1.5
2016 (11), 2017 (51),
Total 91 72.6
2019 (20), 2020 (9)
* Number of monitoring sessions per year in parentheses.

Results and Discussion

Top items

The top items list considered 904 litter items identified by the observers during
their monitoring sessions (Table 2). The list of items comprised 26 litter
categories, with the top 10 items representing 93% of the total number. The top
10 items showed seven plastics, two paper and one processed wood categories.
The most frequent plastic items were cover/packaging (17,2%) related food
packaging and wraps, bottles (16.4%), plastic pieces (14.1%), bags (11.1%) and
other non-classified plastic/polystyrene items (9.4%) in the top five. Most of these
categories correspond to identifiable single use plastics. The sum of plastic pieces
and polystyrene pieces made up to 18.8 %, being an indicative value for
fragments. The rivers in the Black Sea region showed lower proportions of these
fragments than rivers in the Mediterranean Sea (31.6%) and the North East
Atlantic region (61.2%), but higher than in a river monitored in the Baltic sea
(4.2%) (González-Fernández et al. 2018). Also, although the addition of new data
can modify the composition of the litter categories ranking, the proportion of

186
fragments observed herein was similar to the 18.2% reported previously for the
Black Sea, where only data from EMBLAS 2016-2017 was available (González-
Fernández et al. 2018).

Table 2. Floating Macro Litter top items list in the Black Sea Rivers.
Ranking Litter Items Number % of total % Cumulative
1 Cover / packaging 156 17.18 17.18
2 Plastic bottle 149 16.41 33.59
3 Plastic pieces 128 14.10 47.69
4 Bag 101 11.12 58.81
5 Other plastic/polystyrene items 85 9.36 68.17
6 Plastic container 70 7.71 75.88
7 Paper packaging 49 5.40 81.28
8 Other paper 48 5.29 86.56
9 Polystyrene pieces 42 4.63 91.19
10 Pallets 17 1.87 93.06
11 Other rubber 11 1.21 94.27
12 Foam 10 1.10 95.37
13 Fish boxes - plastic 9 0.99 96.37
14 Rubber boots 7 0.77 97.14
15 Synthetic rope 6 0.66 97.80
16 Cans 6 0.66 98.46
17 Wood boards 3 0.33 98.79
18 Sheets 2 0.22 99.01
19 Gloves 2 0.22 99.23
20 Other metal 1 0.11 99.34
21 Tyres and belts 1 0.11 99.45
22 Beams /Dunnage 1 0.11 99.56
23 Other textiles 1 0.11 99.67
24 Newspapers & magazines 1 0.11 99.78
25 Clothing 1 0.11 99.89
26 Rope / string and nets 1 0.11 100.00
Total 904 100

Overall, plastic was the most abundant litter material comprising 83.7% of the
total items, followed by paper (10.8%) and processed wood (2.3%) (Figure 2).
The predominance of plastic items is a common result when studying marine litter
in different environmental compartments such as beach, floating and seabed
(Galgani et al. 2015). Beach litter can contain 84% of plastic litter at European
level (Addamo et al. 2017) , and specifically 83% in the Black Sea (EMBLAS

187
2018), matching the results obtained for floating litter in the rivers. Further,
floating litter in the Black Sea shows usually a higher percentage of plastic items
(94.9%), and predominance of fragments (50%) (Pogojeva et al. 2020) compared
to the rivers. The latter may respond to a sorting process subject to beaching, and
deterioration and fragmentation of litter items (like paper material), limiting their
presence in open waters.

% Floating Litter Materials

2.1%
2.3% 0.8% 0.3%

Plastic
10.8%
Paper/Cardboard
Processed wood
Rubber
Metal
83.7% Cloth/textile

Figure 2. Floating litter materials as percentage of total items

Litter flux

The analysis of litter flux, calculated as items per hour, showed a high variability
in the results, both within and among the studied rivers. Figure 3 presents the data
distribution in boxplots for each river. Due to the influence that extreme values
can have on the mean values, in this case, it is preferable to compare the median
values. The observation on the Ukrainian side of the River Danube (Kiliya
branch), presented the highest median (~72 items/hour), and litter flux values up
to ~350 items/hour. In contrast, the River Don, second largest river in this study,
showed the lowest median (~4 items/hour) and maximum values of ~32
items/hour. The River Don observations were performed from a very high bridge
(30 metres), which may have resulted in an important bias towards large items,
missing numerous smaller items on the water surface, providing therefore
underestimated litter fluxes. The rest of the rivers provide median litter fluxes in
the range 10-50 items/hour, and maximum values ~150 items/hour. The only
exception was observed in the River Firtina, where an outlier of 700 items/hour
was calculated. River Firtina had only three observation sessions, which limits its
statistical analysis, otherwise the rest of the litter fluxes calculated in this river fit
in the range observed for similar rivers in Georgia.

188
Differences in litter flux are affected by multitude of factors such as the range of
river basin size scales, river flow regime, land cover and other climatological
conditions, and the number of monitoring sessions performed in each river. Socio-
economic factors are also relevant, i.e. the population density in the river basin,
the land use, waste management level and life styles can have a great effect on
the amount of litter available to be transported by rivers to the sea. All of these
factors hinder comparing pollution levels among rivers.
400

350

300
Litter flux (items/h)

250

200

150

100

50

0
Rioni
Danube

Dniester

Don

Chorokhi

Natanebi

Supsa

Firtina
Taslidere

Rivers
Figure 3. Litter flux (items/hour) per river. Boxplots include litter flux values (light blue
dots), quartiles (box), percentiles 10 and 90 (whiskers), outliers (red dots), mean (solid
black line) and median (dotted red line) for each river. River Firtina river presented an
outlier (700 items/hour) that is not visualized in the current Litter flux axis scale (0-400
items/hour).

Overall, although the low number of observations in certain rivers from the Black
Sea is a limiting factor to extract conclusions, the range of litter fluxes observed
in the region matches in order of magnitude with that observed in other European
regions, e.g. River Rhone in France (0-293 items/hour), River Rhine in The
Netherlands (10-75 items/hour), Rivers Llobregat and Besòs in Spain (0-429
items/hour) and River Tiber in Italy (~10-130 item/hour, at Fiumicino canal)
(Crosti et al. 2018; Castro-Jiménez et al. 2019; Vriend et al. 2020; Schirinzi et al.
2020).

189
Conclusions

The harmonization of a visual observation methodology can provide simple and

fast an initial assessment of riverine floating macro litter input to the sea at
regional scale. Riverine floating macro litter in rivers draining into the Black sea
contains 84% of plastic items. The most frequent items included a majority of
identifiable single use plastic. Litter flux presented a high variability in a range
comparable to other European regions.
References

Addamo, A.M., Laroche, P., Hanke, G. (2017) Top Marine Beach Litter Items in
Europe. JRC Technical Reports, Publications Office of the European Union.
Luxembourg.Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstre
am/JRC108181/technical_report_top_marine_litter_items_eur_29249_en_pdf.p
df

Castro-Jiménez, J., González-Fernández, D., Fornier, M., Schmidt, N., Sempéré,

R. (2019) Macro-litter in surface waters from the Rhone River: Plastic pollution
and loading to the NW Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 146:60–66. doi:
10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2019.05.067

Crosti, R., Arcangeli, A., Campana, I., Paraboschi, M., González-Fernández, D.,
(2018) ‘Down to the river’: amount, composition, and economic sector of litter
entering the marine compartment, through the Tiber River in the Western
Mediterranean Sea. Rend Lincei 29 doi: 10.1007/s12210-018-0747-y.

EMBLAS (2020) EMBLAS Project. http://emblasproject.org/

EMBLAS (2018) National Pilot Monitoring Studies and Joint Open Sea Surveys
in Georgia, Russian Federation and Ukraine, 2017. Draft Final Scientific Report,
November 2018. Available at: http://emblasproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019
/07/EMBLAS- II_NPMS_JOSS_2017_ScReport_FinDraft2.pdf

Emmerik, T., Schwarz, A. (2020) Plastic debris in rivers. WIREs Water 7 doi:
10.1002/wat2.1398.

European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community
action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework
Directive) OJ L 164/19.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T. (2015) Global Distribution, Composition and
Abundance of Marine Litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann,
M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.) Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 29-56.

190
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey,
S., Thompson, R.C., van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Veiga, J.
M., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H.,
Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in
European seas, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Report EUR 26113 EN.

González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G. (2017) Toward a harmonized approach for

monitoring of riverine floating macro litter inputs to the marine environment.
Front Mar Sci 4: 1-7.

González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G., the RiLON network (2018) Floating Macro
Litter in European Rivers - Top Items, EUR 29383 EN, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg.

González, D., Hanke, G., Tweehuysen, G., Bellert, B., Holzhauer, M., Palatinus,
A., Hohenblum, P., Oosterbaan, L. (2016) Riverine Litter Monitoring - Options
and Recommendations - Thematic Report.

Jaoshvili, S. (2002) The rivers of the Black Sea. Technical Report No 71.
European Environmental Agency. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publ
ications/technical_report_2002_71.

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 8:1-
10.

Pogojeva, M., González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G., Machitadze, N., Kotelnikova,

Y., Tretiak, I., Savenko, O., Gelashvili, N., Bilashvili, K., Kulagin, D., Fedorov,
A. (2020) Composition of floating macro litter across the Black Sea. In: Marine
Litter in the Black Sea (eds., Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A.). Turkish
Marine Research Foundation, Publication no: 56, İstanbul, Turkey.

Schirinzi, G.F., Köck-Schulmeyer, M., Cabrera, M., González-Fernández, D.

Hanke, G., Farré, M., Barceló, D. (2020) Riverine anthropogenic litter load to the
Mediterranean Sea near the metropolitan area of Barcelona, Spain. Sci Total
Environ 714: 136807 doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.136807.

Stanev, E.V., Ricker, M. (2019) The fate of marine litter in semi-enclosed seas: a
case study of the Black Sea. Front Mar Sci 6: 660 doi:
10.3389/fmars.2019.00660.

Vriend, P., van Calcar, C., Kooi, M., Landman, H., Pikaar, R. van Emmerik, T.
(2020) Rapid assessment of floating macroplastic transport in the Rhine. Front
Mar Sci 7: 10 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00010

191
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Microplastic pollution along the southeastern Black Sea

Ülgen Aytan1*, Yasemen Şentürk1, F. Başak Esensoy1,
Ayşah Öztekin2, Ertuğrul Ağırbaş1, Andre Valente3
1 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Marine Biology,
Rize, TURKEY
2 Sinop University, Faculty of Fisheries, Sinop, TURKEY
3 MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências,

Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, PORTUGAL

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Within the scope of TUBITAK 118Y125 project, microplastic pollution was investigated
at the coastal areas of the mouth of several rivers in the southeastern Black Sea, namely
the rivers Karasu, Kızılırmak, Yesilırmak, Melet, Aksu, Değirmendere and Fırtına. Here
we present results of the first cruise that occurred during July 2019. At each station,
samples were collected from surface waters with manta trawl, from several depths with
Niskin bottles and from sediments with box core. Microplastics were characterized using
optical microscopy, FT-IR and SEM/EDS in terms of size, morphology and chemistry.
Surface microplastic concentration ranged between 1.783 and 40.03 par.m-3 (0.178x106-
4x106 par. km-2). The primary shapes were fragments (49%), followed by films (31.3%),
fibres (17.7%), foams (1.9%) and beads (0.1%). Twelve different colours of microplastics
were detected in surface waters with the most common colour being white (34.3%),
followed by transparent (28.9%) and blue (11.8%). The average size was calculated as
1.540 ± 1.065 mm, 1.984 ± 1.022 mm, 2.076 ± 1.205 mm, 2.302 ± 1.225 mm and 0.670 ±
0.245 mm for fragments, films, fibres, foams and beads, respectively. Microplastic
concentrations at subsurface depths, reached up to 20 par.l-1. An increasing MP
concentration with depth was observed. Microplastic concentrations in sediment varied
from 74.1 to 1778.8 par.m-2 (0.004-0.192 par.ml-1). The primary shapes in the sediment
were fibres (66.4%), followed by fragments (19.9%), films (13.3%) and beads (0.4%), no
foam was found. Ten different colours of microplastics were found in the sediment with
blue being the most common colour (40.7%) followed by red (23.5%) and transparent
(15.9%). The average size was calculated as 1.253 ± 0.954 mm, 1.035 ± 0.429 mm, 1.358
± 0.892 mm, and 0.079 mm for fibres, fragments, films, and beads, respectively. The FT-
IR analysis confirmed the presence of eight polymers in surface waters and tree polymers
in the sediment samples. Polyethylene and polypropylene were the most common
polymers both in sea surface and in sediment. Our results confirm that microplastics were
present in all matrices (surface, water column and sediment) of the Black Sea. Project
results will provide data on distribution, sources and effects of microplastics required to
implement the “Marine Strategy Framework Directive”.

Keywords: Microplastic, marine litter, pollution, MSFD, Black Sea

192
Introduction

Microplastics (MPs) are defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm (Arthur et

al. 2009). Primary MPs are the ones originally manufactured in these sizes for a
wide range of products, including personal care products, clothing and pellets
from plastic industry. Secondary MPs are the ones resulting from mechanical and
biological degradation processes that breakdown larger plastic into smaller
particles (Andrady 2011). The accumulation of MPs in marine systems is
presently a major environmental problem, with potential hazards to marine
ecosystems and public health. They can enter the marine food webs via ingestion
by marine organisms, transport pathogens and release toxic chemical properties,
which can harm marine biota and contaminate seafood consumed by humans
(Wright et al. 2013).

The European Union (EU) Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD,

2008/56/EC) aims to establish a good environmental status of the European seas
by 2020 (EC 2008). The MSFD requires that all EU Member States take measures
to maintain or achieve good environmental status that is defined by means of 11
qualitative descriptors. Under descriptor 10, which is related to Marine Litter, to
achieve a good environmental status of MPs (D10C3) it is required that “The
composition, amount, and spatial distribution of micro-litter in the surface layer
of the water column, in sea-floor sediment, and possibly on coastlines, is at a level
that does not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment”.

The Black Sea is one of the marine regions of the EU with the highest risk for
marine litter pollution because it is a nearly enclosed sea with high river discharge
from several industrialized countries. Marine litter surveys in the sea surface
(Suaria et al. 2015; Berov and Klayn 2020), sea floor (Topçu and Öztürk 2010;
Moncheva et al. 2016) and beaches (Topçu et al. 2013; Terzi and Seyhan 2017;
Simeonova et al. 2017, 2020; Terzi et al. 2020; Oztekin et al. 2020; Aytan et al.
2020) have shown that nearly 80 % of marine litter consist of plastic items, and
more than half of these plastics are from single-use (or short-term) items and
unidentified plastics fragments (BSC 2007; Oztekin et al. 2020; Aytan et al. 2020;
Simeonova et al. 2020). Although composition and distribution of macroplastic
has been reported, there is still limited data on composition and concentration of
MPs in the Black Sea (Aytan et al. 2016; Oztekin and Bat 2017; Berov and Klayn
2020).

In this chapter, we present preliminary results of the TUBITAK 118Y125 project

“Distribution, composition, sources and ecological interactions of micro- and
nanoplastics in the southeastern Black Sea”. The project aims to assess seasonal
distribution, composition, concentration of microplastics in sea surface, water
column and sediment with their possible sources in the southeastern Black Sea. It
also aims to investigate possible pathways of micro- and nanoplastics to enter
food web and their effects on function of lower trophic levels of pelagic food web.

193
 Effects of physical environment on distribution of microplastics are also to be
evaluated. Sampling was undertaken at the mouth of seven big rivers along the
SE coast of Black Sea, during four cruises. Here in this chapter, we focus on the
MP abundance and composition measured during the first cruise.

Materials and Methods

Sampling

MP in surface waters, subsurface depths and sediment in the SE Black Sea were
measured during the first research cruise of the TUBITAK project 118Y125 in
July 2019. Samples were collected at the mouth of seven important rivers in the
SE Black Sea between 05.07.2019-08.07.2019 (Table 1, Figure 1). For each river,
one station was immediately at the river mouth and a second station was more
offshore waters (here after called coastal), resulting in a total of 14 stations.

Table 1. Locations, coordinates and depths of sampling stations in the southeastern

Black Sea
İSTASY Location Station Depth Coordinate
River Karasu SN1 103 m 42°06'57.6"N 35°07'11.7"E
(SİNOP) SN2 7m 42°02'19.5"N 35°04'09.0"E
River Kızılırmak SK1 94 m 41°46'03.4"N 35°56'01.1"E
(SAMSUN) SK2 6m 41°44'23.0"N 35°57'27.6"E
River Yeşilırmak SY1 98 m 41°45'00.9"N 36°38'58.8"E
(SAMSUN) SY2 7m 41°23'25.6"N 36°39'26.9"E
River Melet OR1 94 m 41°05'38.6"N 37°56'40.9"E
(ORDU) OR2 6m 40°59'34.1"N 37°56'06.9"E
River Aksu GR1 110 m 40°55'31.7"N 38°26'19.3"E
(GİRESUN) GR2 6m 40°55'07.5"N 38°26'18.0"E
River Değirmendere TR1 110 m 41°01'04.8"N 39°45'40.8"E
(TRABZON) TR2 12 m 41°00'22.6"N 39°45'26.5"E
River Fırtına RZ1 110 m 41°12'12.7"N 40°57'59.5"E
(RİZE) RZ2 10 m 41°11'25.5"N 40°57'43.4"E

The microplastics from surface waters were collected using manta trawls (333 µm
mesh). Nets were towed horizontally for 10 min at ship speed of approximately 2
knots, in the upper 20 cm of the water column (Figure 2). To collect all MPs
samples stocked, net was washed with seawater. Samples were immediately
transferred into the glass bottles and preserved in 4% borax-buffered
formaldehyde.

194
 Figure 1. Sampling stations

Figure 2. Microplastic sampling from surface waters

To investigate distribution of MPs in the water column and possible subsurface

accumulations, we also collected water samples at various depths with Niskin
bottles, but this was only performed at the coastal station of each river. Seawater
samples were taken from 3 m, euphotic depth (1 % PAR depth), above and below

195
halocline. 30 L seawater were collected from each depth using 5 l Niskin bottles
mounted on a SBE32 Carousel water sampler. Water samples were filter through
a 5 mm, 1mm and 200 µm stainless steel sieves. The material collected on the
sieves was transferred to glass vials and 1 ml of hydrochloric acid (HCl) was
added and stored until analysis.

Regarding sediment samples they were collected by box corer (total area = ~ 0.1
m²) from approximately 5 m depth from the river mouth stations and 100 m depth
contour from the coastal stations (Figure 3). Surface sediments to 5 cm depth were
taken using metal spoons and samples were stored in glass jars at -20°C until
further analysis.

Figure 3. Microplastic sampling from sediment

Laboratory analysis

To assess the presence of MPs in the Manta trawl (surface) and Niskin bottles
(subsurface) samples, wet peroxide oxidation was used (Masura et al. 2015).
Samples were sieved through a 5 mm mesh, rinsed with ultrapure water to remove
salt and transferred to a 200 ml conical flask. To catalyses the reaction 10 mL of
aqueous 0.05 M Fe (II) solution was added to sample. Then, Hydrogen peroxide
(30 % H2O2) solution was filtered through a 0.2 μm filter and added (app. 20 ml)
to conical flask to remove the biological material. The mixture was placed in a
temperature-controlled oven at 40ºC until all biological material was digested (up
to 72 h). If the biological material was not completely removed, more H2O2
solution was added. After this, 100 ml of saturated NaCl solution (d: 1.2 g cm-3)
was poured into the sample to minimise filtration time. The mixture was filtered
onto a 10 μm filters and left to dry in a petri dish in the oven. Samples then were
visually examined under a Leica SAPO stereo microscope. Microplastics were
identified according to morphological characteristics and physical response

196
features (Desforges et al. 2014). Microplastics were visually classified according
to type (film, fibre, fragments, foam, pellet, microbead), colour and size-class
(<0.2 mm, 0.2-0.5 mm, 0.5-1mm, 1-2 mm, 2-5 mm).

Sediment samples were homogenized and their volume (ml) and weight (g) were
recorded. Density flotation method was used to extract MPs from sediment
samples (Frias et al. 2018). For this process, saturated NaCl solution (d:1.2 g
cm-3) were prepared with ultra-pure water and the solution was filtered through a
0.2 μm filter to reduce potential contamination from salt. Sediment samples (425-
700 ml) were put into glass beakers and hypersaline solution were added.
Sediment samples were stirred with a stainless-steel spoon for a few minutes and
allowed to settle for 1 hour. Three settlements were done to ensure all plastics
were recovered. Floating plastics and supernatant were filtered through a 10 μm
sieve. Debris retained on the sieve were rinsed into clean glass beakers and H2O2
(30%) solution was added. Beakers were covered with aluminium foil and kept
in the room temperature for 168 h. At the end of this period, the solution including
MPs was filtered onto 10 μm filters and left to dry in a petri dish in the oven.
Samples then were visually inspected using a ZEISS Stemi 508 stereo microscope
and classified according to type (film, fibre, fragments, foam, pellet, microbead),
colour and size-class (<0.2 mm, 0.2-0.5 mm, 0.5-1mm, 1-2 mm, 2-5 mm).

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) was used to confirm the

synthetic polymer origin of the most common types of MPs found in sea surface
and sediment. FT-IR analysis was carried out on a Perkin Elmer Spectrum 100
FT-IR spectrophotometer. The spectrum range was 4000-650 cm−1 and a
resolution of 1.0 cm-1 with 32 scans for each measurement. The polymer type
identification was done by comparing absorbance spectra to a reference the
library by using Perkin Elmer SEARCH Plus® software. Spectra for each sample
was compared with reference FT-IR data and samples showing more than 70%
spectral similarity were accepted.

Contamination control

Cotton lab coats and nitrile gloves were worn at all times. All laboratory analysis
was done in laminar flow cabin and microscopic identification in work cabin. To
account for a potential air borne contamination, dampened PCTE filters in a petri
dish were placed for every stage of the sampling and laboratory work. Several
procedural blanks (H2O2 in an empty well) were also run alongside with sample
processing. In case contamination was noted, particles were excluded from the
data.

Results

In July 2019, averaged MP concentration in the surface waters for all stations
ranged between 1.80 and 47.97 par.m-3 (0.18x106 and 4.70x106 par.km-2) with the

197
highest in the River Kızılırmak (Samsun) (Figure 4). The primary shapes were
fragments (49%), followed by films (31.3%), fibres (17.7%), foams (1.9%) and
microbeads (0.1%) (Figure 4, Figure 5).
Film Fibre Fragment Foam Bead
50
MP concentration (par.m-3)

40

30

20

10

0
SN-1 SN-2 SK-1 SK-2 SY-1 SY-2OR-1OR-2GR-1GR-2TR-1 TR-2 RZ-1 RZ-2
Figure 4. Concentration of microplastics in surface waters in the sampling stations

Figure 5. Examples of films (a-d), fibres (e-h), fragments (ı-l), foams (m-o), microbead
(p) collected from surface waters (scale bar=500 µm)

A total of 12 different colours of MPs were detected in surface waters with the
most common colour being white (34.3%), followed by transparent (28.9%) and

198
blue (11.8%) (Figure 6). The MP size varied from 0.107 to 4.998 mm and 0.085
to 4.995 mm in river mouth and coastal stations, respectively (Table 2).
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
SN1 SN2 SK1 SK2 SY1 SY2 OR1 OR2 GR1 GR2 TR1 TR2 RZ1 RZ2

Transparent White Blue Red Black

Yellow Green Orange Pink Grey
Brown Multicolor Purple

Figure 6. Colour of microplastics in surface waters in the sampling stations

Table 2. Minimum, maximum and average size (mm) ± standard deviation (SD) of
microplastics in the surface waters of the river mouth and coastal stations
Station MP types Minimum Maximum Average±SD
River mouth Film 0.156 4.998 1.967±0.998
Fibre 0.163 4.942 2.076±1.205
Fragment 0.107 4.972 1.540±1.065
Foam 0.280 4.839 2.302±1.225
Bead 0.496 0.843 0.670±0.245
Coastal Film 0.457 4.985 2.309±1.054
Fibre 0.246 4.995 2.565±1.248
Fragment 0.163 4.979 1.714±0.983
Foam 1.073 2.780 1.732±0.532
Bead 0.085 0.160 0.120±0.031

Subsurface concentration and composition of MPs varied between sampling

depths and stations (Figure 7). MP concentration ranged between 0 to 20 par. l-1
and, in general, an increasing trend from east to west was observed. Over each
sampled depth, the highest average MP concentration was in the euphotic depth
(9.3 par. l-1), followed by below halocline (5.9 par. l-1), above halocline (5.9 par.
l-1) and 3 m depth (4.3 par. l-1). Regarding all samples, fibres (42.8 %) were the
prevalent shape followed by fragments (35.5 %), films (21.5 %), foams (0.2 %)
and microbeads (0.05 %).

199
 Figure 7. Concentration of microplastics in subsurface waters, including 3 m,
euphotic depth, above and below halocline

Microplastic concentrations in sediment varied from 74.1 to 1778.8 par.m-2

(0.004-0.192 par.ml-1) with the highest in the River Değirmendere (Trabzon). The
primary shapes were fibres (66.4%) in the sediment, followed by fragments
(19.9%), films (13.3%) and beads (0.4%), no foam was found (Figure 8, Figure
9).

200
 Film Fibre Fragment Bead
2000
MP concentration (par.m-2)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
SN1 SN2 SK1 SK2 SY1 SY2 OR1 OR2 GR1 GR2 TR1 TR2 RZ1 RZ2
Figure 8. Microplastic concentration in the sediment of the sampling stations

Figure 9. Examples of films (a-d), fibres (e-g), fragments (h-ı), and microbeads (j-k)
collected from surface waters (scale bar=500 µm)

Total of 10 different colours of MPs were found in the sediment with blue (40.7%)
being the most common colour followed by red (23.5%) and transparent (15.9%)
(Figure 10). The average size was calculated as 1.253 ± 0.954 mm, 1.035 ± 0.429
mm, 1.358 ± 0.892 mm, and 0.079 mm for fibres, fragments, films, and
microbeads, respectively (Table 3).

201
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
SN-1 SN-2 SK-1 SK-2 SY-1 SY-2 OR-1OR-2GR-1GR-2 TR-1 TR-2 RZ-1 RZ-2
White Grey Red Blue
Purple Pink Yellow Black
Transparent Green
Figure 10. Colour of microplastics in the sediment of the sampling stations

After analyses of randomly chosen 90 MPs, a total of eight different polymer

found in the surface waters; polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylic
(PAC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polystyrene/
polyacrylic copolymer (PS/PAC), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) and
polyamide/nylon (PA) (Figure 11). Polymer composition were less diverse in
sediment samples compare to surface waters, represented with PE, PP and PA
(Figure 12). PE and PP were the most common polymers found in both surface
waters and sediment samples.

Figure 11. Polymer composition of surface microplastic samples

202
 Figure 12. Polymer composition of sediment microplastic samples

Table 3. Minimum, maximum and average size (mm) ± standard deviation (SD) of
microplastics in the sediment of the sampling stations
Station Film Fibre Fragment Microbead
0.32-3.32 - -
SN1 -
1.53±0.85
1.02-2.31 0.64-3.91
SN2 - -
1.63±0.66 1.51±0.96
1.05-1.24 0.22-3.73 1.83-1.95 -
SK1
1.15±0.13 1.22±0.92 1.89±0.08
0.42-3.51
SK2 0.87 0.09 -
2.11±1.08
0.61-2.36 -
SY1 1.51 -
1.26±0.81
0.96-1.41
SY2 - - -
1.18±0.31
0.13-2.62 0.35-2.71 0.10-0.90 -
OR1
0.94±0.89 1.27±0.90 0.43±0.25
0.69-2.71
OR2 - 0.12 -
1.28±0.72
0.14-1.56 0.09-0.32
GR1 0.98 -
0.59±0.65 0.22±0.09
0.67-4.46 0.22-2.22
GR2 0.94 -
2.56±2.67 0.90±0.73
0.63-2.82 0.18-3.59 0.18-1.36
TR1 0.07
1.59±0.72 1.07±0.88 0.47±0.35
0.90-1.12 0.27-4.55 0.55-1.05
TR2 -
1.01±0.15 1.16±1.18 0.80±0.35
0.46-1.74
RZ1 1.19 - -
0.84±0.48
0.29-4.23 0.33-1.20
RZ2 1.27 -
1.54±1.31 0.73±0.37
1.035± 1.253± 1.358±
Average 0.079
0.429 0.954 0.892

203
SEM analysis provide images of surface textures of MPs collected in the SE Black
Sea (Figure 13). The cracks, pits and groves of these MPs provide evidence that
these small plastics will continue to break down into nanoplastics.

Figure 12. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of microplastics collected from
SE Black Sea
Conclusion

In this study, we assessed the concentration and composition of MPs at three

ecological matrices (sea surface, water column and sediment) of seven river-
influenced coastal regions of the SE Black Sea. We found MPs in all matrices
demonstrating the ubiquity of MPs pollution in the Black Sea. The number of
MPs at the surface ranged between 1.78 and 40.03 par. m-3, but at the subsurface
depths, these numbers were nearly two order of magnitude higher.
Methodological differences (Manta trawl versus Niskin bottles) could explain
some differences; but an increasing MP concentration with depth was indeed
observed in most stations for the subsurface sampling. In future studies, there is
a need to consider also the < 333 um fraction of MPs (which is not measured by

204
Manta trawl) and investigate vertical distributions of MPs in order to have a more
complete characterization of MP pollution in the Black Sea. MPs were made of
eight different polymers, with a majority of PE and PP both in surface waters and
in sediment. Dominance of PE and PP in our samples is a good reflection of
European production of these plastics. Since plastic generation is expected to
increase, more research is needed to better understand the sources, transport, fate
and effects of MPs in Black Sea.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Turkey) (Project No: 118Y125). We thank to Dr. Samet Kalkan for his help during
sampling, Dr. Kaan KARAOĞLU for his help in FT-IR analysis and Dr. Murat Şirin for
his help in SEM analysis. We also thank to captain and crews of the R/V KARADENIZ
ARAŞTIRMA for their assistance during the cruise.

References

Andrady, A.L. (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 62: 1596-1605.

Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H. (2009) Proceedings of the International

Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine
Debris. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical
Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30.

Aytan, U., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Saraykoy
Beach (SE Black Sea): Density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20: 137-145.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agırbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Berov, D., Klayn, S. (2020) Microplastics and floating litter pollution in

Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 156: 111225.

BSC (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: A Review of the Problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul-Turkey, 160.

Desforges, J.P., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N., Ross, P.S. (2014) Widespread
distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 79: 94-99.

EC (2008) EC directive, 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council

of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of

205
marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Off. J. Eur.
Union. L 164/19-40.

Frias, J., Pagter, E., Nash, R., O'Connor, I., Carretero, O., Filgueiras, A., Vinas,
L., Gago, J., Antunes, J., Bessa, F., Sobral, P., Goruppi, A., Tirelli, V., Pedrotti,
M.L., Suaria, G., Aliani, S., Lopes, C., Raimundo, J., Caetano, M., Palazzo, L.,
de Lucia, G.A., Camedda, A., Muniategui, S., Grueiro, G., Fernandez, V.,
Andrade, J., Dris, R., Laforsch, C., Scholz-Böttcher, B.M., Gerdts, G. (2018)
Standardized protocol for monitoring microplastics in sediments. Deliverable 4.2.
JPI-Oceans BASEMAN Project, 24. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.25607/OBP-723.

Masura, J., Baker, J., Foster, G., Arthur, C. (2015) Laboratory methods for the
analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: recommendations for
quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS-OR&R-48.

Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Sahin, F., Timofte, F. (2016) Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: A pilot
assessment. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 16: 213-218.

Oztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Microlitter pollution in sea water: A preliminary study
from Sinop Sarikum Coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17: 1431-1440.

Oztekin, A., Bat, L., Baki O.G. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop Sarikum
Lagoon Coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 20(3): 197-205.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2020) Macroplastic distribution (Single – use

plastics and some Fishing gear) from the northern to the southern Bulgarian Black
Sea coast. Regional Studies in Marine Science 37: 101329 doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101329

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V. (2017) Seasonal dynamics of marine

litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 119: 110-
118.

Suaria, G., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Ion, G., Aliani, S. (2015) First

observations on the abundance and composition of floating debris in the North-
western Black Sea. Marine Environmental Research 107: 45-49.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste Management
105: 139-147.

206
Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-Eastern Black Sea Coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 120: 154-158.

Topcu, E.N., Oztürk, B. (2010) Abundance and composition of solid waste

materials on the western part of the Turkish Black Sea seabed. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management 13(3): 301-306.

Topcu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Ozturk, A.A., Ozturk, B. (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S. (2013) The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution 178(4):
483-492.

207
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Distribution of micro- and mesolitter in the southwestern

part of the Black Sea

Aurelia Totoiu*, George-Emanuel Harcotă, Elena Bișinicu,

Florin Timofte, Laura Boicenco

National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300 Mamaia
Blvd, 900581, Constanta, ROMANIA
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The micro- and mesolitter topic is of great interest nowadays, but the lack of data leads to
uncertainty on the impact generated over the marine environment. The aim of the paper is
to analyse the micro- (< 5 mm) and mesolitter (5 mm-25 mm) distribution from the
southwestern part of the Black Sea, from 18 samples collected in October 2019 from
Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish marine waters. Micro- and mesolitter were present in
the surface waters of all three countries, showing variations of size and density.

Keywords: Microlitter, mesolitter, density, Black Sea

Introduction

The first studies regarding the presence of microplastics appeared in the 1970s
(Carpenter et al. 1972). The middle of the 20th century is characterized by an
increase in global production of plastics, being accompanied by an accumulation
of plastic litter in the marine environment (Barnes et al. 2009). Being dispersed
by currents and winds, persistent plastics are rarely degraded but become
fragmented over time (Thompson 2015).

The massive accumulation of microplastics in water bodies has been recognized

by scientists and authorities worldwide, previous studies proving the ubiquitous
presence of microplastics in the marine environment (Browne et al. 2010).
Thus, with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD-criteria D10C1)
the EU prescribes a mandatory monitoring of microplastics and the EU
Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG-ML) proposed a standardized
monitoring strategy for microplastics in the EU (Hanke et al. 2013).

At the moment, the sampling methodology and the classics of microplastics is

not well defined, so it is very important to establish a standard working method
for obtaining an overview of microplastics, their sorting, distribution and the
effects of microplastics on the marine ecosystem (Cole et al. 2011).

208
Synthetic polymers have a lower density than marine water, which is why most
of them float on the surface of water, yet they also appear to a lesser extent in
the water column (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012).

Ingestion of microplastics may lead to “potentially fatal injuries such as

blockages throughout the digestive system or abrasions from sharp objects”
(Wright et al. 2013), which, in contrast to microplastics, mainly affect
microorganisms, smaller invertebrates or larvae. What is more, microplastics
can release toxic additives upon degradation and accumulate persistent organic
pollutants (POPs) (Rochman et al. 2013; Bakir et al. 2012; Engler 2012; Teuten
et al. 2009). Because of their small size, microplastics harbour the risk of
entering marine food webs at low trophic levels and propagating toxic
substances up the food chain (Besseling et al. 2013).

Because microlitter are on the same size scale as that of planktonic organisms,
they are potentially available to several plankton predators (Hidalgo-Ruz et al.
2012; Wright et al. 2013), which possibly mistake them for food (Desforges et
al. 2015). Microlitter ingestion may affect predator-prey relationships and the
carbon cycle (Galloway et al. 2017) and cause physical and chemical hazards to
the organism (Wright et al. 2013).

The Black Sea poor ecological conditions are a result of its limited water
exchange with the open basins, weak vertical and enhanced pollutants including
macro and microplastics by river discharges, domestic and touristic wastes,
fisheries activities and other shipping discharges. Because most of the pollutants
come from the shore and near-shore regions of the marine environment, the
processes of horizontal mixing and shelf seawater exchange are of the great
importance (Oztekin et al. 2017).

The microlitter presence in the water column is an important issue and requires
further examination about transportation, origins, types and effects on biota, the
paper aiming to investigate the density and distribution of this type of pollution.

Materials and Methods

Between 30. 09. 2019 - 08. 10. 2019, an international expedition within
ANEMONE Project took place on the continental shelf of the Black Sea
(Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) in which 18 micro- and mesolitter samples were
collected (Figure 1).

209
 Figure 1. Map of station locations
Sampling

A net for microplastic sampling was used to collect micro- and mesolitter
samples. The used equipment was manufactured by Hydro-Bios, with a frame
size of 70x40 cm, the length of the net bag: 260 cm; mesh size: 200 μm, and a
float mounted on the sides of the frame in order to support the net on the water
surface. These characteristics of the net allow the accumulation of organisms
and particles that flows on the sea surface layer. After assembling the net, it was
attached to the winch cable and rinsed with fresh water before use to prevent
sample contamination.

Figure 2. Sampling of micro- and mesolitter

210
 After the net was launched the following information were noted:
 sampling start time.
 the starting value of the flowmeter.
 Start GPS position.
 average speed of the RV.
While towing the net, the ship had a semi-circular motion to prevent
the net from entering the ship's operating area.
The sampling time was 10 minutes, after the time expired, the net was
slowly towed on board the ship.
After the net was lifted out of the water the following information were
noted:
 the end time of the sampling.
 flowmeters stop value.
 End GPS position.

The net is recommended to be washed with filtered seawater on the outside of

the sieve to avoid possible contamination. After the sampling was performed,
the collecting recipient was detached, and the sample was stored in 1L
container, preserved with 8 mL of 37% formaldehyde per 100 mL sample and
stored in a sun-protected place. After each sampling, the net and the flowmeter
must be rinsed thoroughly with fresh water (Alexandrov et al. 2014) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Sampling of micro- and mesolitter

For microscopic processing, the sample was passed through a 60 µm sieve,

retaining both micro- and mesolitter and organic matter. The sample was
washed with filtered seawater to minimize contamination and reduce the amount
of formaldehyde (37%) and it was brought to a lower volume, depending on the
sample density.
The analysis of microlitter was performed for 1-5 mm size group. Mesoplastics
were also classified according to two size classes 5 – 10 mm, and 10 - 25 mm.
These were counted and measured under the Olympus SZX 10
stereomicroscope. Quantitative analysis consisted in assessing the number of
microlitter and their size on a known volume unit (microlitter/m³ and
mesolitter/m3) (Figure 4).

211
The paper uses the term micro- and mesolitter (ML) because the identification
was made as marine litter, the types of micro- and mesoplastics found in the
samples being not assessed.

Figure 4. Micro- and mesolitter identified in the collected samples

Results and Discussion

From the samples analysis we observed the presence of microlitter with

dimensions between 1 - 5 mm in the stations shown in figure 5, as follows:
- In the Romanian marine water, the maximum density value was
recorded in station RO_4 with 78.9 ML/m3 and the minimum value of
6.35 ML/m3 being recorded in station RO_2.
- In the Bulgarian marine water, the maximum density value was
recorded in station BG_3 with 99.45 ML/m3 and the minimum value of
2.75 ML/m3 in being recorded in station BG_8.
- In the Turkish marine water, the maximum density value was recorded
in station TR_4 with 45.58 ML/m3, and the minimum value of 2.85
ML/m3 being recorded in station in TR_5.

Mesolitter between 5 - 10 mm was identified in nine out of 18 stations. In the

Romanian marine area, this category was present in four stations out of six,
station RO_3 recording the maximum density value - 8.95 ML/m3 while in
RO_1 was recorded the minimum density of mesolitter - 1.43 ML/m3 (Figure 6).
In the Bulgaria marine area, the 5 - 10 mm mesolitter was present in three
stations, the recorded density being 2 times lower than in the Romanian marine
area. In Turkish marine area 5 - 10 mm mesolitter appeared in only one station,
the density being five times lower than the one recorded for the Romanian Black
Sea samples.

212
 Figure 5. Density of microlitter in SW Black Sea

Figure 6. Density of mesolitter with dimensions between 5-10 mm in SW Black Sea

Mesolitter higher than 10 mm was recorded only in two stations from the
Romanian marine area, with densities of 0.85 ML/m3 in RO_2 and 1.83 in RO_4
(Figure 7).

213
 2.00

ML/m³ 1.500

1.00

.500

.00
RO_2 RO_4
Sampling stations

Figure 7. Density of mesolitter with dimensions between 10 - 25 mm in Romania Black

Sea area

The microlitter average density presented variations. 1-5 mm microlitter

recorded the highest density value in samples collected from the Bulgarian
marine area, in Romania and Turkey being present in lower densities. 5-10 mm
mesolitter was present in very low densities in all three countries, while the 10-
25 mm mesolitter category was found only in the Romanian marine area (Figure
8).

50
45
40
35
30
ML/m³

25
20
15
10
5
0
RO 1-5 BG 1-5 TR 1-5 RO 5-10 BG 5-10 TR 5-10 RO > 10
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Sampling station

Figure 8. Average density of micro- and mesolitter in SW Black Sea

Microlitter and mesolitter distribution recorded high quantities in the Bulgarian

marine area (BG_6), being present in lower quantities in the Romanian and
Turkish marine areas (Figure 9).

214
 Figure 9. Microlitter and mesolitter distribution in the SW Black Sea

Conclusions

The 1-5 mm microlitter size was reported in all countries, with densities that
varied from one station to another. Following the analyses performed, a higher
density of the 1-5 mm microlitter was observed in the Bulgarian marine area
(99.45 ML/m3 in station BG_3). All three analysed microlitter and mesolitter
dimensions were present in the samples collected from the Romanian marine
area. In the Turkish marine area, the microlitter was present in smaller quantities
than in all the other studied areas. The average density presented variations, the
5-10 mm category being the one with the lowest values in all countries.

215
Acknowledgements

The study has been supported by the ANEMONE project “Assessing the vulnerability of
the Black Sea marine ecosystem to human pressures”, funded by the European
Union under ENI CBC Black Sea Basin Programme 2014-2020, grant contract
83530/20.07.2018.

References

Alexandrov, B., Arashkevich, E., Gubanova, A., Korshenko, A. (2014) Black

Sea Monitoring Guidelines Mesozooplankton. Available at:
http://emblasproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Mesozooplankton_Final-
July2015-PA3-f.pdf

Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C. (2012) Competitive sorption of

persistentorganic pollutants onto microplastics in the marine environment. Mar
Pollut Bull 64: 2782-2789.

Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009) Accumulation

and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc
B 364: 1985-1998.

Besseling, E., Wegner, A., Foekema, E.M., Van Den Heuvel-Greve, M.J.,
Koelmans, A.A. (2013) Effects of microplastic on fitness and PCB
bioaccumulation by the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.). Environ Sci Technol
47(1): 593-600.

Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T.S.,
Thompson, R.C. (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide:
sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol 45: 9175-9179.

Carpenter, E.J., Anderson, S.J., Harvey, G.R., Miklas, H.P., Peck, B.B. (1972)
Polystyrene spherules in coastal water. Science 178: 749-750.

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S. (2011) Microplastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 2588-
2597.

Desforges, J.P.W., Galbraith, M., Ross, P.S. (2015) Ingestion of microplastics

by zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
69: 320-330.

Engler, R.E. (2012) The complex interaction between marine debris and toxic
chemicals in the ocean. Environ Sci Technol 46(22): 12302-12315.

216
Galloway, T.S., Cole, M., Lewis, C. (2017) Interactions of microplastic debris
throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat Ecol Evol 1: 1-8.

Hanke, G., Galgani, F., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D.,
Kinsey, S., Thompson, R., Palatinus, A., Van Franeker, J.A., Vlachogianni, T.,
Scoullos, M., Veiga, J.M., Matiddi, M., Alcaro, L., Maes, T., Korpinen, S.,
Budziak, A., Leslie, H., Ago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) MSFD GES technical
subgroup on marine litter. Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in European
Seas. Luxembourg: Joint Research Centre–Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, Publications Office of the European Union.

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R.C., Thiel, M. (2012) Microplastics in

the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and
quantification. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3060-3075.

Oztekin, A., Levent, B. (2017) Microlitter pollution in sea water: a preliminary

study from Sinop Sarikum Coast of the Southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17: 1431-1440.

Rochman, C.M., Hoh E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S.W. (2013) Ingested plastic transfers
hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep 3: 3263.

Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A.,
Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R. (2009)
Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to
wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
364(1526): 2027-2045.

Thompson, R.C. (2015) Microplastics in the marine environment: Sources,

consequences and solutions. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds., Bergmann
M., Gutow L., Klages M.) Springer International Publishing. pp.185-200.

Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S. (2013) The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ Pollut 178: 483-492.

217
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Microplastics accumulation on the Black Sea coast:

Scenario analysis

Svetla Miladinova*, Diego Macias Moy, Adolf Stips,

Elisa Garcia-Gorriz

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, ITALY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The quantification of microplastics in the coastal marine waters is a problem of increasing

importance. This study is an attempt to quantify the microplastic accumulation along the
Black Sea coasts and to identify areas potentially in risk of high microplastic density. Here
we use an ocean circulation model paired with a Lagrangian particle tracking model to
describe the microplastics distribution and coastal accumulation. Assuming several
microplastic release zones, the relative quantity of particles accumulating in each Black
Sea’s littoral country is estimated. On the base of recent knowledge for the input of
microplastics to the Black Sea, the average annual accumulation in the coastal waters is
evaluated (e.g., it is greater than 5x103 items m-3 or 0.5 g m-3 in several locations).

Keywords: Microplastic distribution, particle tracking, stokes drift, litter sources, coastal
pollution

Introduction

Marine plastic litter is an emerging environmental challenge since the production

of plastic is steadily increasing. About 1.5 to 4.5% of the world's plastic
production is disposed of directly from the land into the sea (Jambeck et al. 2015).
Microplastics (MP) are generally defined as plastic particles smaller than a few
millimetres down to the micrometre range. The smaller the size of the plastics,
the wider the range of marine organisms that can absorb or interact with them.
Besseling et al. (2019) provided a review of current occurrence, in-situ
measurements, modelling approaches, processes, effects and effect thresholds
with regards to microplastics in the aquatic environment. The level of public
interest on the subject of microplastic pollution is expected to peak around 2022,
as has been forecast based on the history of attention focused on other
contaminants of emerging concern (Halden 2015). High concentrations of MP
have been detected in rivers and lakes in Europe (Lechner et al. 2014; Faure et al.
2015; Klein et al. 2015). Management and regulation of increasingly abundant
plastics have been recognised recently as priorities of the European Commission
(EC 2018, Plastics Strategy), as general awareness of the detrimental effects on
the environment and health due to the widespread use of plastics has risen, both
in the general population and at policy maker level.

218
The Black Sea appears to be particularly susceptible to the accumulation of
floating litter (BSC 2007; Lebreton et al. 2012; Aytan et al. 2016; Miladinova et
al. 2020b). Many surveys are focused on collecting and analysing marine litter
from the Black Sea beaches (Simeonova et al. 2017; Aytan et al. 2020; Oztekin
et al. 2020), while data for floating MP in the sea is exceptionally limited. MP
quantification requires weighing or counting, which is a difficult task especially
for small particles, which are barely visible to the naked eye (Molly et al. 2019).
This type of pollution crosses state boarders, passing from rivers and lakes into
the ocean and from one organism to another, accumulating along the food chain
(e.g., Carbery et al.2018). Despite the large number of qualitative studies of MP
in the marine environment, the accuracy of MP estimates is currently hindered by
lack of input data. Specifically, data on MP concentration in river runoffs and
streams are missing.

Detailed knowledge of the concentration of MP in marine and in coastal waters,

is crucial for assessing the risk to the environment and for managing MP derived
risk. In general, it is unknown what part of MP collected on the beach and coastal
waters has a local origin as, in many cases, MP pollution has a cross
border/supranational origin. Thus, tracing microplastics back to their sources is
an important challenge in the evaluating MP abundance and risk management.
This study describes a model assessment of (small and micro) plastic transport in
the Black Sea and focuses on coastal plastic accumulation. The cross-border
transport of plastics is, thus, evaluated. The present study aims to estimate the
density of MP in the coastal waters of the Black Sea using available MP input
data from observations and statistical approaches.

Materials and Methods

To simulate MP transport and accumulation, the output of a Black Sea circulation

model (Miladinova et al. 2017) is paired with a particle tracking model, Ichthyop
v3.3 (Lett et al. 2008) that computes trajectories of virtual particles released from
selected geographical areas. The Black Sea’s hydrodynamic circulation model
describes the main sea circulation dynamics, such as fronts, filaments and
mesoscale eddies, which are relevant to MP transport. The meteorological forcing
from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF)
available from http://www.ecmwf.int, based on 6-hourly records was applied. It
is part of the ERA-Interim project (2009-2018). Freshwater input has been
estimated using the values from the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC,
http://www.bafg.de/GRDC) runoff. The model is initialized by means of
temperature and salinity 3D fields coming from the MEDAR/MEDATLAS II
project (http://www.ifremer.fr/medar). The model has a horizontal grid spacing
of 2 x 2 min latitude–longitude (approx. 3–4 km). We hypothesize that when a
particle reaches the shore it stops moving. From that moment onwards, the
particle is removed from the simulation and remains trapped on the beach. The
model keeps track of the accumulation of beached particles during the simulation
period. The most common form of MP in the surface open ocean consists of

219
fragments of consumer plastic with a medium material density of 0.9-0.965 g cm3
(e.g., low- and high-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and foam polystyrene)
that allows particles to float in the water (Barnes and Milner 2005). The direct
effect of the wind drag on the individual particles is not considered, since small
floating plastic fragments are assumed to move under the sea surface in agreement
with previous modelling approaches. Our model does not consider neither particle
biofouling nor settling.

The same numerical approach has been previously applied to study the circulation
and accumulation of floating litter in the Mediterranean Sea (Macias et al. 2019)
and in the Black Sea (Miladinova et al. 2020b). In order to study particle
accumulation, which is independent of the number of released particles, a relative
particle density index (RPD) is introduced as RPD (%) = (number of particles in
a grid box/total amount of released particles) x 100. In order to decrease the effect
of interannual regional climate variation on the particle distribution, the 10-year
(2009-2018) mean number of particles in each grid box is used for RPD
evaluation. The RPD values are then grouped into a small number of bins for
increased clarity of the RPD visualization.

Scenario setup

Seven different scenarios are considered in the study (Table 1). In the beginning
of January (H1) or July (H2), 12000 particles are released homogeneously over
the basin surface. Prior to their release, the initial particle density in the basin is
set to zero. RPD is saved three months after the release. These scenarios are
intended to evaluate the impact of Stokes drift. Particles are released in winter
(H1) and summer (H2) in order to study the seasonal importance of the Stokes
drift on particles accumulation along the coast.

Furthermore, five scenarios are simulated with a release from a selected zone (i.e.,
Danube mouth, shelf area next to Istanbul, Kerch Straight, Dniepr mouth and
Rioni mouth). Release zones are located in the front of the river mouth for the
Danube, Dniepr and Rioni scenarios and in the front of the Kerch Strait for Azov
(Figure 1a). The Istanbul particle release zone is placed on the shelf nearest to the
city. Due to the lack of regular monitoring data for the inputs of MP to the Black
Sea, we use a scaled approach to define the particle release locations and
concentrations. Our scenarios are based on the model predictions made in
Siegfried et al. (2017). Their model calculated an export rate of 1503 tonnes of
MP per year from the Danube to the Black Sea, while the total MP influx from
land-based sources reached 4100 tonnes per year. This means that the Danube
accounts for 37% of the total MP input to the Black Sea. According to Siegfried
et al. (2017), in the year 2000, excluding the Danube, a high influx of MP is found
along the south-western coast of Turkey (Istanbul), Azov Sea, Dniepr and Rioni
rivers.

220
Individual simulations are performed by releasing particles from each one of the
zones and the results are summed to estimate the accumulation of particles due to
several sources. When the combined effect of several sources is calculated, the
output of each scenario is scaled according to the proportion given in Figure 1b.
The onset of particle release occurs in the beginning of every year and 1000
particles are released from a given zone daily throughout 365 days. Doubling the
number of released particles does not change the relative output of the model. All
scenarios are carried out separately for each year between 2009 and 2018.
Table 1. Scenario names, release locations, dates, and schedules.
Scenario Release Number of Start date End date Schedule of
name location particles release
H1 Homogeneous 12000 January, 1 March, 31 All
particles are
released on
the same
starting
date
H2 Homogeneous 12000 July, 1 September, 30 All
particles are
released on
the same
starting
date
Danube Danube 365000 January, 1 December, 31 1000
mouth particles are
Shelf area released
next to daily
Istanbul Istanbul
Azov Kerch
Straight
Dniepr Dniepr mouth

Rioni Rioni mouth

Figure 1. (a)The Black Sea’s microplastic release zones and (b) the relative contribution
of each release zone.

221
Stokes drift

A modification of the model presented in Miladinova et al. (2020b) is made to

account for the effect of Stokes drift velocity (𝑈𝑠𝑡 ) on the particle distribution.
The Stokes drift velocity represents the difference between the average
Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid portion and the average Eulerian flow velocity
of the fluid. Here, it is evaluated on the base of a simple parameterisation by wind
speed (Wu 1983): 𝑼𝑠𝑡 = 0.0186(𝑔𝐿𝑈𝑤−2 )𝑼𝑤 , where 𝑼𝑤 is the wind velocity at
10 m height, 𝑔 – gravity and L - wind fetch. The Stokes drift current varies from
about 2.3 to 2.6% of the wind speed, when wind fetch increases from 0.1 to 1000
km. Given the relative low impact of this parameter, wind fetch is fixed to 100
km in this study.

To evaluate the impact of including Stokes drift in our simulations, tracking of

12000 particles is performed with and without Stokes drift velocity. Figure 2
illustrates the variation of the beached particle density over time. For scenario H1,
(i) and (ii) show the relative density of beached particles (%) in the case with and
without Stokes drift, respectively. For the H2 scenario, curves (iii) and (iv)
illustrate the case with and without Stokes drift. In winter (i and ii), the inclusion
of the Stokes drift velocity decreases considerably particle beaching times. This
is an expected result, as winds are considerably stronger in the winter.
Counterintuitively, the addition of Stokes drift increases the beaching time in
summer slightly (iii and iv).

Figure 2. Relative density of beached particles (%) over time: (i) and (ii) denote scenario
H1 with and without Stokes drift, respectively; (iii) and (iv) illustrate results for scenario
H2.

Figure 3a shows the RPD three months after the release in January (H1), while
Figure 3b includes the RPD three months after the release in July (H2). Both plots
illustrate the RPD without Stokes drift effects. RPD values are grouped within six
intervals [0.1; 0.2), [0.2; 0.5), [0.5; 1), [1; 1.5), [1.5; 2) and ≥ 2 %. Areas with

222
RPD less than 0.1 are left blank. The preferred areas for coastal beaching in both
winter and summer include the southwest coast of Turkey (the area around the
Istanbul and the Sakarya River), several locations along the south-eastern
Anatolian coast and spreading across the entire eastern coast. Fewer particles are
accumulated along the northern coast in summer (H2) whilst a higher
concentration is found along the southern coast in summer months.

Figure 3. (a) RPD (%) three months after the release in January (H1) and (b) RPD three
months after the release in July (H2); (c) difference between RPD (%) of the model
without Stokes drift and RPD (%) of model with Stokes drift three months after the
release in January (H1); and (d) the same as in (c) but three months after the July particle
release (H2).

Differences between the RPD simulated by the model that ignores the Stokes drift
and the RPD of the model that takes into account the Stokes drift are shown in
Figure 3c and d. Six bins within the intervals ≤ -0.2, (-0.2; -0.1], (-0.1; -0.01],
[0.01; 0.1), [0.1; 0.2) and ≥ 0.2 % are defined. Differences in plastic concentration
of the order less than 10-2 % are not plotted. Blue squares denote RPD decrease
due to the addition of the Stokes drift term, while the red squares indicate RPD
increase. When the particles are released in January, more particles accumulate
along the coast and fewer are left in the inner basin in the case when considering
the Stokes velocity contribution (Figure 3c). More particles are beached along the
northern and southern coast in scenario H1 with Stokes drift. The effect of the
Stokes drift in summer is substantially reduced due to low wind velocities (Figure
3d). Note that most of the differences in summer are in the range (-0.1; -0.01] and
[0.01; 0.1) %, and more particles accumulate in the western inner basin.

223
Model results suggest that the addition of Stokes drift velocity, as parameterized
in Wu (1983), leads to considerable changes in particle accumulation along the
south-western and eastern Black Sea coast in winter months. The inclusion of the
Stokes drift leads to fewer particles accumulating along the eastern and south-
western (41.4 - 42.13° N) coast. On the contrary, along the northern and western
coasts and in several locations along the southern coast particles tend to
accumulate in larger numbers when Stokes Drift is considered. Due to the lack of
consistent data to evaluate the model, we cannot assess whether the addition of
Stokes drift velocity improves the performance of the model.

Measured data

The available monitoring data on the distribution and density of MP in the Danube
is summarised in Table 2. Only three studies (Lechner et al. 2014; SFRA0025
2015; Liedermann et al. 2018) presented data from surveys in the Danube, while
for other hot spots of marine litter generation (e.g., Istanbul, Azov Sea, Dniepr
and Rioni) data is not reported. Data from Danube has been collected from several
river transects (with different population densities and hydrological conditions),
in different time periods and with different methodologies. The mass density of
MP collected with nets of ≥ 0.5 mm mesh size is higher than with finer nets, while
the abundance is lower. The analysis of filtration efficiency and side-by-side
measurements with different mesh sizes showed that nets ≥ 0.5 mm led to better
results (Liedermann et al. 2018). According to SFRA0025 (2015), the usage of
larger mesh size nets is most appropriate for determining the river MP load in
terms of g m-3. However, for determining the potential harm of the river input of
MP in terms of item m-3, SFRA0025 (2015) propose to use finer mesh size nets.
Note that two different estimates are given in Table 2 in the study considering the
Galati region: (MP) corresponding to the small mesh size and (SP) corresponding
to the bigger mesh size. Comparing the mass density in closely located areas near
Vienna and Heimberg (nets = 0.5 mm), it is obvious that microplastic mass
density in Lechner et al. (2014) is 100-fold higher than in Hohenblum et al.
(2015). Mass density according SFRA0025 (2015) (nets = 0.33 mm) better agree
with the data in Hohenblum et al. (2015). It appears that the number of collected
particles measured in number of items captured per m-3 varies broadly depending
on the nets and collecting methodologies.

Total load of MP dispersed into the Black Sea depend on the river discharge.
Forecasts for loads (Table 2), expressed in ton year-1, show the expected trend for
MP concentration with increasing distance from the river source (Hohenblum et
al. 2015 and SFRA0025 2015). While the estimated MP river-based loading in
Vienna in terms of number of item year-1, is close to the case (SP) of bigger
particles by SFRA0025 (2015). In summary, the available studies about river
inputs of MP to the Black Sea basin are not sufficient for a precise evaluation of
the actual inputs. However, they can be used as a proxy to estimate the
approximate concentrations (in item m-3 and g m-3) of plastic particles
accumulated on the Black Sea coast.

224
Table 2. Observed concentrations of microplastics in different sections of the Danube. Estimated annual influx of microplastics into the Black
Sea from Danube, calculated for these sections
Danube study Particle Particle Net Danube Load Load Survey Reference
area number mass mesh flow rate item year-1 x ton year-1 period
(item m-3) (g m-3 size (m3 s-1) 1010
x10-3) (mm)
Aschach - 0.063- 0.25 1100- - 2.19 – Spring Hohenblum et
0.22 0.5 2100 14.6 2014 al. 2015
0.105-
0.33

Vienna 0-14 x104 0.2-615 0.5 1930 1.928 292.187 Apr-Jul Lechner et al.
mean mean 4.8 2010 and 2014
0.317 2012
Hainburg - 0.046-2.5 0.25 1500- - 2.19 – Spring Hohenblum et
0.054-6.1 0.5 3000 24.1 2014 al. 2015
Galati (MP) 10.6 1.2 0.33 217.31 237.97 SFRA0025
May-Sep 2015
6500 2014
(SP) 0.113 2.6 3.2 2.315 532.395

225
Results and Discussion

MP sources into the Black Sea

Firstly, we evaluate the contribution of plastic influx zones, described in Figure

1a to the pollution of the Black Sea littoral coast. Five scenarios are carried out
separately and the number of particles in the grid boxes is calculated considering
final position of MP particles at the end of the simulation year. The particles in
the grid boxes spanning the coastline of each state are then summed to count the
overall number of accumulated particles per country. Furthermore, the numbers
of particles per country are averaged across the time period 2009-2018 and the
mean RPD (%) per country is calculated and presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Simulated annual RPD accumulation (%) along the coastlines of the Black Sea
littoral countries. Error bars indicate one standard deviation. The same number of
particles (1000 per day) is released from each zone (see legend). UA -Ukraine, RO -
Romania, BG – Bulgaria, TR – Turkey, GE – Georgia, and RU – Russia.

The Danube scenario is a clear example of high transnational pollution. All

coastal states receive particles coming from the Danube. The largest number of
released particles reach Turkey (26.45%) and Ukraine (20%). In the other four
scenarios, the country that releases the particles gets back the largest number of
particles. The release from Rioni leads to a high number of beached particles
(91.3%), where the majority are trapped on the Georgian coast (79.63%) and a
smaller part reach the Russian coast (10%). Another scenario showing a high
percentage of beached particles is Azov (89%), while for the other three scenarios
(e.g., Danube, Dniepr and Istanbul) the percentage is about 80%.

Microplastic pathways

The location of the release zones differs oceanographically, which is the main
reason for the different final location of the micro-particles. For example, two of
the plastic emitters (Danube and Dniepr) are placed on the North Western Shelf
(NWS), where particle propagation is initially controlled by the Danube plume

226
movement. Miladinova et al. (2020a) suggested three major Danube pathways –
(1) southward pathway along the western coast; (2) initially directed to the north
and east, then turning to the south and being shifted eastward; and (3) trapped for
a month or more on the NWS, then turns to the south being shifted eastward.
Following (1), the particles are expected to beach mostly along the western coast
(e.g., Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey). If the particles follow pathways (2) and
(3), they are expected to accumulate along the coastline of the NWS countries
(Romania, Ukraine and Russia). The Danube plume flow affects the distribution
of particles released from Dniepr zone. Particles coming from this zone are locked
in the NWS for a certain time. Then, the system current captures and transports
them to the south-west in a cyclonic direction. For this reason, both Ukraine and
Turkey accumulate the majority of particles released from the Dniepr (Figure 4).
Variability in the NWS river plume pathway leads to variability in the quantity of
particle beaching along the Ukraine/Russian coastline.

Figure 5. Particle trajectories in 2009 starting from different release zones. (a) Danube
and Rioni; (b) Istanbul; (c) Azov and (d) Dniepr. One per month trajectory is represented
in colour particular for the zone.

Figure 5 shows an example of simulated MP trajectories corresponding to specific

release zones. One per month trajectory is presented in a region-specific colour.
As expected, MP transport from the Danube zone is strongly dependent on
Danube volumetric flow and particle trajectories follow the southward direction
along the west shelf (Figure 5a). Usually this transport does not follow the western

227
coastline, yet is shifted to the east (pathways (2) and (3)). Particles released in the
western basin flow preferably in the west gyre (Figure5a, b and d). Particles
released from Azov Sea and which are not trapped near the Kerch Straight are
transported by the main cyclonic current. The particles are thus transported to the
southwest or southeast coast depending on the integrity of the main current. If the
current splits into two main gyres (summer-autumn), Azov particles circulate in
the eastern gyre. Whereas, if the current is integrated (in winter-spring), the
particles are forced to move along the western gyre (Figure 5c). The eastern gyre
is weaker than the western and usually resides in the eastern basin, along with
several vigorous cyclonic and anticyclonic eddies in the easternmost part
(Miladinova et al. 2020b). These eddies capture most of the particles released by
the Rioni, thus limiting the trajectories of the particles to the easternmost part
(Figure 5a).

Microplastics accumulation on the Black Sea coastal waters

In the next set of experiments, we intend to estimate the approximate density of

MP in the coastal waters of the Black Sea in terms of items per m-3 and grams per
m-3. Since RPD (%) represents the relative density of the particles (relative to the
particle input), if the MP input is known, we can easily estimate the MP
concentration in the basin by multiplying the RPD by the input values. We
calculate the volumetric density, namely the number of particles in each grid box
divided by the box volume. In order to find volumetric densities we need to
evaluate the approximate microplastics input. The variability of the input is
significant in the samples from the Danube regions (Table 2). We are aware that
the measured concentrations (loads) are only order of magnitude estimates, not
precise data. The accumulation of MP when considering different release zones
is shown in Figure 6. The input is calculated by using the Danube input (MP)
from SFRA0025 (2015). We analysed the respective microplastic concentrations
with caution, as the authors suggest an overestimation due to the very high
Danube discharge during the sampling period. In addition, MP concentrations in
the Black Sea, calculated using the Danube input (SP) by SFRA0025 (2015), can
be easily estimated by multiplying the results presented in Figure 6 by a factor of
0.01 (see in Table 2, particle number (item m-3) for (MP) and (SP), respectively).
The remaining sources are estimated on the basis of the relative contribution of
each source given in Figure 1b. For better visibility, the microplastic
concentration are grouped in 6 bins (see legend in Figure 6) and the size of the
symbols increases with the concentration.

The location and particle density of the input zone are important for modelled MP
concentrations. Substantial MP densities are found locally near the input zone. In
Figure 6a are shown MP densities resulting from a release from the Danube zone.
The Danube zone is in close proximity to the Danube river mouth (Figure 1a) and
releases 6.3x109 items per day (calculated from (MP) in Galati). MP density in
coastal regions is greater than 104 (item m-3). Far away from the Danube, MP

228
density decreases slightly to ~103 (item m-3) until Cape Kaliakra (28.47°E,
43.37°N) where it becomes ~102 (item m-3) or less. There, MP accumulation on
the coast is suppressed by the Kaliakra anticyclonic eddy (Miladinova et al.
2020a), which shifts MP flow to the east. Further along the south-western coast
between 27.8 and 29°E, MP density begins to increase (.5-2 x 103 items m-3). The
Istanbul release zone is in this area. Notwithstanding the release from Istanbul,
this area receives MP released from Danube, Dniepr and Azov (Figure 6a, c and
d). In several locations along the Anatolian coast, MP densities of about 103 (items
m-3) are calculated and MP tend to accumulate north and northeast of the Danube.
The rest of the Black Sea coast is less polluted by the input from the Danube. The
lower particle accumulation along the eastern coast is a new finding of the study,
which incorporates Stokes drift and differs from results presented in Miladinova
et al. (2020b).

Figure 6. Mean density of microplastics x 103 (item m-3) over 1999 – 2018 in the case of
different sources (a) Danube; (b) Istanbul; (c) Azov; (d) Dniepr; (e) Rioni and (f) all five
sources together.

229
MP released from Istanbul are accumulated predominately along the Anatolian
coast, eastern coast and western Crimea. Looking at Figure 6, it is evident that
several zones along the Anatolian coast always accumulate MP (e.g. Kefken
(30.2°E, 41.17°N), Ereğli (31.3°E, 41.2°N), Zonguldak (31.5°E, 41.3° N),
Sarikum (34.9°E, 42° N) and Tirebolu (38.87 °E, 41.07°N)). While the influence
of the release location for the nearby beaching particles is obvious, these hot spot
beaching sites at the Anatolian coast are independent of the release location.
Figure 6f represents the total effect of MP release from all five sources. The most
polluted coastal areas are in the vicinity of Istanbul, Kefken, Rioni and Danube
(MP concentration >50 item m-3). Our recent results confirm previous findings
that the southwest coast of Turkey (the area around the Bosphorus Straight and
the Sakarya River) is a hotspot of MP accumulation, regardless of the location of
MP release.

Figure 7. Annual microplastic accumulation (ton year-1) along the coastlines of the Black
Sea littoral countries.

Model results may be used to explore and quantify the risk of MP accumulation
on the Black Sea coast. For example, Figure 7 shows the approximate MP
accumulation (tonnes per year) of Black Sea countries. It is derived from the
annual RPD accumulation (%), presented in Figure 4, and then is scaled with
estimated inputs to the Black Sea. Assuming that the annual Danube load is 238
tonnes year-1 (SFRA0025 2015) and that it accounts for 37% of the total input
(Siegfried et al. 2017), the total input of MP can be estimated at 643 tonnes per
year. Assuming the relative contribution of each release like that presented in
Figure 1b, we can estimate inputs to the Black Sea expressed in ton year-1 and
thus also estimate MP accumulation per country (Figure 7). The annual
accumulation of input (SP) can be easily calculated, as its input is twice as large
(Table 2). Turkey collects the largest amount of MP, which is not surprising, as it
has the largest coastline (1700 km), and MP tends to accumulate in large
concentrations in many geographical locations along the Turkish coast (Figure.
6f). Figure 7 may obviously change, when different inputs are assumed.

230
Nevertheless, the simulations show the potential of the Black Sea coastal
countries to retain and accumulate MP.

Comparison with measured data

No monitoring is yet in place for MP in the Black Sea. Because of this, no direct
assessment of model prediction is currently possible. The results of our model
can, however, be compared with published observations of MP concentrations at
several specific sites (Table 3).

In Sevastopol Bay (33.5°E, 44.6°N) our model forecasts 0.16 x 103 (item m-3)
mean MP density (Figure 6f). This value is two orders of magnitude higher than
the measured density by Mukhanov et al. (2019). However, if (Galati-SP) input
is assumed, then model results are in agreement with the observed values. Berov
& Klayn (2020) recorded the highest densities of floating MP west of Cape
Kaliakra and outer Burgas Bay-Pomorie (27.63°E, 42.57°N). Additionally, there
is a notable increase of concentrations of MP in the vicinity of Cape Kaliakra and
Burgas Bay-Pomorie in comparison with the measured MP along the transect
connecting these two sampling points. Our results also show elevated MP
concentrations at these specific sites and drastically low concentrations along the
coastline that connects them. (Figure 6f). Our model estimates for MP
concentrations, expressed in item m-3, are also two orders of magnitude higher
than the observations (of the same order for (Galati-SP) input), probably due to
the overestimation of the input sources (SFRA0025 2015).

Table 3. Observed concentrations of microplastics in the Black Sea.

Black Sea Particle Particle Net mesh Survey period Reference
region number mass size
(item m-3) (g m-3) x10-3 (mm)
South-eastern 600-1200 - 0.2 Nov 2014 Aytan et al.
part Feb 2015 (2016)
Bulgarian 0.15-2.54 0.0044-6.54 0.3 8-10 Aug Berov and Klayn
coast (mean (mean 2017 (2020)
0.62) 0.917)
Sevastopol Bay 0.6-7 0.006-0.75 0.3 Jan-May 2019 Mukhanov et al.
(2019)

If the smallest sized particles are not counted in the samples, the number of
particles in the model and the data might be very different. Indeed, MP
concentrations in g m-3 agree much better with simulation results. The measured
MP density near Cape Kaliakra is 6.5 x10-3 (g m-3), while the model forecast is
18 x10-3 (g m-3). Comparing our results with the observational data provided by
Aytan et al. (2016), we can conclude that they agree quite well (our model
forecasts 200-1000 item m-3). Interestingly, the results of the model show a

231
maximum accumulation in the study area exactly where the survey data reaches
a maximum. The maximum MP density of 1.7 x 103 (item m-3) is simulated at
(40.3°E, 41°N). Therefore, there exists reasonable agreement with the few
measurements available.

Conclusions

This model predicts MP accumulation sites in coastal areas, when emitted by

land-based sources and entering the sea through river runoffs. It also estimates
the relative contribution of several land-based sources to the Black Sea coastal
pollution. All of the Black Sea coastal states receive MP coming from the Danube,
whereas the largest number of MP accumulate along the Turkish and Ukrainian
coasts. The south-western Black Sea coast (near Istanbul) and southern Black Sea
lagoons are plausible hotspots for MP accumulation. Data from recent surveys on
MP distribution along the Black Sea coast appear to support model simulations.
So far, there is lack of adequate empirical data on the volumes, types and time
evolution of MP in fresh waters surrounding the Black Sea. Yet, the model
estimates can be considered as trends for the MP marine water pollution dynamics
of the Black Sea. Despite the model limitations, an evaluation of the MP density
of the Black Sea waters is important because it provides the likely regional
hotspots for MP concentration. This work can also support the identification of
priority regions, for monitoring of MP accumulation and planning of future
coastal water cleaning facilities.

Acknowledgments

We thank to "The Global Runoff Data Centre, 56068 Koblenz, Germany" for the Danube
daily discharge rates. Special thanks go to the GETM/GOTM/FABM developers for
providing and maintaining the model. Thanks to Peter Marinov for editing the style and
language.

References

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Sahin, F.B.E., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Aytan, U., Sahin, F.B., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach (SE
Black Sea): density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms.
Turk J Fish & Aquat Sci 20(2): 137-145.

Barnes, D.K.A., Milner, P. (2005) Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile
organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 146(4): 815-825.

Berov, D., Klayn, S. (2020) Microplastics and floating litter pollution in

Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 156: 111225.

232
Besseling, E., Redondo-Hasselerharm, P., Foekema, E.M., Koelmans, A.A.
(2019) Quantifying ecological risks of aquatic micro- and nanoplastic. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49(1): 32-80.

BSC (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: a Review of the Problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul-Turkey, Available at:
http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-ML.asp.

Carbery, M., O’Connor, W., Palanisami, T. (2018) Trophic transfer of

microplastics and mixed contaminants in the marine food web and implications
for human health. Environment International 115: 400-409.

EC (2018) Communication from the Commission: A European Strategy for

Plastics in a Circular Economy – Strategy, COM/2018/028, Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/.

Faure, F., Demars, C., Wieser, O., Kunz, M., De Alencastro, L.F. (2015) Plastic
pollution in Swiss surface waters: nature and concentrations, interaction with
pollutants. Environ Chem 12(5): 582-591.

Halden, R.U. (2015) Epistemology of contaminants of emerging concern and

literature meta-analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 282: 2-9.

Hohenblum, P., Liebmann, B., Liedermann, M. (2015) Plastic and Microplastic

in the Environment. Technical report, Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, 2015.

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(6223): 768-771.

Klein, S., Worch, E., Knepper, T.P. (2015) Occurrence and spatial distribution of
microplastics in river shore sediments of the Rhine-Main area in Germany.
Environ Sci Technol 49(10): 6070-6076.

Lebreton, L.C.M., Greer, S.D., Borrero, J.C. (2012) Numerical modelling of

floating debris in the world's oceans. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 653-661.

Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart,
M., Glas, M., Schludermann, E. (2014) The Danube so colourful: A potpourri of
plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river.
Environmental Pollution 188: 177-181.

Lett, C., Verley, P., Mullon, C., Parada, C., Brochier, T., Penven, P., Blanke, B.
(2008) A Lagrangian tool for modelling ichthyoplankton dynamics.
Environmental Modelling and Software, Elsevier 23: 1210-1214.

233
Liedermann, M., Gmeiner, P., Pessenlehner, S., Haimann, M., Hohenblum, P.,
Habersack, H. (2018) A methodology for measuring microplastic transport in
large or medium rivers. Water 10: 414.

Macias, D., Cózar, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E., Gonzalez, D., Stips, A. (2019) Surface
water circulation develops seasonally changing patterns of floating litter
accumulation in the Mediterranean Sea. A modelling approach. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 149: 110619.

Miladinova, S., Macias Moy, D., Stips, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E. (2020b) Identifying
distribution and accumulation patterns of floating marine debris in the Black Sea.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 153: 110964.

Miladinova, S., Stips, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E., Macias Moy, D. (2017) Black Sea
thermohaline properties: Long-term trends and variations. J Geophys Res 122:
5624-5644.

Miladinova, S., Stips, A., Macias Moy, D., Garcia-Gorriz, E. (2020a) Pathways
and mixing of the north western river waters in the Black Sea. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 236: 106630.

Molly, L.R., Gwinnett, C., Woodall, L.C. (2019) Quantification is more than
counting: Actions required to accurately quantify and report isolated marine
microplastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 139: 100-104.

Mukhanov, V.S., Litvinyuk, D.A., Sakhon, E.G., Bagaev, A.V., Veerasingam, S.,
Venkatachalapathy, R. (2019) A new method for analyzing microplastic particle
size distribution in marine environmental samples. Ecologica Montenegrina 23:
77-86.

Oztekin, A., Bat, L., Gokkurt-Baki, O. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop
Sarikum Lagoon coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 20: 197-205.

SFRA0025 (2015) Identification and Assessment of Riverine Input of (Marine)

Litter, Final Report for the European Commission DG Environment under
Framework Contract No ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0025, Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-
10/pdf/.

Siegfried, M., Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Kroeze, C. (2017) Export of

microplastics from land to sea. A modelling approach. Water Research 127: 249-
257.

234
Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V. (2017) Seasonal dynamics of marine
litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 119(1): 110-
118.

Wu, J. (1983) Sea-surface drift currents induced by wind and waves. Journal of
Physical Oceanography 13(8): 1441-1451.

235
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Cetaceans and marine litter in the Black Sea

Arda M. Tonay1,2*, Beril Gül3, Ayhan Dede1,2,

Ayaka Amaha Öztürk1,2
1 Faculty of Aquatic Sciences, Istanbul University, Ordu Cad. No: 8, Istanbul, TURKEY
2 Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), P.O. Box: 10, Istanbul, TURKEY
3 Institute of Graduate Studies in Sciences, Istanbul University, Esnaf Hastanesi Binası 4.

Kat, Fatih, İstanbul, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Marine litter, especially plastics, is an essential source of danger for cetaceans. Since the
Black Sea is a semi-enclosed sea with numerous rivers flowing in, marine litter
accumulated here pose a serious threat to the three cetacean species inhabiting the basin
vulnerable. This paper reviews the studies in the Black Sea since 1956 on the relationship
between marine litter and cetaceans. Impacts of marine litter on cetaceans, especially
entanglement and ingestion, have been compared with similar cases elsewhere in the world.
Since there are very few studies on the relationship of marine litter and cetaceans in the
Black Sea, we cannot elucidate the effect of the increase in marine litter on cetaceans in
recent years, thus further and continuous studies are needed.

Keywords: Marine mammals, cetacean, marine litter, plastics

Introduction

The Black Sea is a semi-enclosed basin connected to the Mediterranean Sea via
the Turkish Straits System (TSS-Marmara Sea, Istanbul and Çanakkale Straits)
and one of the largest anoxic basins in the world (Tezcan et al. 2017). More than
40 rivers flow into the Black Sea, three of which are major ones, carrying wastes
of industrialized countries of the basin (Jaoshvili 2002; Oğuz 2017). These factors
with very dynamic current system make the Black Sea very vulnerable to marine
litter (Topçu et al. 2013). The insufficiency of the importance given to the Black
Sea coastal pollution, as well as the presence of ship traffic, active tourism areas,
and intensive fishing activities, are harmful for all marine organisms, including
cetaceans (BSC 2007). In the Black Sea, there are three cetacean subspecies;
Phocoena phocoena relicta (harbour porpoise), Tursiops truncatus ponticus
(bottlenose dolphin) and Delphinus delphis ponticus (short-beaked common
dolphin) (Öztürk 1999). The populations of cetacean in the Black Sea defined as
subspecies are listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2020);
harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin are EN (Endangered), common dolphin
is VU (Vulnerable).

Nowadays, plastic, the most abundant man-made substance in the world, is one
of the most typical marine and freshwater pollutants, also takes the lead in marine

236
litter (Zaitsev 2008; GEF 2012; Gall and Thompson 2015). Since plastic is a
lightweight, flexible and durable material, it has become one of the most useful
materials today (Thompson et al. 2009). There is a significant amount of plastic
litter throughout the world's oceans and seas (Jambeck et al. 2015). It is estimated
that only plastic litter could reach 250 million metric tons in oceans and seas until
2025 (Jambeck et al. 2015).

Marine litter can directly affect marine species such as by entanglement or

ingestion, or indirectly, such as changes in habitat (NOAA 2014a, b). For marine
mammals, macro plastics (> 2.5 cm) in various sizes can cause poor swimming
ability, hunger, malnutrition, life-threatening injuries and death due to
entanglement or ingestion (Laist 1997; Derraik 2002; Gregory 2009; GEF 2012;
NOAA 2014a). Ingestion of plastic or other marine debris has been documented
for 48 cetacean species (9 mysticetes, 39 odontocetes) which means 56% of all
cetacean species (Baulch and Perry 2014) and entanglement for 53 species (CBD
2016). The reporting of entanglement and ingestion by marine mammals began
in the 1960s (Laist 1997; GEF 2012). However, the seriousness of the problem
was not noticed until the early 1980s (Reeves 2009). Enormous amount of plastic
currently used in our daily life has caused damage on marine mammals due to the
entanglement and ingestion of marine debris. The number of marine animal
species (663 species) affected by these two particular types of interaction with
marine debris has increased by 40 % since 1997 (GEF 2012). After this report,
the number of species has risen to 817 with additional impact factors considered,
such as ingestion, entanglement, ghost fishing, and dispersal by rafting and
provision of new habitat (CBD 2016).

The ingestion of plastics can cause blockage and wounds in the digestive system,
the latter leading to satiation, starvation and general debilitation often fatal in
marine organism (Gregory 2009). In addition to being fatal for marine mammals,
ingestion and entanglement may have different consequences, indirectly. Taking
plastic in the stomach and not being able to digest affects the sense of hunger
(appetite), which leads to deterioration in body condition (GEF 2012). Some
entanglement may occur when a marine animal is attracted to debris caused by a
normal array of behaviour such as feeding and playing (Laist 1997). It is also a
concern for marine mammals, as it can provide a way to transfer harmful
chemicals from plastics (Bradney et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019), directly ingesting
microplastics (< 5 mm) or introducing them into the body through a food chain
(Simmonds 2012; Lusher et al. 2015). Dolphins are known to be playful with
many living or inanimate objects around them. Some species of dolphins can
carry a piece of algae, plastic, or another pliable object in a manner to keep it
balanced on their jaws, flippers, dorsal fin, or tail, for gameplay (Silva 2005;
Würsig 2009). In addition, the squid diet of many species makes them prone to
swallowing plastics (Hooker 2009).

237
Although studies on marine litter pollution, including macroplastics and/or
microplastics, in the Turkish Black Sea have increased in recent years (Topçu and
Öztürk 2010; Topçu et al. 2013; Aytan et al. 2016, 2020), there are very few
studies on their affect or relationship with cetaceans.

Studies on marine litter and cetaceans in the Black Sea

One of the first and most comprehensive studies on the relation of cetaceans and
marine litter in the Black Sea was made during the winter-spring period between
1933 and 1934 by Kleinenberg (1956), who reported many foreign bodies from
the stomachs of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), such as, coal slag, wood
and paper pieces, bird feathers, cherry stones and even a bunch of roses.

Tonay et al. (2007a) examined the stomachs of 42 harbour porpoises bycaught in

turbot nets and/or stranded on the Turkish western coasts of the Black Sea
between 2002 and 2003. They found various plastic pieces in five stomachs (12%).
However, 40.9 g plastic bags (Figure 1) and sheeting were found in the stomach
content of one individual (Table 1). This was the fourth reported case of plastic
ingestion by a harbour porpoise in 2007 after those reported in Baird and Hooker
(2000).

Table 1. List of harbour porpoises with plastics in the stomach contents on the Turkish
western Black Sea coast (Tonay et al. 2007a).
Total length Stranding/
No Sex Date Items ingested
(cm) Bycatch
1 135 female 10.04.2003 Plastic pieces Stranding
2 98 male 10.05.2003 Plastic pieces Bycatch
3 140 female 28.05.2003 Plastic pieces Bycatch
4 135 female 28.05.2003 Plastic pieces Bycatch
Plastic bags and
5 130 female 21.06.2003 Bycatch
sheeting

Figure 1. The stomach of the harbour porpoise (no. 5 in Table 1) with full of plastics and
the plastic pieces found in the stomach (Background grid 15x15cm).

238
On the northwestern coast of the Crimea Peninsula from January to November
2008, a total of 120 cetacean individuals were caught as bycatch (118 harbour
porpoises and 2 bottlenose dolphins). Fresh and relatively fresh carcasses of 12
harbour porpoises were necropsied and stomach contents were examined. There
was no marine litter in their stomachs (Birkun and Krivokhizhin 2008).

The stomach contents of stranded bottlenose dolphins on the Crimean coast were
analysed in 2013. Organic parts (fish, bivalve shell fragments, and isopods),
plastic and other debris (small pebbles, wood) were found in the stomachs of these
dolphins (Gladilina and Gol’din 2014).

Bilgin et al. (2018) carried out a study between March 2010 and September 2011,
in Rize, the eastern Turkish Black Sea coast. Stomachs of 52 harbour porpoises,
and 6 common dolphins were examined and no plastic was detected in any of
them. However, they found a dead stranded common dolphin with the plastic
handle of a tin can attached to the upper jaw. Similar cases had been reported
previously elsewhere in the world and plastic parts of various shapes, such as
twin-like, ring, affecting the feeding of cetaceans (minke whale Balaenoptera
acutorostrata, short-beaked common dolphin, Franciscana dolphin Pontoporia
blainvillei) by wrapping around their rostrum or beak (Gill et al. 2000;
Independent.ie 2014; GZH 2018; Daily Mail 2019).

Figure 2. Plastic nylon parts and nylon net found in a stomach of a stranded bottlenose
dolphin in the TSS (Dede 1999)

Cetacean depredation on fishing gear sometimes results in the ingestion of fishing

gear (Gomerčić et al. 2009). Gladilina et al. (2015) reported near Crimea in 2014
that a piece of polyamide fishing net was found in the mouth of a bottlenose
dolphin. As the cause of death, it was speculated that the dolphin swallowed a
piece of net incidentally; the net entangled the throat and broke the larynx, which
caused the choking with blood. There is a study indicating that the cetacean
interaction with plastic debris and fishing net is observed in the TSS, connecting

239
the Black Sea and Marmara Sea. It has been reported that nylon parts and nylon
nets used for catching demersal fish were detected in a stomach of a stranded
bottlenose dolphin (body length 228cm, female) in the Istanbul Strait (Dede 1999)
(Figure 2). In another two studies on cetacean stomach contents, no plastic residue
was found in the stomachs of 4 harbour porpoises (Tonay et al. 2007b) and 13
individuals (7 common dolphins, 3 bottlenose dolphins, 2 harbour porpoises, 1
striped dolphin) (Bayar 2014).

Ghost nets

Fishing devices also consist significant part of marine litter and ghost nets in
particular have been considered as a serious threat for marine ecosystem. Ghost
fishing had been defined as the loss of fishing nets resulting in continuous hunting
without control by fıshermen (Smolowitz 1978; Breen 1990). However, it is
usually hard to distinguish entanglement in active fishing gear from that in
abandoned gear for cetaceans (Simmonds 2012). Turbot nets in particular, which
are installed at the sea but not hauled later, become ghost nets in the Black Sea
and the number of such nets is unknown. These nets cause decrease habitats of
harbour porpoises and bottlenose dolphins by creating a risk of bycatch (Birkun
2002; Birkun et al. 2007). In a study conducted in the southwestern part of Crimea
in 2008, three old ghost nets were found and only mussels and some invertebrate
species were identified in these nets (Birkun and Krivokhizhin 2008). Öztürk
(2013) revealed that, however, given the turbot nets retrieved in the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) by the cooperation of the Turkish-Romanian governments,
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing is a major source for the ghost
fishing in the Black Sea. Ghost fishing damages the benthic ecosystem as well
(Öztürk 2013). According to the survey conducted with local fishermen, in the
2008 and 2009 fishing seasons, a total amount of 1279 turbot nets were lost in
Istanbul (Yıldız and Karakulak 2016), 1254 of which were in the Romanian and
Ukrainian EEZ (Yıldız 2010).

Figure 3. A stranded bottlenose dolphin with a piece of old fishing net.

During the stranded cetacean monitoring studies, a bottlenose dolphin carcass was
found in June 2012 on the western Turkish Black Sea coast with a piece of net

240
which looked like the one used in the 1970-80’s in Turkey (Figure 3). However,
since the net was very clean, if this type of net is used in the other Black Sea
riparian countries, it may also come with currents. For example; this type of net
had been used at least until 2009 or 2010 in Ukraine (pers. comm. Pavel Gol’din*).
In any case, it was obvious that a bottlenose dolphin was entangled by an old net.

Conclusion

There are not enough studies carried out periodically about the effects of
increasing pollution and plastic wastes in the Black Sea on protected marine
mammals. For the cetacean species in the Black Sea, there is a lack of scientific
knowledge, such as critical habitats, anthropogenic and natural threats, and life
history etc. (Birkun 2008).

The risk of bycatch in turbot nets for cetaceans was determined as almost doubled
if the net also entangles plastic litter. Birkun (2009) reported one km of turbot net
contaminated by plastics caught 2.3 cetaceans whereas one km of the same net
free from plastics caught 1.2 cetaceans.

Marine plastic litter has a fatal effect on cetaceans, especially on their longevity
for entanglement and ingestion. GEF (2012) reported that if the marine litter is
not controlled, some cetacean species may face the risk of extinction (GEF 2012).
In the marine ecosystem, it is particularly important to prevent and remove ghost
nets. One of good examples was the removal of about 449,000 m2 abandoned nets
between 2014-2018 in 600 locations in Turkish marine and freshwaters (BSGM
2019).

Considering that the cetacean species in the Black Sea are endangered, we should
make every effort to decrease the amount of marine litter in the Black Sea. More
studies are required to reveal the consequences of the relationship between marine
litter and cetaceans. Besides, it is of great importance for the Black Sea that public
awareness is increased and that governments and NGO’s carry out marine litter
removal or preventive activities.

*pers. comm. Pavel Gol’din, I. I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National

Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

References

Aytan, U., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach (SE
Black Sea): density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms.
Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

241
Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Sahin, F.B.E., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea waters.
Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Baird, R.W., Hooker, S.K. (2000) Ingestion of plastic and unusual prey by a
juvenile harbour porpoise. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 719-720.

Baulch, S., Perry, C. (2014) Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 80(1-2): 210-221.

Bayar, H. (2014) Identification of cetacea species stranded in the Sea of Marmara,

Master Thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Graduate Studies in Sciences, pp
97 (in Turkish).

Bilgin, S., Onay, H., Köse, O., Yeşilçiçek, T. (2018) About dolphins (Cetacea)
that stranded and bycatch in the Black Sea: Causes of death, nutritional properties
and pregnancy status. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Natural Sciences 5(4):
447-454 (in Turkish).

Birkun Jr, A. (2002) The current status of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops

truncatus) in the Black Sea. In Report of the ACCOBAMS First Meeting of the
Parties, Monaco 28: 25 pp.

Birkun Jr, A. (2008) The state of cetacean populations. State of the environment
of the Black Sea (2001-2006/7). Publications of the Commission on the Protection
of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC), pp. 365-399.

Birkun Jr, A. (2009) Plastic waste cause fishing nets to kill more Black Sea marine
mammals FIN 4(2): 17-18.

Birkun, A.Jr., Atudorei, A., Gamgebeli, T., Dedeoglu, S.G., Movchan, N.,
Nikolova, Atanaska, Okus, E., Yurenko, Y. (2007) Marine litter in the Black Sea
Region: A review of the problem. Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1,
Istanbul, Turkey, 148 pp.

Birkun Jr., A., Krivokhizhin, S. (2008) Involvement of Black Sea artisanal

fisheries in anti-bycatch and anti-marine litter activities. Report to the Permanent
Secretariat of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against
Pollution (BSC) and Permanent Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation
of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area
(ACCOBAMS). 52 pp.

Bradney, L., Wijesekara, H., Palansooriya, K.N., Obadamudalige, N., Bolan, N.S.,
Ok, Y.S., Rinklebe, J., Kim, K., Kirkham, M.B. (2019) Particulate plastics as a

242
vector for toxic trace-element uptake by aquatic and terrestrial organisms and
human health risk. Environment International 131: 104937.

Breen, P.A. (1990) A review of ghost fishing by traps and gillnets. In:
Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Marine Debris (eds.,
Shomura, R.S., Godfrey, M.L.), pp. 571-599.

BSC (2007) Marine litter in the Black Sea Region: A review of the problem. Black
Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey, 160 pp.

BSGM (2019) 1.5 million fish hold to life with cleaned ghost nets. Available at:
https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BSGM/Haber/165/Temizlenen-Hayalet-Aglarla-
15-Milyon-Balik-Hayata-Tutundu.

CBD (2016) Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the

Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. Technical
Series, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 83: 78.

Chen, Q., Allgeier, A., Yin, D., Hollert, H. (2019) Leaching of endocrine
disrupting chemicals from marine microplastics and mesoplastics under common
life stress conditions. Environment International 130: 104938.

Daily Mail (2018) Shocking images capture 'emaciated' dead dolphin with plastic
waste wrapped around its beak that washed up behind a yacht club. Available at:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6619057/Shocking-images-cap
ture-emaciated-dolphin-plastic-waste-wrapped-it.html.

Dede, A. (1999) Researches on marine mammal populations living in the Turkish

Straits system, Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Graduate Studies in
Sciences, 72 pp (in Turkish).

Derraik, J.G. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris:
A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(9): 842-852.

Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C. (2015) The impact of debris on marine life. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 92(1-2): 170-179.

GEF (2012) Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current status and

Potential Solutions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel GEF, Montreal, 67: 61.

Gill, A., Fairbairns, B., Fairbairns, R. (2000) Photo-identification of the Minke

Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) around the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Report to
the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust, 88 pp.

243
Gladilina, E.V., Gol’din, P.E. (2014) New prey fishes in diet of Black Sea
bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus (Mammalia, Cetacea). Vestnik Zoologii
48(1): 83-92.

Gladilina, E., Vishnyakova, K. (2015) Death of the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) from the rupture of the larynx by fishing gear. 8th
International Conference on “Marine Mammals of the Holarctic”, pp. 142-143.

Gomerčić, M., Galov, A., Gomerčić, T., Škrtić, D., Ćurković, S., Lucić, H.,
Gomerčić, H. (2009) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) depredation
resulting in larynx strangulation with gill-net parts. Marine Mammal Science
25(2): 392-401.

Gregory, M.R. (2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine

settings-entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien
invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
364(1526): 2013-2025.

GZH (2018) Dolphin dies of hunger on the coast of São Paulo after having a
plastic attached to its rostrum. Available at: https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/ambi
ente/noticia/2018/12/golfinho-morre-de-fome-no-litoral-de-sp-apos-ficar-com-
lacre-de-plastico-preso-ao-focinho-cjpcurpws0jfs01pilyliwz3z.html.

Hooker, S.K. (2009) Toothed Whales. In: Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals

(eds., Perrin, W.F., Würsig, B., Thewissen, J.G.M.), Second Edition. Academic
Press, USA, pp. 1173-1179.

Independent.ie (2014) Beer can ring kills dolphin Available at: https://www.inde
pendent.ie/irish-news/beer-can-ring-kills-dolphin-30548303.html.

IUCN (2020) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1.
Available at: <http://www.iucnredlist.org>.

Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.
L., Narayan, R., Law, K.L. (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.
Science 347: 768-771.

Jaoshvili, S., (2002) The rivers of the Black Sea. EEA Technical report 71,
European Environmental Agency, 58 pp.

Kleinenberg, S.E. (1956) Mammals of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Results
of joint biological-commercial dolphin whaling studies. USSR Academy of
Sciences Press, Moscow. 257-260. [Translated from Russian by the Translation
Bureau Multilingual Services Division Department of the Secretary of State of
Canada, 1978].

244
Laist, D.W. (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in
marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and
ingestion records. In: Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions (eds., Coe,
J.M., Rogers D.B.). Springer, NY, pp. 99-139.

Lusher, A. L., Hernandez-Milian, G., O'Brien, J., Berrow, S., O'Connor, I.,
Officer, R. (2015). Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving,
oceanic cetacean: the True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus). Environmental
Pollution 199: 185-191.

NOAA (2014a) Report on the Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris

with an Emphasison Species in the United States. Silver Spring, MD. 28 pp.

NOAA (2014b) Report on the Occurrence and Health Effects of Anthropogenic

Debris Ingested by Marine Organisms. Silver Spring, MD. 19 pp.

Oğuz, T. (2017) Physical Oceanography. In: Black Sea Marine Environment: The
Turkish Shelf (eds., Sezgin, M., Bat, L., Ürkmez, D., Arıcı, E., Öztürk, B.)
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV), Publication No: 46 Istanbul,
Turkey, pp. 1-13.

Öztürk, B. (1999) Black Sea Biological Diversity Turkey. GEF Black Sea
Environmental Programme, ISBN 92-1-129504-1, United Nations Publications
Sales No. E.99.III.R.1, Black Sea Environmental Series, 9: 144 pp.

Öztürk, B. (2013) Some remarks of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU)

fishing in Turkish part of the Black Sea. Journal of the Black Sea/Mediterranean
Environment 19(2): 256-267.

Reeves, R.R. (2009) Conservation Efforts. In: Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals

(eds., Perrin, W.F., Würsig, B., Thewissen, J.G.M.) Second Edition. Academic
Press, USA, pp. 275-289.

Silva Jr, J.M., Silva, F.J., Sazima, I. (2005) Rest, nurture, sex, release, and play:
diurnal underwater behaviour of the spinner dolphin at Fernando de Noronha
Archipelago, SW Atlantic. Aqua 9(4): 161-176.

Simmonds, M.P. (2012) Cetaceans and marine debris: the great unknown. Journal
of Marine Biology 2012: 8.

Smolowitz, R.J. (1978) Trap design and ghost fishing: an overview. Marine
Fisheries Review 40(5-6): 2-8.

Tezcan, D., Yücel., M., Çiftçi., G. (2017) Geology and geophysics of the southern
shelf of Black Sea. In: Black Sea Marine Environment: The Turkish Shelf (eds.,

245
Sezgin, M., Bat, L., Ürkmez, D., Arıcı, E., Öztürk, B.) Turkish Marine Research
Foundation (TUDAV), Publication No: 46 Istanbul, Turkey, pp 32-51.

Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., Vom Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H. (2009) Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
364(1526): 2153-2166.

Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B. (2007a) Stomach content of
harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the Turkish western Black Sea in
spring and early summer. Rapp Comm int Mer Médit 38: 616.

Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A. (2007b) Stomach contents of bycaught
harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the Marmara Sea. Rapp Comm int
Mer Médit 38: 617.

Topçu. N.E., 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): 301-306.

Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B. (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
Coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

Würsig, B. (2009) Playful Behavior. In: Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds.,

Perrin, W.F., Würsig, B., Thewissen, J.G.M.) Second Edition. Academic Press,
USA, pp. 885-888.

Yıldız, T. (2010) Determination of the amount of lost fishing gears that cause
ghost fishing in Istanbul coastal fisheries. Master Thesis. Istanbul University,
Institute of Graduate Studies in Sciences, 146 pp. (in Turkish).

Yıldız, T., Karakulak, F.S. (2016) Types and extent of fishing gear losses and
their causes in the artisanal fisheries of Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Applied
Ichthyology 32(3): 432-438.

Zaitsev, Y. (2008) An Introduction to the Black Sea Ecology. Odessa: Smil

Edition and Publishing Agency Ltd. Translation from Russian by M. Gelmboldt.
228 pp.

246
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Colonizing of bottom marine litter by benthic organisms

in the northwestern Black Sea (Gulf of Odessa)
Anastasiia Snigirova*, Elena Uzun, Valentyn Portyanko

Institute of Marine Biology of the NAS of Ukraine, UKRAINE

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

In the Black Sea, plastic pollution is in the top of marine litter flowing from the rivers and
may change the bottom landscapes providing the new type of substrate for benthic
assemblages. The great efforts have been made by monitoring organizations to understand
the composition and concentration of marine litter in the region. However, a few studies
have been conducted to analyze the processes of biofouling formation on the surface of
plastic substrate. The aim of present research was to initiate the study of community
structure on the surface of plastic substrates in the northwestern Black Sea. The plastic
litter was sampled on three transects in the Gulf of Odessa at depths of 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 m
on July and October in 2018. Video transects revealed 32 items of litter per 1 km2, whereas
video observations by diver showed maximum concentration of litter on the depth of 2-3
m between the coastal hydrotechnical constructions. The most common litter was plastic
bags (up to 80%). On the surface of collected marine plastic litter, the diverse and complex
assemblage of benthic organisms was registered. For the first time 49 species of microalgae
(Bacillariophyta (38 species), Chlorophyta (1), Dinophyta (2) and Cyanoprokaryota (8)),
5 species of macrophytes, 14 groups of meiobenthos (Harpacticoida (19 species),
Ostracoda (13 species)) and 4 species of macrozoobenthos were found on plastic surface
in NWBS region. Benthic communities were represented by typical widespread species
that dwell on other artificial and natural surfaces in this water area. The lower abundance
of benthic organisms was revealed on plastics in comparison with natural substrates. The
dense material (white plastic bags) has less biofouling than transparent plastic bags and
bottles. Intensification of general biofouling was observed on the bottles in summer and
on plastic bags in autumn. The further studies should be focused on patterns of biofouling
formation, comparison with the other substrates and processes of plastic biodegradation
that will form understanding of the "good environmental status" of the Black Sea in line
with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Keywords: Meiobenthos, diatoms, biofouling, colonizers, sea-floor plastic

Introduction

Plastic pollution forms up to 80 % of the marine litter that floats on the surface or
submerges in deeper layers of the world ocean. In the Black Sea the level of
plastic contamination is being studied in recent years and reported by the Black
Sea Commission and various projects (Birkun et al. 2007; EMBLAS 2017;
Moncheva et al. 2016; Aytan et al. 2016, 2020; Sapozhnikov et al. 2018;
Snigirova and Kurakin 2019; Stanev and Ricker 2019). However, there is still
lack of knowledge on this problem. According to the data that were obtained

247
during EU-UNDP Project “EMBLAS-Plus” the Black Sea is considered to be the
most polluted sea within European seas. In order to identify the main sources of
marine litter, main efforts are now focused on monitoring the pollution and
quantification of different types of marine litter, such as beach (beach litter),
floating (floated litter), bottom (sea-floor litter) (Galgani et al. 2013) and on biota.
The plastics are in the top of 5 types of marine litter that are flowing in the Black
Sea from the rivers. Within them plastic bottles and bags represent 10–20% from
the general amount of litter. Great efforts are made by monitoring structures and
institutes to reveal the composition and concentration of marine litter in marine
environment – especially for floating and beach litter (Şahin et al. 2018; Aytan et
al. 2020). The studies on microplastics in the water column and surface and its
concentration in the crustaceans are very challenging in the Black Sea and
fulfilled by colleagues from Turkey (Aytan et al. 2016, 2018; Oztekin and Bat
2017). There are a few works that describe the seafloor marine litter in the Black
Sea using underwater shooting or analyses of fisherman catches (Eruz 2014;
Moncheva et al. 2016). The main factors that favor deposition of the marine litter
on the sea-floor are direction of currents and bottom topography (Eryaşar et al.
2014). However, less studies have been made to analyze the processes of
biofouling formation on the surface of plastic substrate and signs of its
degradation (Harms 1990; Eich et al. 2015; Kiessling et al. 2015; Pauli et al.
2017; Snigirova and Portyanko 2018; Snigirova and Kurakin 2019, Uzun 2019).
While floating on the surface of sea the litter began to degrade under the influence
of insolation, high temperatures, wave activities, and macroorganisms that settle
on it. The litter items are separated on smaller fragments turning to microplastics
with time. However, some big particles of plastics may sink and become a part of
benthic assemblages (benthoplastics) providing the new type of substrate and
changing the bottom landscapes. The aim of present research was to initiate the
study of community structure on the surface of plastic substrates in the
northwestern Black Sea (NWBS). The special attention was payed to microalgae
and meiobenthic organisms.

Materials and Methods

The plastic litter (films and bottles) was sampled on three transects in the Gulf of
Odessa (NWBS) at depths of 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 m (Figure 1). The samples were
collected on July (28 samples) and October (23 samples) in 2018. To make an
inventory of types of bottom marine litter on each site the diver with the help of
underwater shooting made a video-transect (50 m length). The samples of plastics
were put into big polyethylene bags. Then, to collect mobile meiobenthic
organisms, the samples of plastics were washed on the sieves (1 mm and 70 µm
mesh size). All the samples were fixed in 70 % ethanol in seawater and stained
by Bengal Rose. Plastic with periphyton was cut into smaller fragments and fixed
together with the substrate. Further processing of the samples was carried out in
the laboratory of Institute of Marine Biology of the NAS of Ukraine.

248
 Figure 1. Map of the sampling sites in the Gulf of Odessa (northwestern Black Sea)

Plastic samples with phytoperiphyton were studied under light microscope Konus
Biorex (×160, ×640 magnification). For the observation of the general location of
the algae and cyanobacterial colonies developing on a plastic surface we prepared
temporal alcohol-glycerin slides. For identification of diatom algae, the
permanent slides were prepared, using hydrogen peroxide (30%) and ultrasound
(10 minutes on 35 kHz) for separation from plastic (Nevrova et al. 2015). To
calculate the abundance, we used counting chambers (0.01 ml) (Olenina et al.
2006).

The meiobenthic organisms were counted in Bogorov chamber under a

stereomicroscope (×32), then ostracods and harpacticoids were identified under
the light microscope (×200, ×400 magnification). The quantitative parameters
were abundance, biomass and frequency. The last one was calculated as the
percentage ration of number of samples, in which the species was presented, to
the total number of samples. For the species identification the copepods, samples
were dehydrated in glycerol-alcohol solution (Hulings and Gray 1971).
Ecological features (life forms) of the harpacticoids were given according to the
following papers (Hicks and Coull 1983; Chertoprud et al. 2006). For species
identification and nomenclature of algae, we used the AlgaeBase (Guiry and
Guiry 2020) and the following sources (Witkowski et al. 2000; Komárek and
Anagnostidis 1998, 2005), for harpacticoids (Griga 1969; Wells 1976; Apostolov
and Marinov 1988), for ostracods (Shornikov 1969; Dycan 2006).

249
Results and Discussion

Distribution of seafloor plastic litter

During the study, we found out that marine litter unequally spreads at the studied
sites. Its largest amount was found in the area of Peresyp and Cape Velykyi
Fontan, the lowest amount was observed in the area of Cape Malyi Fontan. The
data on all units of marine litter, which were registered during the analysis of the
video transect on three horizons at each station are presented in Table 1. A total
of 900 m2 of seafloor was analyzed in the summer and autumn periods. We
recorded 29 units of marine litter (or 32 items of litter per 1 km2).

Table 1. The number items of marine litter in studied area in the Gulf of Odessa
1-2 m 3-4 m 5-6 m
Area Total
summer autumn summer autumn summer autumn
Peresyp - 7 1 2 1 2 13
Cape
Malyi 1 - 1 1 - 1 4
Fontan
Cape
Velykyi 3 - - 1 - 8 12
Fontan

The most common litter was transparent and dense polyethylene films (21 units).
PET bottles in the analysis of video transects were found only twice at the station
of Cape Velykyi Fountan. Among other types of litter there are ropes, glass
bottles, cloth, etc. (6 units). Some of them are shown on the Figure 2. During the
analysis of the videos, we tried to estimate the surface of marine litter. The surface
of the film in the studied water area varied from 6 to 400 cm 2; bottles –150-230
cm2. We fixed also single fragments of larger litter – up to 2 m2 (textile, rope).

The amount of litter in the coastal zone is affected by the season: 7 items of litter
was registered in video transects in summer and 22 – in autumn It is likely that
after an active tourist period, various types of litter accumulate in the waters of
the Gulf of Odessa. In the summer, we have not recorded the litter on almost half
of the transects. In this period, its higher concentration was observed at a depth
of 1-3 m. In the autumn it was possible to register litter three times more than in
the summer. Moreover, at Peresyp site the amount of litter decreases with depth,
and in the area of Cape Velykyi Fontan on the contrary, the maximum amount of
garbage was found at a depth of 6 m. Up to 79.31 % of seafloor litter was
presented by PET (72.41%) and PETF (6.90%) (plastic bottles and bags). The
other litter was made of ropes, glass bottles, fabric, etc.

250
 Figure 2. Types of marine litter from the seafloor of the Gulf of Odessa:
1-3 – fragments of plastic bottles with biofouling, 4-6 – fragments of plastic bags,
7-9 – pieces of dense plastic

The predominance of different types of plastic in marine litter could have been
assessed from the collected samples to analyze the biofouling. At the same time,
unfortunately, it is difficult to assess on what area they were gathered. The
distribution of plastic by type was as follows: 24 samples of bags, 7 samples of
bottles, 3 samples of thick dense plastic, 1 plastic cup and 1 mesh. The presence
of bottles increases with a depth. In general, such a distribution was observed
during the analysis of video transects. Based on visual observation of divers big
amounts of marine litter were accumulated on the depth of 2 m between hydro-
technical constructions or under the influence of high hydrodynamics in coastal
zone. They were not considered in this study due to the absence of biofouling on
them.

Microalgae on the plastic substrates

On the surface of seafloor plastic litter, we have found 49 species of microalgae

belonging to 4 groups: Bacillariophyta, Chlorophyta, Dinophyta and
Cyanoprokaryota. The diatoms (38 species) and cyanobacteria (8 species) formed
the basis of the diversity, other groups were less represented (Table 2).

251
 Table 2. Species diversity of microalgae on plastics
Type of plastic
Species name
Plastic bag Bottle Others*
Bacillariophyta
1. Achnanthes brevipes C.Agardh + + -
2. Achnanthes brockmanii Simonsen + - -
3. Acanthodiscus sp. + - -
4. Planothidium delicatulum (Kütz.) Round & + - -
Bukht.
5. Amphora cf. hyalina + - -
6. Halamphora coffeiformis (C.Agardh) Levkov + - -
7. Amphora ovalis (Kütz.) Kütz. + + +
8. Amphora sp. + + +
9. Brebissonia lanceolata (C.Agardh) + - -
R.K.Mahoney & Reimer
10. Cocconeis scutellum Ehrenb. + + +
11. Cocconeis сf. costata + - -
12. C. placentula + - -
13. C. neothumensis - + +
14. Coscinodiscus aff. radiatus Ehrenb. + + -
15. Diatoma elongata (Lyngbye) C.Agardh + - +
16. Diatoma vulgaris Bory + + +
17. Dimeregramma minus (W.Greg.) Ralfs + + -
18. Diploneis chersonensis (Grunow) Cleve - + -
19. Diploneis fusca (W.Greg.) Cleve + - -
20. Lyrella sp. + - -
21. Melosira moniliformis (O.F.Müller) C.Agardh + - -
22. Navicula palpebralis Brébisson & W.Sm. - + -
23. Navicula pontica (Mereschkowsky) + + -
A.Witkowski, M.Kulikovskiy, E.Nevrova &
Lange-Bert
24. Navicula ramosissima (C.Agardh) Cleve + - -
25. Navicula salinarum Grunow + + +
26. Navicula sp. + + +
27. Tryblionella acuminata W.Smith 1853 +
28. Nitzschia microcephala + + -
29. Nitzschia aff. sigma (Kütz.) W.Sm. - + -
30. Nitzschia hybrida Grunow - - +
31. Opephora sp. + +
32. Plagiotropis lepidoptera (W.Greg.) Kuntze + - -
33. Pleurosigma elongatum W.Sm. + - -
34. Rhoicosphenia abbreviata (C.Agardh) Lange- + + -
Bert.
35. Staurophora salina (W.Sm.) Mereschkowsky + - -
36. Synedra sp. + - -
37. Tabularia fasciculata (C.Agardh) + - -
D.M.Williams & Round
38. Tabularia tabulata (C.Agardh) Snoeijs + - -

252
 Table 2. Continued
Cyanoprokaryota
39. Calothrix sp. + - -
40. Merismopedia punctate Meyen + + -
41. Microcrocis sp. + + -
42. Oscillatoria curviceps C.Agardh ex Gomont + - -
43. Oscillatoria sp. - - +
44. Phormidium nigro-viridae (Thwaites ex - + -
Gomont) Anagnostidis & Komárek
45. Spirulina aff. adriatica Hansgirg - + -
46. Xenococcus sp. - + -
Chlorophyta
47. Monoraphidium arcuatum (Korshikov) Hindák - + +
Dinophyta
48. Dinophyta sp. gen. - - +
49. Prorocentrum micans Ehrenberg + - -

The most common representatives of microalgae were species from the genera
Cocconeis and Amphora, which formed a dense layer on the plastic surface
(Figure 3). Cocconeis scutellum Ehrenberg, Cocconeis cf. costata, Amphora
ovalis (Kützing) Kützing, Amphora sp. were the most common species on the
plastics. It should be noted that only a few species of diatoms, cyanoprokaryotes
and green algae-macrophytes are attached directly to the plastic. Other species
form epiphytic groups that attach to the surface of macrophytes or on the layer of
Cocconeis and Amphora species. Some species (Achnanthes brevipes, Diatoma
elongate, Diatoma vulgaris, Melosira moniliformis, Navicula sp., Rhoicosphenia
abbreviata) form colonies to which microalgae can also attach.

The abundance of microalgae on plastics varied in a wide range from 10 x106

cells cm-2 to 1.6 x106 cells cm-2, averaging 124.3 x103± 38.3 x103 cells cm-2. On
the transparent plastic film, the abundance averaged 134.2 x103, on the dense it
was twice less – 58.5 x103 cells cm-2. On the surface of the bottles the abundance
of microalgae reached 146.2 x103 cells cm-2 on average. The diatoms were the
most numerous (Figure 4).

The abundance of cyanoprokaryotes varied in the range from 75 cells cm-2 to 24

x103cells cm-2. The abundance of green algae was 5-154 cells cm-2. Diatoms
presented in fouling up to 92% of the total, followed by cyanoprokaryotes – 9%,
and green algae – 0.2%. Diatoms were found on almost all studied plastic
samples. Cyanoprokaryotes were less common, we found them on 50% of the
bottles and 30% of plastic bags. The dense material has less biofouling than
transparent (Figure 4). The diatoms formed 3.5 times less fouling on dense
samples of litter (white plastic bags) than on transparent plastic bags and bottles.
Thus, cyanoprokaryota were presented to a greater extent on the dense substrate.

253
Figure 3. Microphytoperiphyton on the surface of seafloor marine litter from the Gulf of
Odessa: 1 – Amphora sp., 2 – Spirulina adriatica, 3 – Melosira moniliformis,
4, 5 – Cocconeis scutellum, Cocconeis cf. costata, 6 – Amphora ovalis, – Oscillatoria
curviceps, 8, 9 – colonies of diatoms.

Figure 4. Microphytoperiphyton on different types of sampled plastic from the Gulf of

Odessa

254
We have not revealed high correlations (R2=0.6) between abundance of
microalgae and the depth of the sites (Figure 5). We may say that there was a
decreasing trend of the microfouling on the depth of 2-4 m and higher values of
microalgae abundance on 1 and 6 m. Probably it is explained with the fact that
pieces of litter that are in deeper layers spend more time underwater. Some
samples from 1 m were buried with a sand that favored biofouling. The other
reason of unclear correlation with the depth is that we do not know how long the
plastic is on the sea floor. Some of the collected material had macrozoofouling
(mollusks), which may indicate that the plastic was underwater for at least four to
six months. In this case, there was a complex biofouling with components of
macrozoobenthos, macrophytes and meiobenthic organisms. Therefore, on such
samples, we observed a significant variety of microalgae. However, some of the
plastic samples had no macrozoofouling, which indicates that the pieces were a
relatively short time in the marine environment. The distribution of such samples
by depth varies due to the high wave activity in the coastal zone. In this regard,
further research should be directed to experimental studies for formation of
biofouling in the marine environment and in the laboratory.

Figure 5. Relation with the phytoperiphyton abundance on the plastic substrates and
sampling depth

All the species found on the samples were inherent to the Gulf of Odessa. The
quantitative structure of microalgae on plastic substrates also corresponds to the
values known from the literature (Table 3). Table 3 shows the data on
phytoperiphyton that was exposed no more than 3-4 weeks. For comparison, we
used our data on plastic fragments without macrozoofouling, which assumes the
existence of these artificial substrates in the marine environment for no longer

255
than 1-2 months. Thus, it is demonstrated that the quantitative indicators of
microalgae on plastic materials coincide with the level of fouling in the NWBS.

Table 3. Comparison of the phytoperiphyton of plastic materials with other substrates

from the studied area
Abundance
Type of the substrate Reference
103 cells cm-2
Glass (field experimental) 110-280 Ryabushko et al. 2013
Glass (laboratory 45 Snigirova and Aleksandrov 2015
experiment)
Silicon (laboratory 23 Snigirova and Aleksandrov 2015
experiment)
Experiment. plates with 88 Snigirova and Aleksandrov 2015
sand (0,25 мм)
Macrophytes 2-15 Garkusha 2016
sand 35-99 Snigirova 2015
Polyethylene (field 43-80 Garkusha 2016
experimental.)
Plastic (without 40-300 present study
zoofouling)

Macroalgae on the plastic substrates

On the studied plastic substrates, we revealed the macroalgae with the most of
them were in the beginning of their growth. Appearance of the macrophytes of
the surface of any substrate creates favorable conditions for the development of
meiobenthic organisms. Among the macroalgae, the most common were the green
algae Ulvella scutata (Reinke) R. Nielsen, C. J. O'Kelly & B. Wysor and U. lenz
P. Crouan & H. Crouan, whose colonies often covered the plastic with a solid
carpet (Figure 6). Enteromorpha sp. (= Ulva) (mainly seedlings), Ceramium
rubrum C.Agardh, Callitamnion corymbosum (Smith) Lyngbye were also
observed. The colonies of U. sulcata are very small in size (25-125 μm in
diameter), so we recorded its abundance when calculating the number of
microphytes (152 ind.·cm-2). It is worth noting that it was possible to calculate it
on transparent plastic directly, because when it is separated from the substrate, its
identification and counting is complicated. Based on the observations, the degree
of autotrophic macrofouling depended on the season and the type of substrate.
The coverage of macroalgae on plastic items collected in summer were almost
half compare to autumn. Obviously, this is due to the duration of the litter staying
on the bottom in marine environment.

256
 Figure 6. Fouling of the plastic substrate by macroalgae on the sample sites in Gulf of
Odessa: 1, 2, 3 – Ulva sp., 4 – Callitamnion corymbosum, 5 – Ulvella lenz,
6 – U. scutata and the layer of Cocconeis scutellu

Macrozoobenthos on the plastic substrates

In our study, we revealed several taxa of macrozoobenthos on the surface of sea-

floor litter (Figure 7). These were representatives of the Bryozoa, Bivalvia,
Crustacea, Annelida, Gastropoda. The most common were Mytilus
galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819, Mytilaster lineatus (Gmelin, 1791),
Amphibalanus sp., and Membranipora cf. membranaceae (Linnaeus, 1767).
Representatives of these groups of animals are common and widespread in the
NWBS. On several samples, we also noted worms and eggs laying of Gastropoda.

257
 Figure 7. Representatives of macrozoofouling on plastic litter in the Gulf of Odessa:
1, 2 – Mytilus galloprovincialis; 3, 4, 8 – Mytilaster lineatus; 5 – clutches of gastropods,
6 – Amphibalanus sp., 7, 8 – Membranipora cf. membranaceae (Linnaeus, 1767)

The mollusk M. galloprovincialis dominated on the surface of plastic bags. On

the bottles, the number of Amphibalanus sp. and the percentage of surface
coverage by Bryozoa significantly increases. The fouling by Membranipora cf.
membranaceae of the plastic bags did not exceed 25% of the total area, whereas
this value on the bottles averaged 50%. The abundance of Amphibalanus sp. on
plastic bags averaged 75 ± 38 ex. m-2, M. galloprovincialis 838 ± 497 ind.·m-2 and
M. lineatus 50 ± 27 ind.·m-2. The abundance on the surface of bottles was 451 ±
92 ind m-2, 329 ± 152 ind m-2, 94 ± 89 ind m-2 respectively.

Meiobenthos on the plastic substrates

Meiobenthos associated with the macrofouling on plastic substrates studied for

the first time. To the best of our knowledge there is no information on contribution
of this group of zoobenthos on litter surface neither in the Black Sea, nor in any
European sea. 14 groups of organisms represented this assemblage on plastic

258
substrates: Foraminifera, Nematoda, Harpacticoida, Ostracoda, Halacaridae,
Turbellaria, Oligochaeta, Polychaeta, Bivalvia, Gastropoda, Cirripedia, Isopoda,
Amphipoda, Chironomidae.

Table 4. Species composition of Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) and their

frequency (F, %) on plastic bags and bottles
F (%) F (%)
No Species
bag bottles
1. Ameira parvula parvula (Claus, 1866) 100 85
2. Dactylopusia tisboides (Claus, 1863) 100 90
3. Ectinosoma melaniceps (Boeck, 1845) 60 70
4. Paradactylopodia brevicornis (Claus, 1866) 50 65
5. Canuella perplexa (Scott T. et A., 1893) 40 35
6. Harpacticus littoralis (Sars G. O., 1910) 40 45
7. Tisbe bulbisetosa (Volkmann-Rocco, 1972) 40 -
8. Paradactylopodia latipes (Boeck, 1865) 35 25
9. Enchydrosoma sordidum (Monard, 1926) 30 35
10. Heterolaophonte stroemii stroemii (Baird, 1837) 30 15
11. Normanella serrata (Por, 1959) 30 45
12. Tisbe marmorata (Volkmann-Rocco, 1973) 30 20
13. Harpacticus obscurus (Scott T., 1895) 20 30
14. Laophonte elongata elongata (Boeck, 1873) 20 40
15. Laophonte thoracica (Boeck, 1865) 20 5
16. Heterolaophonte uncinata (Czerniavski, 1868) 15 10
17. Amphiascus cinctus (Claus, 1866) 10 -
18. Bulbamphiascus imus (Brady, 1872) 10 -
19. Harpacticus flexus (Brady et Robertson D., 1873) - 10

The taxonomy of harpacticoids and ostracods were studied more precisely

because of low information on these groups from the NWBS in general and their
important role as indicators of the quality of the environment. On the surface of
plastic bags and bottles we found 19 species of harpacticoids (Table 4) that belong
to the following families: Ameiridae (1 species), Canuellidae (1), Cletodidae (1),
Dactylopusiidae (3), Ectinosomatidae (1), Harpacticidae (3), Laophontidae (4),
Miraciidae (2), Normanellidae (1), Tisbidae (2). The detailed analysis showed
that the species composition on plastic bags and bottles did not differ
significantly: from 19 species the 15 were common for both substrates. Most
species belong to epibenthic form (10 species), but they have a relatively low
frequency (from 5% to 45%), which indicates their accidental presence on the
types of plastic. It should be noted that only four species have the frequency
higher than 50%: A. parvula parvula, D. tisboides, E. melaniceps, P. brevicornis.

We found 13 species of ostracods on the plastic substrate belonging to 7 genera

(Table 5). Six species of these representatives of crustaceans are common to all
types of plastic: Hemicytherura bulgarica (Klie, 1937), Leptocythere
multipunctata (Seguenza, 1983), Paradoxostoma intermedium Mueller, 1894,

259
Paradoxostoma variabile (Baird, 1835), Xestoleberis cornelii Caraion, 1963,
Xestoleberis decipiens Mueller, 1894.

Table 5. Species composition of ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) and their frequency

(F, %) on plastic bag and bottle
F (%) F (%)
No Species
bag bottle
1. Hemicytherura bulgarica (Klie, 1937) 80 40
2. Paradoxostoma intermedium Mueller, 1894 30 75
3. Xestoleberis cornelii Caraion, 1963 45 60
4. Xestoleberis decipiens Mueller, 1894 10 100
5. Leptocythere devexa Schornikov, 1966 25 -
6. Semicytherura euxinica (Caraion, 1967) 20 -
7. Leptocythere multipunctata (Seguenza, 1983) 15 10
8. Paradoxostoma variabile (Baird, 1835) 10 15
9. Xestoleberis aurantia (Baird, 1838) 10 -
10. Loxoconcha bulgarica Caraion, 1960 - 15
11. Loxoconcha elliptica Brady, 1868 - 10
12. Loxoconcha pontica Klie, 1937 - 10
13. Cytherois cepa Klie, 1937 - 2

Hemicytherura bulgarica (34.62%) and Xestoleberis cornelii (19.23%) were the

dominant species on plastic bag, whereas Xestoleberis decipiens (36.75%), as
well as Xestoleberis cornelii and Paradoxostoma intermedium (26.5% each)
dominated on the plastic bottles.

Meiobenthos is divided into two groups; eumeiobenthos (organism that dwell

here during the whole period of life) and pseudomeiobenthos (organisms that are
presented in this community only during larval period or juvenile stage). Among
eumeiobenthic organisms the dominant group was Harpacticoid copepods, their
abundance were 12285 ± 3639 ind.·m-2 (34.4%) on plastic bag and 13390 ± 4140
ind.·m-2 (26.9 %) on the bottle (Figure 8). Nematoda presented the subdominant
group. The average abundance of ostracods on plastic bags (3583±1447 ind.·m-2)
was two times higher than on the bottle surface (1204 ± 320 ind.·m-2), which was
6.0% and 3.4% of the total meiobenthos, respectively. Other representatives of
eumeiobenthos (Foraminifera, Halacaridae, Turbellaria,) did not exceed 1000
ind.·m-2 and 3% of the total abundance. Turbelaria had the lowest abundance, 11
ind.·m-2 (0.03%) on plastic bag and 100 ind.·m-2 (0.3%) on bottle.

Within the pseudomeiobenthic groups, the proportion of Gastropoda on plastic

bag was higher than other groups (5365±4486 ind. m-2, that made 15% of total
meiobenthos abundance); contrarily, on the plastic bottles, Polychaeta, Bivalvia
and Amphipoda were more abundant (each more 4000 ind.·m-2, made up 12.3-
13.5 % of total meiobenthos). Larvae of insects Chironomidae had the lowest

260
abundance with 21±10 ind.·m-2 (0.06%) on plastic bag and 140 ind.·m-2 (0.3%)
on bottle. Oligochaeta were observed only on the bottles.

Figure 8. Average abundance of some meiobenthic taxa on the plastic substrates

In general, the contribution of eu- and pseudomeiobenthic organisms to the total

abundance of meiobenthos differed slightly. The contribution of
pseudomeiobenthic organisms are much higher (nearly two times) than
eumeiobenthic organisms (Table 6).

Table 6. Abundance (ind.m-2) and biomass (mg.m-2) of eu- and pseudomeiobenthos

Plastic bag Plastic bottle

Value
eu- pseudo- eu- pseudo-
Abundance 17992 17714 24158 18637
Biomass 210.49 881.02 246.72 1138.91

Biomass of gastropods dominated (321.95 mg·m-2) on the plastic bag, whereas

amphipods were the most dominant group on the bottles` surface (550.0 mg·m-2)
(Figure 9). Thus, 93% of the biomass was formed by one eumeiobenthos group
(Harpacticoida) and five pseudomeiobenthic groups (Oligochaeta, Polychaeta,
Bivalvia, Gastropoda, Amphipoda). Such groups as Foraminifera, Nematoda,
Ostracoda, Halacaridae, Turbellaria, Cirripedia, and Isopoda made no more than
3% of the total biomass value on both types of plastic. The percentage of ostracods
in the total biomass of meiobenthos on a plastic substrate is very insignificant,
and made 1.3% on plastic bag (23.19 mg·m-2) and 0.86% on the bottle (7.83
mg·m-2).

261
 Figure 9. Biomass of meiobenthic taxa on different types of plastic substrate

To assess the processes of fouling on plastic materials, we compared it with the

natural substrates. We have chosen sand and stones to compare their fouling with
bottles, and two species of macroalgae to compare with plastic bags. The average
quantity of meiobenthos on natural substrates was 4 (biomass) and 6.5
(abundance) times higher than on the plastic. The fouling of meiobenthos is
distinguished in separate cluster (Figure 10). However, higher diversity of taxa
was observed on the plastic (14 taxa) than on stone (11), sand (9), Ulva sp. (12)
and Ceramium sp. (11).

Most of the meiobenthic groups (Nematoda, Harpacticoida, Polychaeta, Bivalvia)

were much more abundant on natural substrates (from 3 to 12 times higher),
except Foraminifera, Ostracoda, Halacaridae, which their abundance was higher
or approximately the same on the bottles than on sand. Balanus was observed on
plastic more often than on stone (5.6 time higher). Chironomidae were found only
on plastic. Isopoda, Amphipoda were observed on both, bottles and bags but were
not on sand and stones. Foraminifera were presented on plastic but was not
observed on the macrophytes. The abundance of Gastropoda on the plastic bag
prevailed than on both species of macrophytes. Ostracods prevailed 32 times on
macrophytes than on plastic bags and made 25 % of total meiobenthos abundance.
The most abundant group in meiobenthos – Harpacticoida was 3.5-4.0 times less
on plastic bags than on macroalgae and 2.3-3.5 times less on bottles than on stone
and sand.

262
 Figure 10. Distribution of meiobentos (Bray-Curtis index) on natural and plastic
substrates in the northwestern Black Sea (Gulf of Odessa)

Our findings agree with the previous studies of fouling on artificial substrates,
such as hydrotechnical traverses and piers in the Gulf of Odessa (Vorobyova et
al. 2016). The taxonomical composition of organisms on plastic substrate was
more diverse than on traverses (Foraminifera, Gastropoda, Balanus, Isopoda,
Amphipoda were not presented on the last ones), but the total density of
organisms was significantly less. The reason of these differences is difficult to
explain with current knowledge.

The future researches should be focused on the processes of fouling formation

and interactions between meio- and macrozoobethic assemblages on the plastic
substrate in the field and laboratory experiments.

Conclusion

In the Gulf of Odessa (NWBS), comparably low amount of marine litter on the
sea floor was found. The preliminary assessment of its quantity based on
underwater video-transect method showed the presence of 32 items of litter per
km2. Underwater observations of diver provide evidence that litter concentrates
usually on the depth of 2-3 m between the coastal hydrotechnical constructions.
The most common litter was plastic bags. In autumn, the litter abundance was
three times more than in summer.

On the surface of marine plastic litter that was collected on the depth 1-6 m we
revealed the diverse and complex assemblage of fouling microphytes and meio-
and macrozoobenthic organisms. It was represented by typical widespread species
that dwell on other artificial and natural surfaces in this water area. For the first
time 49 species of microalgae (Bacillariophyta (38 species), Chlorophyta (1),

263
Dinophyta (2) and Cyanoprokaryota (8)), 5 species of macrophytes, 14 groups of
meiobenthos and 4 species of macrozoobenthos were found on plastic surface in
NWBS region. Intensification of general biofouling was observed on the bottles
in summer and on plastic bags in autumn. Thus, the plastic marine litter becomes
a widespread substrate in the sea-bottom representing a new habitat for biofouling
communities.

The further studies of benthic communities should consider the integration of the
marine litter as a new habitat for benthic organisms in the marine environment.
This research should be developed in two directions. The first one is the study of
patterns of biofouling formation on seafloor marine litter surface and its
comparison with the natural and other artificial substrates in the NWBS. The
second one is the experimental field and laboratory studies of the processes of
biofouling on plastic substrates. The assessment of the marine litter impact on the
benthic environment should become one of the elements of the routine monitoring
and will form understanding of the "good environmental status" of the Black Sea
in line with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Acknowledgments

The work was funded by Ukrainian Fund of Fundamental Studies in the frame of the
project for young scientists No Ф83/88-2018 “The study of plastic contamination influence
on the benthic marine assemblages”.

References

Apostolov, A., Marinov T. (1988) Copepoda, Harpacticoida. Fauna Bulgarica.

Aedibus, Academiae Scientiarum Bulgaricae, Sofia, 18: 384 p.

Aytan, U., Şahin, F.B.E., Senturk, Y. (2018) Microplastic ingestion by Calanoid

Copepods in the SE Black Sea. MICRO 2018, Fate and Impact of Microplastics:
Knowledge, Actions and Solutions, 19–23 November 2018, Lanzarote, 229 p.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Sahin, F.B.E., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Aytan, U., Sahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F. (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy Beach (SE
Black Sea): density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms.
Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 20(2): 137-145.

Birkun, A. Jr., Atudorei, A., Gamgebeli, T., Dedeoglu, S.G., Movchan, N.,
Nikolova, A., Okus, E., Yurenko, Y. (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea
Region: A Review of the Problem. Black Sea Commission Publications 2007–1,
Istanbul, Turkey, 148 p.

264
Chertoprud, E.S., Chertoprud, M.V., Kondar, D.V., Kornev, P.N., Udalov, A.A.
(2006) Harpacticoida taxocens diversity on the silt–sand littoral of Kandalaksha
Bay (the White Sea). Oceanology 46(4): 1-10 (in Russian).

Eich, A., Mildenberger, T., Laforsch, C., Weber, M. (2015) Biofilm and diatom
succession on polyethylene (PE) and biodegradable plastic bags in two marine
habitats: early signs of degradation in the pelagic and benthic zone. PLOS ONE
10(9): e0137201.

EMBLAS (2017) National Pilot Monitoring studies and Joint open sea survey in
Georgia, Russian Federation and Ukraine (Final report). In: Final scientific report
in the frame of the EU/UNDP Project: Improving Environmental Monitoring in
the Black Sea – Phase II (EMBLAS-II), ENPI/2013/313-169 (eds., Slobodnik, J.,
Alexandrov, B., Komorin, V., Mikaelyan, A., Guchmanidze, A., Arabidze, M.,
Korshenko, A., Moncheva, S.), December, 2017. p. 447–472.

Eruz, C. (2014) Ecological and healthy problem of the Black sea: litter pollution.
In: Turkish Fisheries in the Black Sea (eds., Duzgunes, E., Ozturk, B., Zengin,
M.), TUDAV Publications no: 40, Istanbul.

Eryaşar, A.R., Özbilgin, H., Gücü, A.C., Sakınan, S. (2014) Marine debris in
bottom trawl catches and their effects on the selectivity grids in the north eastern
Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 81(1): 80-84.

Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey,
S., Thompson, R.C., Franeker, J. van, Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Veiga, J.
M., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H.,
Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. (2013) Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in
European Seas. Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union: 128 р.

Garkusha, О.P. (2016) Formation of Microalgal Communities on Different

Substrates in the Coastal Zone of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. PhD Thesis.
Institute of Marine Biology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Odessa,
21 p (in Ukrainian).

Griga, R.E. (1969) The Determinant of the Fauna of the Black and Azov Seas.
Naukova Dumka, Kiev. pp. 56-152 (in Russian).

Guiry, M.D., Guiry, G.M. (2020) AlgaeBase. World–wide electronic publication.

National University of Ireland, Galway. Available at: http://www.algaebase.org.

Harms, J. (1990) Marine plastic litter as an artificial hard bottom fouling ground.
Helgoläender Meersuntersuchungen 44: 503-506.

265
Hicks, G.F.R., Coull B.C. (1983) The ecology of marine meiobenthic
harpacticoid copepods. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review
21: 67-175.

Hulings, N.C., Gray, J.S. (1971) Manual for the study of meiofauna. Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology 78: 1-84.

Kiessling, T., Gutow, L., Thiel, M. (2015) Marine litter as a habitat and dispersal
vector, In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter, (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages,
M.,), Springer, Berlin, pp. 141-181.

Komárek, J., Anagnostidis, K. (1998) Cyanoprokaryota. 1. Chroococcales. In:

Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Jena, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 19(1): 548 p.

Komárek, J., Anagnostidis, K. (2005) Cyanoprokaryota. 2. Oscillatoriales. In:

Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, München, Elsevier Spectr., 19(2): 759 p.

Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Sahin, F., Timofte, F. (2016) Marine Litter Quantification in the Black Sea: A
Pilot Assessment. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 16: 213-218.

Nevrova, Y.L., Snigirova, A.A., Petrov, A.N., Kovaleva, G.V. (2015) Guidelines
for quality control of the Black Sea. Microphytobenthos. (eds., Gaevskaya, A.V.),
Orianda, Sevastopol, pp. 176. (in Russian).

Olenina, I., Hajdu, S., Edler, L., Andersson, A., Wasmund, N., Busch, S., Göbel,
J., Gromisz, S., Huseby, S., Huttunen, M., Jaanus, A., Kokkonen, P., Ledaine, I.,
Niemkiewicz, E. (2006) Biovolumes and size–classes of phytoplankton in the
Baltic Sea. HELCOM Balt Sea Environ Proc 106, pp. 144.

Oztekin A., Bat, L. (2017) Microlitter pollution in sea water: A preliminary Study
from Sinop Sarikum coast of the southern Black Sea. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci 17:
1431-1440.

Pauli, N.C, Petermann, J.S., Lott, C., Weber, M. (2017) Macrofouling

communities and the degradation of plastic bags in the sea: an in situ experiment.
R Soc open sci 4: 170549 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170549.

Ryabushko, L.I., Firsov, Yu.K., Lokhova, D.S., Yeremin, O.Yu. (2013)

Composition, quantitative and productivity characteristics of phytoperiphyton of
glass plates at different exposure times in the Black Sea. Algologia 23(1):65-81.
(in Russian).

Şahin, F.B.E., Karacan, F., Aytan, U. (2018) Plastic pollution on Rize Saraykoy
beach in the southeastern Black Sea. Aquatic Research 1(3): 127-135.

266
Sapozhnikov, F.V., Snigirova, A.A., Kalinina, J.Yu. (2018) The architecture of
the phytoperiphyton of a polyethylene film from the surface of the Black Sea.
Materials of the Russian Scientific Conference with international participation
“ALGAE: Problems of Taxonomy, Ecology and Use in Monitoring”, St.
Petersburg, Russia, pp. 378-383 (in Russian).

Schornikov, E.I. (1969) Subclass ostracodes, or (seed shrimps) – Ostracoda. In:

Key to the Fauna of the Black and Azov Seas, Vol. 2. Free Living Invertebrates
– Crustacea. Kiev, Naukova dumka, pp. 163-260 (in Russian).

Snigirova, A.A., Aleksandrov, B.G. (2015) Patterns of sand fractions influence

on microalgae of the marine coast. Science Rise 4/1(9): 20-26.

Snigirova, A.A., Kurakin, A.P. (2019) Microalgae on the plastic substrates in the
coastal area of the Gulf of Odessa (the Black Sea). International scientific
conference “Advances in Modern Phycology”, Kiev, Ukraine, pp. 103-105.

Snigirova, A.A., Portyanko, V.V. (2018) Some data on research of influence of

plastic materials on bottom marine assemblages in the Black Sea. Materials of the
V scientific and practical conference of young scientists “Modern Hydroecology:
the place of the scientific research in solving of actual problems” 14–15
November 2018, pp. 52-54 (in Ukrainain).

Snigirova, A.A. (2015) Ecological and biological characteristics of

psammophilous microalgae in the Gulf of Odessa (Black Sea). Odesa National
University Herald 20(1/36): 137-150.

Stanev, E.V., Ricker, M. (2019) The fate of marine litter in semi–enclosed seas:
A case study of the Black Sea. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 1-16.

Uzun, O.Ye. (2019) First revision on ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) of plastic

substrate in Odessa marine region. In: Abstracts for “Achievements in studies of
marginal effect in water ecosystems and their practical significance” (eds.,
Aleksandrov, B. G., Snigirova, A. A.), Odessa, Ukraine, 13–14 June 2019, p. 65.

Vorobyova, L., Kulakova, I., Bondarenko, O., Portyanko, V., Uzun, E. (2016)
Meiofauna of the periphytal of the Odessa coast Ukraine. J Black Sea
Mediterranean Environment 22(1): 60-73.

Wells, J.B.J. (1976) Keys to aid in the identification of marine harpacticoid

copepods. The Aberdeen University Press Ltd., 215 p.

Witkowski, A., Lange-Bertalot, H., Metzeltin, D. (2000) Diatom Flora of Marine

Coasts. Part I. Iconographia Diatomologica 7, Koeltz Scientific Books, 925 p.

267
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Microbial biofilm on plastics in the southeastern Black

Sea
F. Başak Esensoy, Yasemen Şentürk, Ülgen Aytan*

Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University,

Rize, TURKEY
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

In this study we used scanning electron microscopy to characterize microbial biofilm

communities on the surface of plastics commonly used in daily life and fisheries, namely
polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene
(PS), polyamide (PA, nylon) and polyvinylchloride (PVC). For this purpose, we
submerged the plastic items in a coastal station in the southeastern Black Sea during five
months (February-June 2019) and recorded the evolution of microbial biofilm formation.
Diverse microbial communities formed on plastics surface within a month. Diatoms were
the most diverse and abundant group of the plastic colonizers represented by 18 genera.
Bacteria were also abundant and a diverse group on plastic surface. Dinoflagellates,
ciliates, choanoflagellates, auxospores and unidentified organism were also observed.
After microbial formation we also observed invertebrate assemblages on plastic. Our
experimental results confirm the current concern that plastic is a new pelagic substrate for
microorganisms and invertebrates in the Black Sea and that these communities may play
an important role in plastic degradation and represent a novel compartment of the
ecosystem.

Keywords: Plastic, biofilm, plastisphere, microbial communities, biodegradation, Black

Sea

Introduction

Plastics are widespread pollutant in the marine ecosystems from coastal waters to
ocean gyres (Derraik 2002; Law et al. 2010), negatively affecting marine life by
ingestion (Jacobsen et al. 2010; Provencher et al. 2010), entanglement (Derraik
2002), alterations of habitats, transporting pathogens and invasive species and
releasing toxic chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (e.g. Zarfla and
Matthies 2010).

Most of the plastics are positively buoyant, dispersed by wind and ocean currents.
Significant amounts of plastics become neutrally buoyant and finally sink into the
water column (Moore et al. 2001; Ye and Andrady 1991) and eventually
accumulate in the benthic environment (Besseling et al. 2017; Eerkes-Medrano
et al. 2015). During their long-distance transport, plastic litter can serve as a
substrate for microorganism colonization and invertebrate assemblage formation
(De Tender et al. 2015; Harrison et al. 2014; Rummel et al. 2017). This microbial

268
biofilm formation plays a significant role in the fate of marine plastic pollution
by affecting the buoyancy (Ye and Andrady 1991; Moore et al. 2001; Lobelle and
Cunliffe 2011), degradation rate (Andrady 2011; Zettler et al. 2013), and toxicity
level of plastics (Harrison et al. 2011).

Rapid formation of microbial biofilms was observed on plastic surfaces within

few weeks in marine environments, and the taxonomic composition of biofilms
on plastic particles was distinct from the microbial assemblages of the
surrounding water (De Tender et al. 2017; McCormick et al. 2014; McCormick
et al. 2016). Therefore, plastics have now been referred as a specific niche for
microbial life, known as the “Plastisphere” (Zettler et al. 2013).

Plastic is mistaken as food by a variety of organism from plankton to mammals

(Wright et al. 2013). Thus, rich microbial biofilm might increase the
attractiveness of plastics for many marine organisms. In addition, marine plastics
may also supply energy for microorganisms capable of biodegrading polymers
and/or associated compounds (Zettler et al. 2013). Although microfouling can
play a role and increase the degradation of plastics (Webb et al. 2009,
Harshvardhan and Jha 2013), microfouling can also protect plastics against UV
radiation, which delays fragmentation of plastics (O’Brine and Thompson 2010).

The Black Sea is a semi-enclosed sea with high river discharge as a result of the
drainage area of several industrialized countries (Aytan et al. 2016). This makes
plastic pollution a complex and urgent problem in this semi-enclosed basin. High
concentration of macroplastic litter has been reported from the sea surface (Suaria
et al. 2015), sediment (Topçu and Öztürk 2010; Moncheva et al. 2016; Öztekin
and Bat 2017a) and beaches (Topçu et al. 2013; Vişne and Bat 2016; Simeonova
et al. 2017; Terzi and Seyhan 2017; Simeonova and Chuturkova 2020; Terzi et
al. 2020; Öztekin et al. 2020; Aytan et al. 2020). Recent studies have also reported
high concentration of microplastics in the surface waters of the Black Sea (Aytan
et al. 2016; Öztekin and Bat 2017b; Berov and Klayn 2020).

Due to the important role of biofilm formation on the fate and impacts of plastic,
studies on plastisphere have increased in recent years in various geographic
regions (Zettler et al. 2013; Oberbeckmann et al. 2014; Zettler et al. 2015; Ivar
do Sul et al. 2018). Characterization of microfouling communities on marine
floating plastics were reported from the North Atlantic (Zettler et al. 2013), water
around Australia (Reisser et al. 2014), the North Pacific Gyre (Carson et al. 2013)
and the Mediterranean (Masó et al. 2016). Regarding Black Sea, there is limited
knowledge on microbial biofilm communities in the Black Sea (Snigirova and
Portyanko 2018; Snigirova et al. 2019a, 2019b).

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is one of the best tools for studying
microfouling communities (Delgado and Fortuño 1991; Cros and Fortuño 2002).
The objective of this study was to characterise microbial biofilm formation on

269
commonly-used plastic items with the aim of contributing to an understanding the
fate of plastics in the Black Sea. Here we report preliminary results on: i) what
are the biofilm communities; ii) how fast biofilm formation occurs and iii)
differences on biofilm communities between polymers.

Materials and Methods

In order to characterize microbial biofilm formation, we have performed an

experimental study where new plastic items were hanged in a rope at two meters
depth in a harbour for several months. Throughout this period, we have
investigated the plastic biofilm formation. Conventional plastic items that are
frequently used in daily life and fisheries were chosen to determine the microbial
biofilm communities. The polymer types of the plastic items (Table 1) were
determined with Perkin Elmer Spectrum 100 Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectrometer (FT-IR). The spectrum range was 4000-650 cm−1 and a resolution
of 1.0 cm-1 with four scans for each measurement. The polymer type identification
was done by comparing absorbance spectra to a reference the library by using
Perkin Elmer SEARCH Plus® software.

Table 1. Submerged plastic items used in this study

Usage Sample Polymer
Single used items Shopping bag PE
Stretch film PE
Bubble wrap packing PE
Bottle <0.5 L PET
Food package PET
Food package PP
Plate PS
Fork PS
Fishing related items Net PA
Net PE
Rope diameter <1 cm PE
Twisted Rope diameter <1 cm PP
Fishing line PA
Fishing hoop PP
Float PE
Float PVC

The plastic samples were hanged in a rope at two meters below the sea surface in
a harbour (41° 03' 7" N, 40° 36' 31" E) in the SE Black Sea (Figure 1). Water
depth was approximately 12 m. Sampling was carried out monthly between
February to June of 2019. In each sampling, approximately 3 cm2 pieces of each
item were cut out and put into cryovials (Figure 2). Samples were fixed
immediately with 4% formaldehyde for 2-23 h. Then, they were transferred to
50% ethanol in Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) (Zettler et al. 2013) and kept at
−20 °C. All materials were sterilized prior to the study.

270
 Figure 1. Location of study area

Samples for SEM were exposed to the ethanol series on ice for 10 minutes at 50%,
70%, 85% and 95% followed by 3 x 15 minutes in 100% ethanol (Zettler et al.
2013). The samples were then immediately dried using the Quarum K850 critical
spot and overlaid with silver (Figure 3). Plastics surface were visualized with Jeol
JSM-6610 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).

Figure 2. Sampling from submerged plastic items

271
 Figure 3. SEM analysis of microbial biofilm on plastics

SEM images were used for species identification. 5-10 fields of SEM view were
enumerated, and species grouped into major taxa (diatoms, dinoflagellates,
ciliates and choanoflagellates). Species identification were done to lowest
taxonomic level possible. Previously described taxa was used to identify diatoms
(Stefano et al. 2000; Sarno et al. 2005; Corlett and Jones 2007; Totti et al. 2009;
Garcia and Odebrecht 2009; Hoppenrath et al. 2007; Zettler et al. 2013; Belando
et al. 2012; Reisser et al. 2014; Romagnoli et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2014; Sugie
and Suzuki 2015; Lee et al. 2019), auxospores (Kaczmarskaa et al. 2018; Samanta
et al. 2020; Diatoms 2020) dinoflagellates (Masó et al. 2016), ciliates (Henjes and
Assmy 2008), choanozoans (Thomsen and Østergaard 2017), and bacteria
(Reisser et al. 2014).

Results and Discussion

Our study significantly adds to existing knowledge that a diverse microbial

community, particularly diatoms and bacteria, colonizes plastics in the Black Sea
(Figure 4). We observed that a microbial biofilm formed on unused plastics within
a month. Such rapid microbial biofilm formation on marine plastics has also been
reported in previous studies (Lobelle and Cunliffe 2011; Briand et al. 2012;
Oberbeckmann et al. 2014; Dang et al. 2018; Zettler et al. 2013).

In this study, we examined the microbial biofilm formation on different types of

plastic polymers, namely polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene
terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA, nylon) and
polyvinylchloride (PVC). We observed differences in microbial biofilm
formation among these polymers PET was the polymer with more abundant and
diverse communities, followed by PE, PP, PA, PVC and PS. Differences in

272
microbial biofilm formation between different polymer types have also been
found in other studies (Carson et al. 2013; Zettler et al. 2013).

Figure 4. Example of diverse microbial biofilm on plastics

Regarding microbial biofilm communities they were comprised of diatoms,

dinoflagellates, ciliates, choanoflagellates, bacteria, auxospores and unidentified
species (Figure 5).

Diatoms and bacteria were the first colonizers and the most abundant and diverse
group of biofilm communities which is in line with previous findings (Carson et
al. 2013; Zettler et al. 2013; Reisser et al. 2014). A total of 18 taxa of diatoms
were identified; Achnanthes, Amphora, Cocconeis, Cylinrotheca, Delphinies,
Grammatophora, Halamphora, Licmophora, Navicula, Nitzcshia, Pleurosigma,
Pseudonitzschia, Thalassionema, Coscinodiscus, Melosira, Pseudostriatella,
Skeletonema and Thallasiosira (Reisser et al. 2014; Masó et al. 2016; Thompson
et al. 2017; Gomez-Ramirez et al. 2019; Di Pippo et al. 2020; Rogers et al. 2020)
(Figure 6).

273
Figure 5. SEM images showing examples of the microbial communities on plastic items:
diatoms (1-5), auxospore (6), dinoflagellate (7), ciliate (8), bacteria (Spirillum) (9),
choanoflagellates (10), unidentified organisms (11-12).

Diatoms have been reported to be the first colonisers of surfaces of plastics in the
sea and recognised to have an important role in biofilm formation (Cooksey and
Wigglesworth-Cooksey 1995; Patil et al. 2005; Zettler et al. 2015). Pennate
diatoms belonging to the genera Amphora and Navicula are well known
cosmopolitan fouling species (Molino and Wetherbee 2008; Molino et al. 2009;
Pelletier et al. 2009) and these species have been also reported on plastic surfaces
(Reisser et al. 2014; Oberbeckmann et al. 2014).

Abundant of rounded, elongated, and spiral forms of bacteria were also observed
within a month in PP, PA, PS items. Bacterial populations growing on plastics
interacted with the plastic surface by forming pits and grooves (Figure 7).
Previous studies have reported on hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria (Zettler et al.
2013) and experiments demonstrated that marine bacteria can indeed biodegrade
polymers (Sudhakar et al. 2007; Artham et al. 2009; Balasubramanian et al. 2010;
Harrison et al. 2011; Zettler et al. 2013; Harshvardhan and Jha 2013). Further

274
studies are needed to understand the role of the bacteria found in present study in
degrading plastic.

Figure 6. SEM images showing examples of the diatom species (13-30) Achnanthes sp.
(13), Amphora sp. (14), Cocconeis sp. (15), Cylinrotheca sp. (16), Delphinies sp. (17),
Grammatophora sp. (18), Halamphora sp. (19), Licmophora sp. (20), Navicula sp. (21),
Nitzcshia sp. (22), Pleurosigma sp. (23), Pseudonitzschia sp. (24), Thalassionema sp.
(25), Coscinodiscus sp. (26), Melosira sp. (27), Pseudostriatella sp. (28),
Skeletonema sp. (29), Thallasiosira sp. (30).

275
Surface texture and structure are important factors that determine biofilm
adhesion rates and community succession (Fazey and Ryan, 2016). Positive
relation between diatom density and qualitative surface ‘‘roughness’’ of particles
was reported (Bravo et al. 2011). Often a result of plastic degradation, more
fouling microorganisms occur in the rough surfaces and the degradation process
may accelerate colonization leading to eventual sinking, or make the item more
likely to be ingested, passing adsorbed persistent organic pollutants up the food
chain (e.g. Tanaka et al. 2013).

Figure 7. Example of micro textures (pits and groves) on the plastic surface

The choanoflagellates, which is a ubiquitous group of aquatic bacterivorous filter

feeders (Arndt et al. 2000), were also found on biofilm in present study.
Dinoflagellates were not abundant and only found in first sampling in the PET
bottle surface. Dinoflagellates are atypical organisms to be found on plastic
surface. However, recent studies have also reported plastics fouled by individuals,
and cysts of the potentially harmful dinoflagellate species (Maso et al. 2003;
Zettler et al. 2013; Reisser et al. 2014). Ciliates were only observed in the PE.
We also found many unidentified organisms of various morphology and sizes
(Figure 5).

An increase in abundance of microbial biofilm communities was observed in last

two months of sampling (May and June 2019), which could have been related to

276
increasing temperatures. In June 2019, invertebrate assemblages (bryozoans,
barnacles, gastropods, bivalves) were observed on plastic (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Diverse fouling invertebrate assemblages on plastics surface

Conclusion

Plastics with various forms (particle, film or fibre; smooth or rough surface, etc.)
and chemical compositions (high and low densities, additives, adsorbed
chemicals, etc.) can serve as a substratum for microfouling communities in
marine ecosystems (Oberbeckmann et al. 2015). PE, PES, PP and PA account for
74% of global plastic production and are often used in single-used products
(Geyer et al. 2017; Plastics Europe 2017). They are also the most common
polymers exist in the marine environment (Browne et al. 2011). Our results
confirm that these plastics represents a new anthropogenic substrate in the Black
Sea. We observed that unused plastics became rapidly (within a month) colonized
by biofilm forming microorganisms. Such biofilm formation is likely to affect
buoyancy, degradation and toxicity of plastics in Black Sea. Although it is not
possible to scan all surface area of the plastics by SEM, the random areas that

277
were chosen to be scanned, still provided an important information of the biofilm
communities.

These preliminary results provide information on temporal evolution of biofilm

formation on plastics, the colonizing communities and their differences among
various types of polymers. Simultaneously, as part of the TUBITAK project
“Distribution, composition, sources and ecological interactions of micro- and
nanoplastics in southeastern Black Sea” (Project Number ÇAYDAG 118Y125),
we also collected floating plastics from the SE Black Sea coastal waters between
July 2019 and June 2020. Those data will be compared with the results of the
present work, for a better understanding of biofilm communities. The fast
colonization found in this study (around a month) can be used as an indicator for
the time that a plastic has entered the Black Sea environment.

Future studies need to increase knowledge on the microbial biofilm communities

and processes involved in the formation of a biofilm. Further observational and
experimental studies on the microbial biofilm on plastics might also support the
development of biotechnological solutions (e.g. hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria)
for better disposal practices for plastic litter in the Black Sea.

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Murat Şirin for his help in SEM analysis, and Dr. Kaan Karaoğlu for his help
in FT-IR analysis.

References

Andrady, A.L. (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 62: 1596-1605.

Arndt, H., Dietrich, D., Auer, B., Cleven, E.J., Grafenhan, T., Weitere, M.,
Mylnikov, A.P. (2000) Functional diversity of heterotrophic flagellates in aquatic
ecosystems. In: The Flagellates (eds., Leadbeater, B.S.C., Green, J.C.), Taylor &
Francis, London, New York, pp. 240-268.

Artham, T., Doble, M., (2009) Fouling and degradation of polycarbonate in

seawater: field and lab studies. Journal of Polymers and the Environment 17: 170-
180.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agırbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

278
Aytan, U., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Karacan, F., (2020) Beach litter on Sarayköy
Beach (SE BlackSea): density, composition, possible sources and associated
organisms. Turkish Journal Fisheries Aquatic Science 20(2): 137-145.

Balasubramanian, V., Natarajan, K., Hemambika, B., Ramesh, N., Sumathi, C.,
Kottaimuthu, R., Kannan, V.R. (2010) High-density polyethylene (HDPE)-
degrading potential bacteria from marine ecosystem of Gulf of Mannar, India.
Letters in Applied Microbiology 5: 205-211.

Belando, M.D., Marín, A., Aboal, M. (2012) Licmophora species from a

Mediterranean hypersaline coastal lagoon (Mar Menor, Murcia, SE Spain). Nova
Hedwigia, Beiheft 141: 275-288.

Berov, D., Klayn, S. (2020) Microplastics and floating litter pollution in

Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 156: 1112252.

Besseling, E., Quik, J.T.K., Sun, M., Koelmans, A.A. (2017) Fate of nano- and
microplastic in freshwater systems: A modeling study. Environmental Pollution
220: 540-548.

Bravo, M., Astudillo, J.C., Lancellotti, D., Luna-Jorquera, G., Valdivia, N., Thiel,
M. (2011) Rafting on abiotic substrata: properties of floating items and their
influence on community succession. Marine Ecology Progress Series 439: 1-17.

Briand, J.F., Djeridi, I., Jamet, D., Coupé, S., Bressy, C., Molmeret, M., Le Berre,
B., Rimet, F., Bouchez, A., Blache, Y. (2012) Pioneer marine biofilms on
artificial surfaces including antifouling coatings immersed in two contrasting
French Mediterranean coast sites. Biofouling: The Journal of Bioadhesion and
Biofilm Research 28(5): 453-463.

Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T.,
Thompson, R. (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide:
Sources and sinks. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 9175-9179.

Carson, H.S., Nerheim, M.S., Carroll, K.A., Eriksen, M. (2013) The plastic-
associated microorganisms of the North Pacific Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin
75: 126-132.

Cros, L., Fortuno, J.M. (2002) Atlas of Northwestern Mediterranean

Coccolithophores. Scientia Marine 66: S1.

Cooksey, K.E., Wigglesworth-Cooksey, B. (1995). Adhesion of bacteria and

diatoms to surfaces in the sea: a review. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 9: 87-96.

279
Corlett, H., Jones, B. (2007) Epiphyte communities on Thalassia testudinum from
Grand Cayman, British West Indies: Their composition, structure, and
contribution to lagoonal sediments. Sedimentary Geology 194: 245-262.

Dang, M.H., Jung, J.E., Choi, H.M., Jeon, J.G. (2018) Difference in virulence and
composition of a cariogenic biofilm according to substratum direction. Scientific
Reports 8: 6244.

Delgado, M., Fortuno, A., Jose, M. (1991) Atlas of phytoplankton from

Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 55(S1): 1-133.

Derraik, J.G. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.

De Tender, C.A., Devriese, L.I., Haegeman, A., Maes, S., Ruttink, T., Dawyndt,
P. (2015) Bacterial community profiling of plastic litter in the Belgian part of the
North Sea. Environmental Sciences Technology 49: 9629-9638.

De Tender, C., Devriese, L.I., Haegeman, A., Maes, S., Vangeyte, J., Cattrijsse,
A., Dawyndt, P., Runttink, T. (2017) Temporal dynamics of bacterial and fungal
colonization on plastic debris in the North Sea. Environmental Sciences
Technology 51(13): 7350-7360.

Di Pippo, F., Venezia, C., Sighicelli, M., Pietrelli, L., Di Vito, S., Nuglio, S.,
Rossetti, S. (2020) Microplastic-associated biofilms in lentic Italian ecosystems.
Water Research 187: 116429.

Diatoms (2020). Species. Available at: https://diatoms.org/species.

Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R.C., Aldridge, D.C. (2015) Microplastics in

freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge
gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research 75: 63-82.

Fazey, F.M.C., Ryan, P. (2016) Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics: An

experimental study into the effect of size on surface longevity. Environmental
Pollution 210: 354-360.

Garcia, M., Odebrecht, C. (2009) Morphology and ecology of Thalassiosira cleve

(Bacillariophyta) species rarely recorded in Brazilian coastal waters. Brazilian
Journal Biology 69(4): 1059-1071.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L. (2017) Production, use, and fate of all
plastics ever made. Science Advances 3: e1700782.

280
Gómez-Ramírez, A.L., Enriquez-Ocaña, L.F., Miranda-Baeza, A., Cordero
Esquivel, B., López-Elías, J. A., Martínez-Córdova, L.R. (2019) Biofilm-forming
capacity of two benthic microalgae, Navicula incerta and Navicula sp., on three
substrates (Naviculales: Naviculaceae). Revista de Biología Tropical 67(3): 599-
607.

Harrison, J.P., Sapp, M., Schratzberger, M., Osborn, A.M. (2011) Interactions
between microorganisms and marine microplastics: A call for research. Marine
Technology Society Journal 45: 2.

Harrison, J.P., Schratzberger, M., Sapp, M., Osborn, A.M. (2014) Rapid bacterial
colonization of low-density polyethylene microplastics in coastal sediment
microcosms. BMC Microbiology 14: 232.

Harshvardhan, K., Jha, B. (2013) Biodegradation of low-density polyethylene by

marine bacteria from pelagic waters, Arabian Sea, India. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 77: 100-106.

Henjes, J., Assmy, P. (2008) Particle Availability Controls Agglutination in

Pelagic Tintinnids in the Southern Ocean. Protist 159: 239-250.

Hoppenrath, M., Beszteri, B., Drebes, G., Halliger, H., Beusekom, J.E.E.V.,
Janisch, S., Wiltshire, K.H. (2007) Thalassiosira species (Bacillariophyceae,
Thalassiosirales) in the North Sea at Helgoland (German Bight) and Sylt (North
Frisian Wadden Sea) – a first approach to assessing diversity. European Journal
of Phycology 42(3): 271-288.

Ivar do Sul, J.A., Tagg, A.S., Labrenz, M. (2018) Exploring the common
denominator between microplastics and microbiology: a scientometric approach.
Scientometrics 117: 2145-2157.

Jacobsen, J.K., Massey, L., Gulland, F. (2010). Fatal ingestion of floating net
debris by two sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin
60: 765-767.

Kaczmarskaa, I., Ehrmanb, J.M., Davidovichc, N.A., Davidovichc, O.I.,

Podunayc, Y.A. (2018) Structure and Development of the Auxospore in
Ardissonea crystallina (C. Agardh) Grunow Demonstrates Another Way for a
Centric to Look Like a Pennate. Protist 169: 466-483.

Law, K.L., Moret-Ferguson, S., Maximenko, N.A., Proskurowski, G., Peacock,

E.E., Hafner, J. ve Reddy, C.M., (2010) Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic
subtropical gyre. Science 329: 1185-1188.

281
Lee, S.D., Yun, S.M., Cho, P.Y., Yang, H.W., Kim, O.J. (2019) Newly recorded
species of diatoms in the source of Han and Nakdong Rivers, South Korea.
Phytotaxa 403(3): 143-170.

Lobella, D., Cunliffe, M. (2011) Early microbial biofilm formation on marine

plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 197-200.

Masó M., Fortuño, J.M., de Juan, S., Demestre, M. (2016) Microfouling

communities from pelagic and benthic marine plastic debris sampled across
Mediterranean coastal waters. Science Marine 80(S1): 117-127.

Masó, M., Garcés, E., Pagés, F., Camp, J. (2003) Drifting plastic debris as a
potential vector for dispersing harmful algal bloom (HAB) species. Scientia
Marina 67: 107-111.

McCormick, A.R., Hoellein, T.J., Mason, S.A., Schluep, J., Kelly, J.J. (2014)
Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an Urban River.
Environmental Science & Technology 48: 11863-11871.

McCormick, A.R., Hoellein, T.J., London, M.G., Hittie, J., Scott, J.W., Kelly, J.J.
(2016) Microplastic in surface waters of urban rivers: concentration, sources, and
associated bacterial assemblages. Ecosphere 7(11): e01556.

Molino, P.J., Campbell, E., Wetherbee, R. (2009) Development of the initial

diatom microfouling layer on antifouling and fouling-release surfaces in
temperate and tropical Australia. Biofouling 25: 685-694.

Molino, P.J., Wetherbee, R. (2008) The biology of biofouling diatoms and their
role in the development of microbial slimes. Biofouling 24: 365-379.

Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M.,
Timofte, F. (2016) Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: A pilot
assessment. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 16: 213-218.

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): 1297-1300.

Oberbeckmann, S., Loeder, M.G.J., Gerdts, G., Osborn, A.M. (2014) Spatial and
seasonal variation in diversity and structure of microbial biofilms on marine
plastics in Northern European waters. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 90: 478.

Oberbeckmann, S., Löder, M.G.J., Labrenz, M. (2015) Marine microplastic-

associated biofilms – a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 12: 551-562.

282
O’Brine, T., Thompson, R.C. (2010) Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the
marine environment. Marine pollution Bulletin. 60: 2279-2283.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017a) Seafloor litter in the Sinop İnceburun Coast in the
southern Black Sea. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics
(IJEGEO) 4: 3.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017b) Microlitter pollution in sea water: A preliminary

study from Sinop Sarikum Coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17: 1431-1440.

Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Baki, O.G. (2020) Beach litter pollution in Sinop Sarikum
Lagooncoast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 20: 197-205.

Patil, J.S., Anil, A.C. (2005) Quantification of diatoms in biofilms:

standardisation of methods. Biofouling 21: 181–188.

Pelletier, E., Bonnet, C., Lemarchand, K. (2009) Biofouling growth in cold

estuarine waters and evaluation of some chitosan and copper anti-fouling paints.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10: 3209-3223.

Plastics Europe (2017) Plastics – the Facts 2017. Available at:

https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_f
acts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf

Provencher, J.F., Gaston, A.J., Mallory, M.L., O’hara, P.D., Gilchrist, H.G.
(2010) Ingested plastic in a diving seabird, the thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia),
in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 1406-1411.

Reisser, J., Shaw, J., Hallegraeff, G., Proietti, M., Barnes, D.K.A., Thums, M.,
Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B.D., Pattiaratchi, C. (2014) Millimeter-sized marine
plastics: A new pelagic habitat for microorganisms and invertebrates. PLoS ONE
9(6): e100289.

Rogers, L., Carreres-Calabuig, J.A., Gorokhova, E., Posth, N.R. (2020) Micro-
by-micro interactions: How microorganisms influence the fate of marine
microplastics. Limnology and Oceanography Letters 5: 18-36.

Romagnoli, T., Totti, C., Accoroni, S., De Stefano, M., Pennesi, C. (2014) SEM
analysis of the epibenthic diatoms on Eudendrium racemosum (Hydrozoa) from
the Mediterranean Sea. Turkish Journal of Botany 38: 566-594.

Rummel, C.D., Jahnke, A., Gorokhova, E., Kühnel, D., Schmitt-Jansen, M.

(2017) Impacts of biofilm formation on the fate and Potential effects of

283
microplastic in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science & Technology
Letters 4: 258-267.

Samanta, B., Kaczmarska, I., Ehrman J.M. (2020) Auxosporulation in

Biddulphiatridens (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg (Mediophyceae, Bacillariophyta).
European Journal of Phycology 55(3): 296-309.

Sarno, D., Kooistra, W.H.C.F., Medlin, L.K., Percopo, I., Zingone, A. (2005)
Diversity in the genus Skeletonema (Bacillariophyceae). II. An assessment of the
taxonomy of S. Costatum-like species with the description of four new species.
Journal Phycology 41: 151-176.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R. (2020) Macroplastic distribution (Single-use

plastics and some Fishing gear) from the northern to the southern Bulgarian Black
Sea coast. Regional Studies in Marine Science 37: 101329.

Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V. (2017) Seasonal dynamics of marine

litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 119: 110-
118.

Snigirova, A.A., Kurakin, A.P. (2019b) Microalgae on the plastic substrates in

the coastal area of the gulf of Odessa (The Black Sea). VI International
Conference “Advances in Modern Phycology” pp. 103-105.

Snigirova, A.A., Portyanko, V.V. (2018) Some data on research of influence of

plastic materials on bottom marine assemblages in the Black Sea. (in Ukrainian).
Materials of the V scientific and practical conference of young scientists “Modern
hydroecology: the place of the scientific research in solving of actual problems”
14–15 November 2018, pp. 52-54.

Snigirova, A.A., Sapozhnikov Ph. V., Kalinina O. Yu. (2019a) Marine litter as a
new contact biotope for the Black Sea. In: International scientific conference
“Achievements in studies of marginal effect in water ecosystems and their
practical significance”: Book of abstracts, (eds., Aleksandrov, B.G., Snigirova,
A.A.), Odesa, Ukraine, 13–14 June 2019, pp. 49-50.

Stefano, M.D., Donato Marino, D., Mazzella, L. (2000) Marine taxa of Cocconeis
on leaves of Posidonia oceanica, including a new species and two new varieties.
European Journal of Phycology 35(3): 225-242.

Suaria, G., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Ion, G., Aliani, S. (2015) First

observations on the abundance and composition of floating debris in the North-
western Black Sea. Marine Environmental Research 107: 45-49.

284
Sudhakar, M., Trishul, A., Doble, M., Kumar K.S., Jahan, S.S., Inbakandan, D.,
Viduthalai, R.R., Umadevi, V.R., Murthy, P.S., Venkatesan, R. (2007) Biofouling
and biodegradation of polyolefins in ocean waters. Polymer Degradation and
Stability 92: 1743-1752.

Sugie, K., Suzuki, K. (2015) A new marine araphid diatom, Thalassionema

kuroshioensis sp. nov., from temperate Japanese coastal waters. Diatom Research
30(3): 237-245.

Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Fukuwaka, M., Watanuki,
Y. (2013) Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds
ingesting marine plastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 69: 219-222.

Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K. (2020) Marine litter composition and sources on
coasts of south-eastern Black Sea: A long-term case study. Waste Management
105: 139-147.

Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K. (2017) Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on
the south-eastern Black Sea coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 120: 154-158.

Thompsen, H.A., Østergaard, J.B. (2017). Acanthoecid choanoflagellates from

the Atlantic Arctic Region − a baseline study. Heliyon 3: e00345.

Topcu, E.N., Oztürk, 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): 301-306.

Topcu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Ozturk, A.A., Ozturk, B. (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

Totti, C., Poulin, M., Romagnoli, T., Perrone, C., Pennesi, C., Stefano, M. (2009)
Epiphytic diatom communities on intertidal seaweeds from Iceland. Polar
Biology 32: 1681-1691.

Ye, S., Andrady, A.L. (1991) Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne
Bay exposure conditions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22: 608-613.

Visne, A., Bat, L. (2016) Marine litter pollution in Sinop Sarıkum Lagoon coast
of the Black Sea. In: Proceedings of Turkey Marine Sciences Conference (eds.,
Ak Örek, Y., Tezcan, D.), Ankara, Turkey, pp. 244-245.

Wang, P., Park, B.S., Kim, J.H., Kim, J.H., Lee, H.O., Han, M.S. (2014)
Phylogenetic position of eight Amphora sensu lato (Bacillariophyceae) species

285
and comparative analysis of morphological characteristics. Algae 2014 29(2): 57-
73.

Webb, H.K., Crawford, R.J., Sawabe, T., Ivanova, E.P. (2009) Poly (ethylene
terephthalate) polymer surfaces as a substrate for bacterial attachment and biofilm
formation. Microbes Environmental 24(1): 39-42.

Wright, S.L., Rowe, D., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S. (2013) Microplastic
ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Current Biology 23: 1031-
1033.

Zarfla, C., Matthies, M. (2010) Are marine plastic particles transport vectors
fororganic pollutants to the Arctic? Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(10): 1810-1814.

Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A. (2013) Life in the ‘Plastisphere’:
Microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environmental Science &
Technology 47: 7137-7146.

Zettler, L.A.A., Zettler, E.R., Slikas, B., Boyd, G.D., Melvin, D.W., Morrall,
C.E., Pruskurowski, G., Mincer, T.J. (2015) The biogeography of the
Plastisphere: implications for policy. Front Ecology Environmental 13(10): 541-
546.

286
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Microphytes assemblages on the neustoplastics

from the northern Black Sea
Philipp Sapozhnikov1*, Anastasiia Snigirova2, Olga Kalinina3
1 P.P.Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of RAS, Moscow, RUSSIA
2 Instituteof Marine Biology of the NAS of Ukraine, Odessa, UKRAINE
3 Faculty of Geography at Lomonosov, Moscow State University, Moscow, RUSSIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Drifted plastics (or so-called neustoplastics) is considered to be colonized by marine

organisms that could use the polymers as a substrate, participate in their decomposition,
and form unusual biological communities that adapt to severe conditions of the
environment in the near-surface layer of water. In this study, we initiated the research of
microphytes that may dwell on the plastics on the water surface in the northern part of the
Black Sea coastal waters. Two types of neustoplastics were analyzed: polyethylene film
(PE-film) with microphytes fouling that was occasionally sampled and polyethylene
terephthalate bottle (PET-bottle) that has been exposed to fouling for about six weeks. The
microphytes forming fouling on PE-film was represented with 14 taxa of cyanobacteria
and 8 species of Bacillariophyta. The most numerous genera were Сalothrix and
Mastogloia. Strict hierarchy of the assemblage was noticed, the first layer of microalgae
that was located directly on the surface of the PE-film was presented mostly by Mastogloia
species that formed capsules (the most abundant M. lanceolata) and three species of
Calothrix with short trichomes. C. scopulorum and C. рarietina formed upper layer of the
assemblage protecting the microphytes from the aggressive environment. On the surface
of PET-bottle assemblage was formed by mosaic scattered spots with different spatial
organization. The upper layer was again formed by cyanobacteria Leptolyngbya
foveolarum and colonies of the diatom Neosynedra provincialis. Other 10 species of
diatoms, 1 dinoflagellate and 7 cyanobacteria were presented in the assemblage. The
architecture of both studied assemblages represented the existence of specific adaptations
of microphytes that dwell on polymer substrates near the water surface. The assemblage
on the PET-bottle was more diverse and with more complicated hierarchical structure.

Keywords: Neuston, plastic, microalgae, drifters, synthetic polymers

Introduction

The period of intense plastic pollution of water bodies will certainly go down in
the geological history of the planet as an independent layer that has no analogues
in the past. Plastic that occurs into the seas, oceans and fresh waters degrades
quite slowly. It can take centuries to complete decomposition of the plastics such
as low-pressure polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) (Barnes et al. 2009). Up to now, it is known that plastics has

287
a negative impact on marine biota (Hammer et al. 2012). On the one hand
mechanical and physiological harm is mentioned – entanglement and physical
damage (Laist 1997), as well as digesting of the litter (Auman et al. 1997). On the
other hand, the plastic particles can also have a toxic effect on the processes of
humoral regulation and, thus, the life cycles of organisms (Colton et al., 1974;
Fossi et al. 2001, 2012, 2016, 2017; UNEP 2005; Ng and Obbard 2006; Rios et
al. 2007; Murray and Cowie 2011; Rochman et al. 2013; Avio et al. 2015, 2017),
which leads to a decrease in their vitality and a decrease in diversity. Nevertheless,
being on the surface of waterbodies the objects made of these materials come into
interaction with hydrobionts. Since the density of most of the plastics are not very
different from water (0.96 g/cm³ for HDPE, 0.9-0.92 g/cm3 for PP and 1.38 g/cm3
for PET), they float at a surface waters for a long time. PET is heavier than sea
water, but most of the soft bottles made from it sink to the bottom. Bottles with a
lid closed contains air and can stay in the sea surface, which gives them the
properties of drifters for a long time.

Among the entire set of dwellers of a particular habitat, there is a certain number
of species (usually not too large) that can use plastic as a substrate for living.
Primary colonization on plastics occurs in the near-surface layer of the water
column under conditions of high insolation, intense hydrodynamics, and frequent
temperature changes. Being exposed to aggressive environmental influences,
plastic objects or their fragments gradually become a substrate for some species
of marine organisms (Lobelle and Cunliffe 2011) and this new part of the planet`s
is called plastisphere (Zettler et al. 2013).

More than 380 taxa have been mentioned to drift on the floated marine litter
(Kiessling et al. 2015), or as it is called “neustonic plastics” (Day et al. 1990;
Moore et al. 2002; Collignon et al. 2012; Aytan et al. 2016) or “neustoplastic”
(Snigirova et al. 2019). Accordingly, the communities of organisms that colonize
plastic surface could be named “neustoplaston”. The study of these communities,
primarily those formed mainly by microorganisms (for example, microphytes) is
extremely important because of the following reasons.

Firstly, they can take an active part in the biodegradation of synthetic polymers:
they penetrate in the cracks, scratches and other deformations on their surface,
and then actively reproduce there, pushing the edges of these “wounds” and
forming new ones (Pekhtasheva et al. 2012; Eich et al. 2015). This leads to
gradual processes of fragmentation of large plastic into smaller parts which called
microplastics (< 5 mm). In this way, with the participation of microorganisms,
microneustoplastics can be formed from macroneustoplastics. The destructive
properties of microorganisms are important in this context for understanding new
natural processes.

Secondly, such communities are formed by microorganisms that capable to

inhabit a substrate that is new for nature and live on it in rather aggressive

288
environmental conditions. Their properties and abilities – both individual and at
the level of simply organized assemblages – can be further used for the purposes
of mariculture and biotechnology.

Thirdly, the drifted plastics may be considered as additional way of biological

invasions due to ability of plastic particles overcome big distances passing seas
and oceans with the water currents (Pinochet et al. 2020). There are also the
precedents of a new taxa found on the surface of artificial polymers and the new
ones are likely to be found in future (West et al. 2016). However, this type of
anthropogenic pathways for the bioinvasions is discussable and least
understandable question (Lewis et al. 2005; NOAA 2017). The species that
adapted to live on the plastic surface wider in their ecological niches and might
overcome big distances through the seas and oceans and occur in new water areas.

Microbial colonization on plastics might enhances microplastic ingestion by

marine organisms from zoopankton to mammals. Colonization of plastics also
changes the buoyancy and sinking rates of plastics, thus it effects the time of
plastics occur in the surface/water column and bioavailability of plastics. Finally,
under the weight of growing communities, neustoplastics gradually sink into the
water column, becoming for some time a planktoplastic, and then getting to the
bottom. To understand the effects of microphytes fouling on the fate of
neustoplastics, it is necessary to take into account the features of the formation
and the structure microphytes fouling in various environmental conditions.

Our studies were conducted in the northern part of the Black Sea coastal waters,
in areas with intense anthropogenic stress and a fairly high level of pollution,
including plastic. The aim of this study was to describe the species composition
and spatial organization of microphytes assemblages of two types of
neustoplastics in the North Black Sea, to understand their features and to compare
microphytes fouling in different neustoplastics

Materials and Methods

In this study, we analyzed two types of neustoplastics that were sampled in coastal
area of Crimean Peninsula. In October 2016 the big peace of polyethylene film
with microphytes fouling was occasionally sampled near Gurzuf (44.5454 N,
34.2955 E). Another item for present study was polyethylene terephthalate bottle
that was exposed from August, 4 till September, 19 in 2018 near a mussel farm
in the Gulf of Sevastopol (44.6168 N, 33.5019 E) on the surface of the sea. To
analyse the species and horologic structure of microphytes` assemblage the
several fragments of polyethylene material were taken (each about 15 cm2) with
different extent of microphytes fouling. The samples were fixed with 96-% of
ethanol and were preserved in dark cold place. The further processing of the
samples was made in the laboratory of Institute of Oceanology RAS under light
microscopes Leica DMLS и Leica DM-2500. Firstly, the assemblage on the

289
polyethylene was observed without preliminary treatment on water temporary
slides. For identification of diatoms the permanent slides were prepared. Organic
compound was burned with the help of concentrated sulphuric acid. The frustules
were separated from the substrate with a help of ultrasound (Nevrova et al. 2015).
To identify the microalgae and cyanobacteria the following atlases and revisions
were used (Sadogurska 2013; Krammer and Lange-Bertalot 1986; Sims et al.
1996; Witkowski et al. 2000; Komarek 2013; Diatoms of North America 2020).
Nomenclature of the taxa was specified based on algaebase.org (Guiry and Guiry
2020).

Results and Discussion

Microphytes assemblages on the neustonic polyethylene film

The microphytes fouling covered the both sides of transparent and very cracked
(damaged) polyethylene film. The density and transparency of the film let to study
the structure of the microphytes assemblage on its both surfaces without turning
it over. Thus, the microphytes fouling in the process of growth was well
illuminated from all sides. There should not be no shading effect from the
substrate folds. From both sides of the film the golden-brown fouling of different
density was clearly visible. At the edges, the fragment was severely torn, but the
stretching effect was not noted.

Figure 1. Cyanobacterial fouling on polyethylene film in neustoplastics of the North

Black Sea: 1 – Calothrix scopulorum C.Agardh ex Bornet et Flahault; 2 – C. fusca f.
parva (Ercegovic) Poljansky; 3 – Dichothrix gypsophila Bornet et Flahault; 4 – C. fusca
Bornet et Flahault; 5 – C. рarietina Thuret ex Bornet et Flahault;
6 – C. brevissima G.S.West.

290
The microphytes fouling was represented with 14 taxa (Sapozhnikov et al. 2018)
(6 taxa of cyanobacteria from the genera Calothrix и Dichothriх (Figure 1) and 8
species of Bacillariophyta from the genera Mastogloia, Halamphora, Cocconeis,
Navicula and Nitzschia) (Figure 2). Here we observed a scarcely diverse
community. However, it was developed under significantly more aggressive
conditions than, for example, assemblages of the rocky supralittoral.

To compare with, on the same part of the littoral coast we noted the read
algae+cyanobacteria+diatoms assemblage that consisted of more than 30 species
of micro- and macroalgae. Among them there were Ceramium sp. and
Lophosiphonia sp., 8 species of cyanobacteria that were morphologically closed
to Сalothrix (Scytonematopsis crustacean, Сalothrix fusca, C. fusca f. parva, C.
contarenii, C. aff. vivipara, C. parietina, C. scopulorum and Calothrix sp. 1), 2
species of Leptolyngbya, Schizothrix cresswellii, S. telephoroides and 5 species
of crust forms of cyanobacteria (Entophysalis granulosa, E. major, Pleurocapsa
minuta and Placoma vesiculosa), which form the lowest layer of the assemblage.
Within the diatoms we found species of Halamphora, Mastogloia, Cocconeis,
Navicula, Nitzschia, Licmophora, Achnanthes and Rhopalodia.

In spite of comparatively low number of species the assemblages of microphytes

on the film was clearly tiered with strictly ordered elements of architecture. All 5
species of Calothrix and Dichothrix gypsophila had trichome covered with
multilayered transparent sheaths that hide the lower part of their trichomes.

This morphological feature is a beneficial adaptation, which allowed them to

develop in relatively “greenhouse” conditions, reducing the aggressive effects of
light, temperature drops and the mechanical effects of waves – in a
hydrodynamically active and light-saturated environment in the subsurface of the
sea. The larger species with raised trichomes formed upper layer of the
assemblage: C. scopulorum and C. рarietina. Their patches with 0.7-1.2 mm
thickness covered up to 60-70% of the film surface, when the exfoliated sheaths
protected the microphytes assemblage from the aggressive environment. The
second more lower layer of trichomes was formed by spreading patches of D.
gypsophila, 0.3–0.4 mm height. And finally, small patches of three more species
Calothrix fusca, C. fusca f. parva. C. brevissima grown on both sides of the film
rising above the surface on 70–100 μm. C. brevissima was represented by very
small groups with several trichomes in the thinnest sheaths.

The layer of cyanobacterial trichomes grown on the polyethylene film was not
continuous, but they were grouped along the shallow deformations and cracks,
and especially densely in the places of branching of cracks.

291
 Figure 2. Bacillariophyta on the polyethylene film in neustoplastics of the North Black
Sea: 1, 2 – Mastogloia lanceolata Thwaites ex W.Smith, 3, 4 – M. pusilla Grunow;
5, 6 – M. aff. urveae Witkowski; 7 – Halamphora aff. luciae (Cholnoky) Levkov;
8, 11 – Cocconeis aff. neothumensis Krammer; 9, 10, 12 – H. aff. coffeaeformis
(C.Agardh) Levkov; 13 – H. aff. tenerrima (Aleem et Hustedt) Levkov.

Three species of Mastogloia genus that form polysaccharide capsules, were

located in various tiers of the assemblage. M. lanceolata was the most abundant
and presented in three size modifications. The shortest one but wide with the
following parameters: 27.9–34.3 μm length (on average 31.2 μm) and 13.2–16.1

292
μm width (on average 14.8 μm) – was registered in thick-walled capsules only on
the sheaths` surface of C. scopulorum and C. parietina. Moderate in size form
with parameters: 34.3–41.8 μm length (on average 39.3 μm) and 14.1–17.3 μm
width (on average 15.9 μm) in thinner capsules dwelled the sheaths` surface of D.
gypsophila as well as directly on the film under the cyanobacteria and on opened
surfaces of the polyethylene. At least the biggest form of Mastogloia with
parameters 45.5–47.6 μm length (on average 46.4 μm) and 16.9–18.5 μm width
(on average 17.3 μm) – placed in thick capsules was met predominantly wider
open places on the film surface, that were not fouled with cyanobacteria.

Mastogloia pusilla and M. aff. urveae with capsules occurred much less frequent,
the percentage ratio of density was the following: M. lanceolata : M. pusilla : M.
aff. urveae ≈ 80.39:15.69:3.92. The last two species had the cells sizes 21.3– 25.5
× 6.5–7.4 μm (on average 24 × 7 μm) and 14.2–23.9 × 6.6–11.2 μm (on average
19 × 8.9 μm), respectively. Both species dwell on the surface of sheaths of C.
scopulorum, C. parietina и D. gypsophila in the lower part of their patches. They
were not registered directly on the film.

Besides the encapsulated forms of diatoms that were protected from the
aggressive impact of environment with the help of secreted polymers
(polysaccharides), the 4 species of attached diatoms were massively registered.
These were Halamphora aff. coffeaeformis, H. aff. tenerrima, H. aff. luciae and
Cocconeis aff. neothumensis, which used the sheaths in the bases of patches of
bigger species Calothrix and D. gypsophila as a substrate (or a hideout).

Table 1. Cells sizes of attached species of Bacillariophyta in the basis of the sheaths in
patches of Calothrix spp. Dichothrix gypsophila from polyethylene film of neustoplastic
in the North Black Sea

Length (μm) Width (μm)

Species
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Halamphora aff.
6.2 13 9.8 3.9 7 5.4
tenerrima
Halamphora aff.
11.3 21 14.5 3.7 6.7 5.7
coffeaeformis
Halamphora aff.
8.5 14.5 11.6 4.3 6.6 5.4
luciae
Cocconeis aff.
8.6 11.1 10.1 4.5 6.7 5.7
neothumensis

The average data on the valves lengths of nonencapsulated attached forms of

diatoms did not exceed 15 μm (with maximum 21 μm) (Table 1). These were
relatively small species that were compactly placed under the cover of polymer
sheaths of cyanobacteria. Small cells of Cocconeis aff. neothumensis formed
colonial settlements, which were especially dense and widely spread over the
substrate. In its settlement other species were rarely met. Accumulation of small

293
species such as H. aff. tenerrima и H. aff. luciae was registered rising on the
sheaths of Calothrix spp. The mid-size H. aff. coffeaeformis did not form the
colonies. They were met basically in peripheral part of the fouling of other
species. The percentage ratio of species density is the following: С. aff.
neothumensis : H. tenerrima : H. coffeaeformis : H. aff. luciae ≈ 32.71 : 44.86 :
17.29 : 5.14. It is worth mentioning that directly on the PE-film these species were
not register. Besides in the neustoplastic assemblage single cells of highly mobile
species such as Navicula pontica and Nitzschia dissipata were met.

Microphytes assemblages on the neustonic polyethylene terephthalate bottle

In September 2018, we studied the microphytes fouling on the surface of PET-

bottle that floated on the surface of the sea in conditions of periodical
eutrophication – on this location of water area once a day was a discharge of waste
waters from the city.

The thickness of the microphytes fouling made about 1.3-1.5 mm. We also
observed the layering of the community. However, it was hard to strictly interpret
the peculiarities of the horological structure. The assemblage was formed by
mosaic scattered spots with different spatial organization. It is quite possible that
growth of the fouling under conditions of intensive hydrodynamics and excessive
lighting (as aggressive factors) was flavored with a constant influx of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus compounds). Such a regular stuffing of “fertilizers”
contributed to a decrease in competition for nutrient resources among the
microphytes that inhabited the substrate.

For example, as a part of the upper layer, we met an extensive, almost

monospecific patches of filamentous cyanobacteria Leptolyngbya foveolarum, as
well as very large colonies of the diatom Neosynedra provincialis, formed by
branching chains of long cells, in some places braided by trichomes of Symploca
elegans (Figure 3, 4). Among the colonies of N. provincialis, tubular colonies of
diatoms such as Berkeleya aff. sparsa and Parlibellus delognei. Here, the
formation of small loose colonies of coccoid cyanobacteria Asterocapsa salina
and Chroococcus cf. montanus, as well as compact aggregates of the diatoms
Halamphora eunotia and H. obscura took place. Single cells of Halamphora
tenerrima were met. Note that these Halamphora species also formed the lowest
level of the community, where they lived in colonial settlements, together with
Amphora helenensis and Seminavis strigosa.

294
Figure 3. Cyanobacterial fouling on polyethylene terephthalate in neustoplastics of the
North Black Sea: 1 – Symploca elegans, 2, 6 – Leptolyngbia foveolarum;
3 – Phormidium sp.; 4 – Spirulina subsalsa; 5 – Limnothrix aff. pseudovacuolata.

295
Figure 4. Bacillariophyta on polyethylene terephthalate in neustoplastics of the North
Black Sea: 1 – Neosynedra provincialis and colonies of Proshkinia bulnheimii;
2 – Neosynedra provincialis; 3 - colonies of Proshkinia bulnheimii; 4 – colonies of
Berkeleya aff. sparsa; 5 – Amphora helenensis; 6 – Navicula pontica.

296
In addition, quite independent spots on the surface of the bottle were formed by
mucilage colonies of the diatom Proschkinia bulnheimii – their branches in some
places penetrated into the colonies of other species. Among the patches of
colonial forms an individual trichomes of Phormidium sp., Geitlerinema sp., L.
foveolarum, Limnothrix aff. pseudovacuolata and Spirulina subsalsa, motile
diatoms Navicula pontica and Entomoneis punctulata, as well as dinoflagellates
Prorocentrum lima were often met. Among the colonies of microphytes, small
colonies of heterotrophic bacteria developed in mass.

We see that under the described conditions a multispecific and structurally diverse
periphyton rather quickly developed on PET-bottle. However, at this stage of
fouling development, no damage corresponding to the destructive activity of
microphytes was observed on the surface of the PET.

This assemblage was absolutely different from what we observed on the PE film.
Moreover, it was much more diverse than the microphytes fouling formed on the
piers and traverses located in the bay. There, in the zone of intense impact of the
waves, assemblage of cyanobacteria composed of Asterocapsa salina, Placoma
vesiculosa, Gloeocapsopsis sp. 1, Gloeocapsopsis sp. 2 and Calothrix sp. 1. For
the most part, they built compact colonies from very densely located cells
immersed in a common polymer matrix.

So, the rolling waves had a much stronger effect on the diversity of assemblage
in this biotope – their kinetic energy during impacts on the traverses could be
much higher than those that passed under a PET bottle dangling on the surface
200 m from the coast. This factor can be regarded as significantly more extreme
than rocking on the waves.

Conclusion

The assemblage on the surface of PE-film that was studied in the period of
maximum biodiversity (in the beginning of October) the formation of
microphytes fouling in the supralittoral of the Black Sea was poorer than
assemblage of coastal rocks. However, we should note that the studied
extremotolerant assemblage differed in significant order of its components:
presence of layering, microhabitat localization of certain species and size
modification of others. Such an architecture of the community testifies the
forming of specific adaptations of microphytes to the living on poorly studied on
PE-substrate that is widely spread in the Black Sea

We suppose that compact groups of trichomes that grow along the deformed
sectors of PE-film surface, including cracks, might mechanically influence the
substrate that led to its destruction. Their tight attachment and growing wide may
assist mechanical widening of deformations and taking into account the loss of

297
elasticity of the film, this should have led to the deepening and growth of cracks.
The diatom fouling, which massively developed on the sheaths in base of patches,
could have additional abrasive effect on the substrate.

In turn, microphytes fouling on a PET bottle was characterized by a significantly

higher diversity compare to the epilithic community of microphytes on coastal
rocky substrates. It is worth taking into account that the factor of a less aggressive
effect of surface waves on a bottle swinging on waves far from the shore than on
shore protection structures. In the result of the study of the microphytes fouling
formation of the plastics` surface in a strongly eutrophic zone we conclude the
following. Firstly, taking into account the growth rate of the layer of living
microphytes on PET, it can be assumed that after 3-4 months the fouling can reach
such a power and weight that it will easily pull the bottle under water if the air
can escape from the bottle. The second important moment is that the rapid
formation of a multi-species microphytes fouling on PET in case of available
tiering (not even too obvious) gives reason to expect a further increase in the
diversity of this structure and the complexity of its architecture, in accordance
with the ecological features of the new species.

In the presence of similar environmental conditions in these regions of the Black

Sea, the assemblage that was formed on PET had wider plastic ecological
capabilities than on PE. As prerequisites for this, it makes sense to consider the
higher strength and lower elasticity of PET in comparison with PE, as well as the
fact that the assemblage here was formed under initially more severe conditions
– on the very surface of the water. The second reason significantly narrows the
range of adaptive capabilities of the early colonizers: they must grow rapidly,
forming powerful colonies that protect their cells well from direct sunlight and
preserve moisture with non-periodic drying of the substrate.

Together with the assessment of the microphytes fouling formation in nature, our
group conducts the various experiments either in the laboratory, or in natural
conditions. The results of these experiments let us find out the adaptive strategies
of microalgae during colonization of the artificial polymers, as well as to
understand the principles of organization of multispecies mosaic structures and
their role in biodestruction of marine plastics. This is especially relevant when in
the result of Covid-19 Pandemia the great amount of individual protection
equipment that are made mainly from plastics, occurred in the seas and oceans.

References

Auman, H.J., Ludwig, J.P., Giesy, J.P., Colborn, T. (1997) Plastic ingestion by
Laysan Albatross chicks on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995.
Albatross Biology and Conservation 239-244.

298
Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Milan, M., Benedetti, M., Fattorini, D., d’Errico, G.,
Pauletto, M., Bargelloni, L., Regoli, F. (2015) Pollutants bioavailability and
toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ Pollut 198: 211-
222.

Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F. (2017) Plastics and microplastics in the oceans:
from emerging pollutants to emerged threat. Mar Environ Res 128: 2-11.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Sahin, F.B.E., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agirbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Mar Environ Res 119: 22-30.

Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009) Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
364(1526): 1985-1998.

Collignon, A., Hecq, J.H., Glagani, F., Voisin, P., Collard, F., Goffart, A. (2012)
Neustonic microplastic and zooplankton in the North Western Mediterranean Sea.
Mar Pollut Bull 64(4): 861-864.

Colton, J.B., Knapp, F.D., Burns, B.R. (1974) Plastic particles in surface waters
of the Northwestern Atlantic. Science 185: 491-497.

Day, R.H., Shaw, D.G., Ignell, S.E. (1990) The quantitative distribution and
characteristics of neuston plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, In: Proceedings of
the Second International Conference on Marine Debris. Honolulu, Hawaii (eds.,
Shomura, R.S., Godfrey, M.L.) U.S Dep. Commerce. NOAA Technical.
Memorandum. NMFS, NOAATM-SWFSC-154, 2–7 April 1989. 1985-88.

Diatoms of North America. (2020) Available at: https://diatoms.org/genera/

Eich, A.T., Mildenberger, C., Laforsch, Weber, M. (2015) Biofilm and diatom
succession on polyethylene (PE) and biodegradable plastic bags in two marine
habitats: early signs of degradation in the pelagic and benthic zone. PLOS ONE
10 (9): e0137201.

Fossi, M.C., Casini, S., Ancora, S., Moscatelli, A., Ausili, A., Notarbartolo-di-
Sciara, G. (2001) Do endocrine disrupting chemicals threaten Mediterranean
swordfish? Preliminary results of vitellogenin and Zona radiata proteins in
Xiphias gladius. Mar Environ Res 52(5): 477-483.

Fossi, M.C., Marsili, L., Baini, M., Giannetti, M., Coppola, D., Guerranti, C.,
Caliani, L., Minutoli, R., Lauriano, G., Finoia, M.G., Rubegni, F., Panigada, S.,

299
Berube, M., Urban Ramírez, J., Panti, C. (2016) Fin whales and microplastics: the
Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Cortez scenarios. Environ Pollut 209: 68-78.

Fossi, M.C., Panti, C., Guerranti, C., Coppola, D., Giannetti, M., Marsili, L.,
Minutoli, R. (2012) Are baleen whales exposed to the threat of microplastics? A
case study of the Mediterranean fin whale. Mar Pollut Bull 64(11): 2374-2379.

Fossi, M.C., Romeo, T., Baini, M., Panti, C., Marsili, L., Campani, T., Canese,
S., Galgani, F., Druon, J.N., Airoldi, S., Taddei, S., Fattorini, M., Brandini, C.,
Lapucci, C. (2017) Plastic debris occurrence, convergence areas and Fin Whales
feeding ground in the Mediterranean Marine Protected Area Pelagos Sanctuary:
a modelling approach. Front Mar Sci 4: 167.

Guiry, M.D., Guiry, G. M. (2020) AlgaeBase. World–wide electronic publication.

National University of Ireland, Galway. Available at http://www.algaebase.org.

Hammer, J., Kraak, M.H., Parsons, J.R. (2012) Plastics in the marine
environment: the darkside of a modern gift. Rev Environ Contamination and
Toxicol 220: 1-44.

Kiessling, T., Gutow, L., Thiel, M. (2015) Marine litter as a habitat and dispersal
vector. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter, (eds., Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages,
M.), Springer, Berlin. pp. 141-181.

Komárek, J. (2013) Cyanoprokaryota. 3. Heterocytous genera. In : Süswasserflora

von Mitteleuropa/Freshwater flora of Central Europe (eds., Büdel, B., Gärtner,
G., Krienitz, L., Schagerl, M.), Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 1130.

Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H. (1986) Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil: Naviculaceae

In: Susswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Stuttgart-Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag. Bd.
2/1. 876 p.

Laist, D.W. (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in

marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and
ingestion records. In: Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions (eds., Coe,
J.M., Rogers, D.B.), Springer-Verla., New York. pp. 99-139.

Lewis, P. N., Riddle, M.J., Smith, S.D.A. (2005). Assisted passage or passive
drift: A comparison of alternative transport mechanisms for non-indigenous
coastal species into the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science 17: 183-191.

Lobelle, D., Cunliffe, M. (2011) Early microbial biofilm formation on marine

plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 197-200.

300
Moore, C.J., Moore, S.L., Weisberg, S.B., Lattin, G.L., Zellers, A.F. (2002) A
comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern
California’s coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull 44: 1035-1038.

Murray, F., Cowie, P.R. (2011) Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean
Nephrops norvegicus. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 1207-1217.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program.

(2017) Report on Marine Debris as a Potential Pathway for Invasive Species.
Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine
Debris Program. 31 p.

Nevrova, Y.L., Snigirova, A.A., Petrov, A.N., Kovaleva, G.V. (2015) Guidelines
for quality control of the Black Sea. Microphytobenthos, Orianda, Sevastopol:
176 p. (in Russian).

Ng, K.L., Obbard, J.P. (2006) Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s coastal

marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 52: 761-767.

Pekhtasheva, E.L., Neverov, A.N., Zaikov, G.E. (2012) Biodamage and

biodegradation of polymeric materials: New Frontiers (UK: Smithers Rapra
Technology Ltd) 250 р. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1134/1/0120.

Pinochet, J., Urbina, M.A., Lagos, M.E. (2020) Marine invertebrate larvae love
plastics: Habitat selection and settlement on artificial substrates. Environ Pollut
257: 113571.

Rios, L.M., Moore, C., Jones, P.R. (2007) Persistent organic pollutants carried by
synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar Pollut Bull 54: 1230-1237.

Rochman, C.M. (2013) Plastics and priority pollutants: a multiple stressor in

aquatic habitats. Environ Sci Technol 47: 2439-2440.

Sadogurska, S.O. (2013) Annotated list of Cyanoprocaryota marine rocky

supralittoral of the nature reserve "Cape Martian". Chernomorsk bot journ 9(1):
125-138 (in Ukrainian).

Sapozhnikov, P.V., Snigirova, A.A., Kalinina, O.Yu. (2018) The architecture of

the phytoperiphyton of a polyethylene film from the surface of the Black Sea.
Materials of the Russian Scientific Conference with international participation
“ALGAE: Problems of Taxonomy, Ecology and Use in Monitoring”, St.
Petersburg, Russia, pp. 378-383 (in Russian).

Sims, P.A., Carter, J.R., Barber, H.G. Hartley, B. (1996) An Atlas of British
Diatoms. Bristol, Eng: Biopress Ltd., p. 601.

301
Snigirova, A.A., Sapozhnikov, Ph. V., Kalinina, O. Yu. (2019) Marine litter as a
new contact biotope for the Black Sea. In: International scientific conference
«Achievements in studies of marginal effect in water ecosystems and their
practical significance»: Book of abstracts. (eds. Aleksandrov, B.G., Snigirova, A.
A.), Odesa-Istanbul, Ukraine, pp. 49-50.

UNEP (2005) Marine Litter, an Analytical Overview. Nairobi: United Nations

Environment Program.

West, J.A., Hansen, G.I., Hanyuda, T., Zuccarello, G.C. (2016) Flora of drift
plastics: a new red algal genus, Tsunamia transpacifica (Stylonematophyceae)
from Japanese tsunami debris in the northeast Pacific Ocean. ALGAE 31(4): 289-
301.

Witkowski, A., Lange-Bertalot, H., Metzeltin, D. (2000) Diatom flora of marine

coasts. Part I. Iconographia Diatomologica, 7: 925 p.

Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A. (2013) Life in the “plastisphere”:
Microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ Sci Technol 47(13):
7137–7146.

302
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Microplastics in bivalves in the southern Black Sea

Yasemen Şentürk1, F. Başak Esensoy1, Ayşah Öztekin2, Ülgen Aytan1*

1 Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Fisheries, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University,
Rize, TURKEY
2 Faculty of Fisheries, Sinop University, Sinop, TURKEY

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Presence of microplastics in five bivalve species in the southern Black Sea was
investigated for the first time. Bivalve species Donax trunculus (Linnaeus 1758),
Chamelea gallina (Linnaeus 1758), Abra alba (W. Wood 1802), Anadara inaequivalvis
(Bruguière 1789) and Pitar rudis (Poli 1795) were collected from River Yeşilırmak and
River Melet mouths in June 2020. Microplastics were found in all bivalve species, except
for Abra alba. A total of 92 microplastics were found in 89 individuals analysed. The
average number of microplastics ranged from 1.69 to 4 mp.ind-1. Fibres were the most
common type of microplastic type in each bivalve species, followed by fragments and
films. No microbead was found. The most common size class was 1-2 mm (34 %). A total
of 9 different colours of microplastics were found with black and blue being the prevalent
colours. Our results suggest that microplastic pollution in bivalves collected from southern
Black Sea is relatively high, suggesting trophic transfer in the food web and risk for human
by contaminated diets.

Keywords: Bivalve, Mollusca, microplastic, ingestion, southern Black Sea

Introduction

World plastic production is increasing exponentially and reached to 360 million

tons in 2018 (Plastics Europe 2019). Substantial amounts of this production reach
the marine ecosystem from multiple sources. It has been estimated that between
15 and 51 trillion plastic particles, weighing up to 236,000 tons have accumulated
globally in marine ecosystems (Van Sebille et al. 2015). Because of the
widespread use and persistent nature of them, plastics are now becoming
ubiquitous in marine waters, sediments and organisms (Yang et al. 2015; Andrady
2011; Bosker et al. 2017).

Seafood represents an important pathway for microplastics (< 5 mm) (MPs) and
associated toxic contaminants for humans (Teng et al. 2019). Filter feeders such
as bivalves directly take MPs within their prey or take them accidentally (Li et al.
2015). Bivalves are probably one of the largest sources MPs for humans, as they
are consumed as a whole in seafood (Lusher et al. 2017). High intake of MPs by
bivalves have been reported by many studies (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen
2014; Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016; Digka et al. 2018; Capolupo
et al. 2018; Abidli et al. 2019; Naudi 2019). The concentration of MPs in bivalves

303
was reported as significantly higher in the regions where human activities are
intense (Li et al. 2016). Thus, they are an important bio-indicator species for
monitoring MP pollution (Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015; Wesch et al. 2016; Li
et al. 2016; Lusher et al. 2017; Qu et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019).

Black Sea is the drainage area of multiple industrialized countries (BSC 2007;
Aytan et al. 2016). Rivers transport substantial amounts of plastic litter to the
basin (BSC 2007). Plastic constitutes > 80 % of marine litter in the sea floor, sea
surface and on beaches (e.g. Topcu and Oztürk 2010; Guneroglu 2010; Topcu et
al. 2013; Aytan et al. 2016). Recent estimations showed that Black Sea has almost
two times more plastics compare to neighbouring Mediterranean Sea (EMBLAS
Plus 2019). Microplastics are an emerging contaminant of concern in the Black
Sea (Bosker et al. 2017). Recent studies reported high concentrations of MPs from
the surface waters of the SE Black Sea and highlighted the importance of land-
based sources (Aytan et al. 2016; Oztekin and Bat 2017).

Although studies on occurrence and sources of MPs in the seawater and sediment
have increased in the last years (e.g. Aytan et al. 2016; Oztekin and Bat 2017;
Berov and Klayn 2020), there is still limited knowledge on occurrence, ingestion
and their effects on biota in the Black Sea. The structure and functioning of the
macro benthic community in the Black Sea is one of the important indicators in
assessing ecological health (BSC 2007). The aim of this study was to determine
the presence of MPs in bivalves. For the first time, MPs in five common species
of bivalves, collected from the mouth of two important rivers in the southern
Black Sea, were assessed.

Materials and Methods

Study area and sampling

Sediment samples were collected in the southern Black Sea on board of R/V
KARADENIZ ARAŞTIRMA during June 2020 as a part of TUBITAK project
118Y125. Sediment samples were taken from the mouth (app. 5 m depth) of River
Yeşilırmak and River Melet by box corer. Sediment samples were sieved from 5
mm stainless steel sieve to collect the bivalve samples. Bivalve species were taken
and stored in glass bottles containing 96% ethyl alcohol until the laboratory
analysis.

304
 Figure 1. Sampling areas in the southern Black Sea (ST1: River Yeşilırmak (Samsun),
ST2: River Melet (Ordu)

Laboratory Analysis

A total of 89 individuals belonging to 5 bivalve species Donax trunculus

(Linnaeus 1758), Chamelea gallina (Linnaeus 1758), Abra alba (W. Wood 1802),
Anadara inaequivalvis (Bruguière 1789) and Pitar rudis (Poli 1795) were chosen
(Figure 2). Total length (mm) (TL), total height (mm) (TH), total weight (gr)
(TW) and soft tissue weight (mm) (STW) were recorded for each individual
(Table 1).

Figure 2. Bivalve species. a. Chamelea gallina (Linnaeus 1758), b. Donax trunculus

(Linnaeus 1758), c. Abra alba (W. Wood 1802), d. Anadara inaequivalvis
(Bruguière 1789), e. Pitar rudis (Poli 1795)

Soft tissues of bivalves were rinsed with Milli-Q water and were placed in glass
bottles. 10% KOH solution were added to glass bottles and covered with
aluminium foil. 10% KOH solution, which is considered to provide the most
efficient removal of soft tissue, while protecting microplastics, was used (Thiele
et al. 2019). Samples were kept at 40° C for 48 hours. When the biological
material was completely removed, samples were filtered on 10 µm filters. Filters
were transferred into the glass petri dishes and left to dry in the oven.

Presence of MPs was visualised under a ZEISS Stemi 508 stereo microscope and
their images were taken with an integrated digital camera. Microplastics were
classified by types (fibres, fragments, films and microbeads) and colour. The

305
largest cross sections of MPs were measured and classified into 4 size categories:
0.1mm - 0.5mm, 0.5mm - 1mm, 1mm – 2mm, 2mm-5mm. Suspected items were
checked whether they were plastics or not using the hot needle test (Hermsen et
al. 2018).

Table 1. The number of individual (n), total length (TL), total height (TH), total width
(TW), soft tissue weight (STW) of bivalve species analysed
Species n TL (mm) TH (mm) TW (gr) STW (gr)
D. trunculus 51 14.53±2.03 8.72±1.25 0.37±0.23 0.13±0.09
C. gallina 31 17.08±3.76 15.18±3.22 1.55±1.00 0.37±0.24
A. alba 4 17.02±1.35 12.27±0.91 0.48±0.12 0.19±0.02
A. inaequivalvis 2 38.89±9.85 31.62±8.32 15.22±7.53 5.38±3.22
P. rudis 1 34.64 28.81 4.20 1.84

All laboratory analysis was conducted under strict clean-air conditions. To

prevent contamination, Cotton laboratory coats were worn and working surfaces
were cleaned. All the equipment was cleaned by ultra-pure water before used.
During all step of the analyses, procedural blanks were performed simultaneously
with samples to control air-born contamination and filters were checked under
microscope prior to use. Petri dishes with dampened filters were kept next to the
sample during microscopic examinations and checked for presence of MPs. In
case similar particles were found in the control samples they were excluded from
the analysis (Foekema et al. 2013).

The number of MPs in each individual was counted and the mean MP ingestion
was calculated for all species (mp.ind-1). The mean frequency of occurrence (FO
%) of MPs calculated for each species. To compare the number of MPs among
bivalve species a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed.
Significance level was considered for P < 0.05 in all statistical analyses.

Results and Discussion

For the first time five bivalve species Donax trunculus (Linnaeus 1758),
Chamelea gallina (Linnaeus 1758), Abra alba (W. Wood 1802), Anadara
inaequivalvis (Bruguière 1789) and Pitar rudis (Poli 1795), which are common
in Black Sea coastal waters, were examined for the presence of microplastic.

Microplastics were found in all species analysed except for A. alba, most likely
due to the low number of individuals analysed for this species. The total of 92
MPs were found in 47 (53 %) of the 89 individuals examined. Three types of MPs
were found. Fibres (66 %) were the most common type, followed by films (25 %)
and fragments (9 %) (Figure 3). No microbeads or foam was found. Fibres and
films were found in the individuals of D. turunculus, C. gallina, A. inqequvalvis
and P. rudis, however fragments were only found in D. turunculus and C. gallina.

306
Our results support previous studies that fibres are the most common type of MPs
reported from bivalves (Devriese et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016). Fibres were also
reported as common type of MPs from surface waters of the SE Black Sea (Aytan
et al. 2016). Composition and concentration of MPs ingested by bivalves
indicates the status of pollution in their area (Li et al. 2019) and prevalence of
fibres suggests land-based pollution sources such as sewage and run-offs.

Figure 3. Examples of microplastic types found in bivalve species

(a: film, b: fibre, c: fragment)

The average concentration of MPs ranged from 1.69 and 4 mp.ind -1 (Table 2). A
maximum of seven MPs were found in an individual. Reported concentrations of
MPs in bivalve species varies between studies from all around the world (Table
3). Our results are consistent with reports from the Mediterranean Sea (Avio et
al. 2017; Digka et al. 2018) and coastal waters of China (Li et al. 2016; 2018;
Teng et al. 2019) but higher than the study on the French Atlantic coast (Phuong
et al. 2018). Differences between studies are most likely a result of different
concentrations and compositions of MPs in the water column and in sediment and
of methodological differences.

In this study, frequency of occurrence of MPs was 57 % in D. trunculus and 48%

in C. gallina. Our values are very close to the study conducted in the
Mediterranean Sea (45-47 %) (Digka et al. 2018) and higher than the study
reported from the Italian coast (10-36 %) (Avio et al. 2017). Frequency of
occurrence was 100 % for A. inaequivalvis and P. rudis, most likely due to the
low number of species analysed. Significant differences in the number of MPs
among bivalve species was found (p <0.05, one-way ANOVA).

Size of MPs found in bivalves varied between 0.15 and 4.56 mm in size, the most
dominant size group was 1-2 mm. Average size for MPs were 1.44 ± 0.88, 1.42 ±
0.93, 0.40 ± 0.21 mm for films, fibres and fragments, respectively. The most
dominant size group was 1mm – 2mm in films and fibres, and 0.1-0.5mm for
fragments. During the study, two mesoplastics (> 5 mm) in the form of fibres
were found (5.74-10.40 mm) (Figure 4). The size of MPs in bivalves found in this
study is the same range and order of previous studies (Table 3).

307
 Table 2. Total number of bivalve species analysed, total number of individuals with
microplastic, feeding occurrence (FO %), total number of microplastics found in bivalve
species and average concentration of microplastics in in each bivalve species
Species No of ind. Ind. with FO % No of Conc. of
analysed MP MP MP
Donax trunculus 51 29 57 49 1.69
Chamelia gallina 31 15 48 31 2.07
Anadara inaequivalvis 2 2 100 8 4
Pitar rudis 1 1 100 4 4
Abra alba 4 0 0 0 0
89 47 53 92 1.95

Table 3. Comparison with previous studies

Size
Location mp.ind-1 Type Colour Reference
(mm)
China 1.5-1.7 Fibre - 0.03-4.7 Li et al. 2016
Mediterranean 1.7 ± 0.2 Fragment Blue 0.1-5 Digka et al. 2018
Light
China 1.4 -7.0 Fibre <0.1 Li et al. 2018
colours
Black,
Italia - Fibre 0.75–6 Renzi et al. 2018
Blue
France 0.6 ± 0.6 Fragment Grey 0.03-2 Phuong et al. 2018
China 2.93 Fibre - <1.5 Teng et al. 2019
Italia 1-2 Fragment - 0.1-5 Avio et al. 2017
Black, 0.15-
Black Sea 1.69-4 Fibre This study
Blue 4.56

Film Fibre Fragment

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
0.1-0.5mm 0.5-1 mm 1-2 mm 2-5 mm >5 mm
Figure 4. Percentage of size distribution of microplastics in bivalve species

308
A total of nine different colours MPs found in bivalves (Figure 5). Blue (43 %)
was the most dominant colour, followed by black (32 %), green (7 %), orange (7
%), red (4 %), transparent (4 %), white (1 %), yellow (1 %) and pink (1 %). The
most diverse colours were observed in the fibres followed by the fragments.
While blue was dominant colour of films and fibres, green colour was dominant
colours of fragments (Figure 5). The prevalence colours of black and blue found
in present study agrees with reports from Mediterranean Sea (Table 3).

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Fibre

Fibre

Fibre

Fibre
Film

Film

Film

Film
Fragment

Fragment

Fragment

Fragment
D.trunculus C.gallina A. inaequivalvis P.rudis
White Blue Red Yellow Transparent
Black Pink Green Orange

Figure 5. Percentage of colours of microplastics in each bivalve species

Conclusion

There is an increasing awareness that MPs are a ubiquitous contaminant in marine

environment including biota. This calls for suitable indicators to monitor trends
of MP pollution. Bivalves have been widely used as bioindicator species for
monitoring coastal pollution and are now being reported to contain significantly
amounts of MPs. In this study, we evaluated MP ingestion in five common
bivalve species in the southern Black Sea. The results revealed that around half
of the bivalve analysed contained MP. This shows that bivalve species are
vulnerable to MP contamination, representing a potential risk to human health.
The most common forms of MP was fibres, which is an evidence of land-based
pollution sources in the study area. Our results suggest that bivalves can be used
as a potential bioindicator of MP pollution of coastal waters in the Black Sea.
There is an urgent need to investigate uptake, accumulation and toxicity of MPs
in both field and experimental studies.

309
Acknowledgements

This study was funded by TÜBİTAK (project number 118Y125). We thank to Dr. Selda
Başçınar for species identification and Erhan Öztürk for his help during sampling.

References

Abidli, S., Lahbib, Y., El Menif, N.T. (2019) Microplastics in commercial

molluscs from the lagoon of Bizerte (Northern Tunisia). Marine Pollution
Bulletin 142: 243-252.

Andrady, A.L. (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 62: 1596-1605.

Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F. (2017) Plastics and microplastics in the oceans:
from emerging pollutants to emerged threat. Marine Environmental Research
128: 2-11.

Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agırbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Berov, D., Klayn, S. (2020) Microplastics and floating litter pollution in

Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 156: 111225.

Bosker, T., Behrens, P., Vijver, M.G. (2017) Determining global distribution of
microplastics by combining citizen science and in-depth case studies. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 13: 536-541.

BSC (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: A Review of the Problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul-Turkey, 160.

Capolupo, M., Franzellitti, S., Valbonesi, P., Lanzas, C.S., Fabbri, E. (2018)
Uptake and transcriptional effects of polystyrene microplastics in larval stages of
the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Environmental Pollution
241: 1038-1047.
Devriese, L.I., van der Meulen, M.D., Maes, T., Bekaert, K., Paul-Pont, I., Frére,
L., Robbens, J., Vethaak, A.D. (2015) Microplastic contamination in brown
shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the southern
North Sea and channel area. Marine Pollution Bulletin 98: 179-187.

Digka, N., Tsangaris, C., Torre, M., Anastasopoulou, A., Zeri, C. (2018)
Microplastics in mussels and fish from the Northern Ionian Sea. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 135: 30-40.

310
EMBLAS Plus (2019) EU/UNDP Project: Improving Environmental Monitoring
in the Black Sea - Selected Measures. The European union for Georgian.

Foekema, E.M., De Gruijter, C., Mergia, M.T., Murk, A.J., van Franeker, J.A.,
Koelmans, A.A. (2013) Plastic in North Sea fish. Environmental Science
Technology 47: 8818-8824.

Guneroglu, A. (2010) Marine litter transportation and composition in the Coastal

southern Black Sea region. Scientific Research and Essays 5(3): 296-303.

Hermsen, E., Mintenig S., Besseling, E., Koelmans, A. (2018) Quality criteria for
the analysis of microplastic in biota samples: A Ccitical review. Environmental
Science and Techinology 52(18): 10230-10240.

Li, J., Lusher, A.L., Rotchell, J.M., Deudero, S., Turra, A., Bråte, I.L.N., Sun, C.,
Hossain, M.S., Li, Q., Kolandhasamy, P., Shi, H. (2019) Using mussel as a global
bioindicator of coastal microplastic pollution. Environmental Pollution 244: 522-
533.

Li, H.X., Ma, L.S., Lin, L., Ni, Z.X., Xu, X.R., Shi, H.H., Yan, Y., Zheng, G.M.,
Rittschof, D. (2018) Microplastics in oysters Saccostrea cucullata along the Pearl
River Estuary, China. Environmental Pollution 236: 619-625.

Li, J., Qu, X., Su, L., Zhang, W., Yang, D., Kolandhasamy, P., Li, D., Shi, H.
(2016) Microplastics in mussels along the coastal waters of China. Environmental
Pollution 214: 177-184.

Li, J., Yang, D., Li, L., Jabeen, K., Shi, H. (2015) Microplastics in commercial
bivalves from China. Environmental Pollution 207: 190-195.

Lusher, A., Brate, I.L.N., Hurley, R., Iversen, K., Olsen, M. (2017) Testing of
Methodology for Measuring Microplastics in Blue Mussels (Mytilus spp.) and
Sediments, and Recommendations for Future Monitoring of Microplastics (R&D
project). Norsk institutt for vannforskning, Norway.

Naidu, S.A. (2019) Preliminary study and first evidence of presence of

microplastics and colorants in green mussel, Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758), from
southeast coast of India. Marine Pollution Bulletin 140: 416-422.

Oztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Microlitter pollution in sea water: A preliminary study
from Sinop Sarikum coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 17: 1431-1440.

311
Plastics Europe (2019) Plastics – the Facts 2018: An analysis of European plastics
production, demand and waste data. Available at:
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_
version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf

Phuong, N.N., Poirier, L., Pham, Q.T., Lagarde, F., Zalouk-Vergnoux, A. (2018)
Factors influencing the microplastic contamination of bivalves from the French
Atlantic coast: location, season and/or mode of life? Marine Pollution Bulletin
129: 664-674.

Qu, X., Su, L., Li, H., Liang, M., Shi, H. (2018) Assessing the relationship
between the abundance and properties of microplastics in water and in mussels.
Science Total Environment 621: 679-686.

Renzi, M., Guerranti, C., Blaskovic, A. (2018) Microplastic contents from

maricultured and natural mussels. Marine Pollution Bulletin 131: 248-251.

Teng, J., Wang, Q., Ran, W., Wu, D., Liu, Y., Sun, S., Liu, H., Cao, R., Zha, J.
(2019) Microplastic in cultured oysters from different coastal areas of China.
Science of the Total Environment 653: 1282-1292.

Thiele, C.J., Hudsona, M.D., Russell, A.E. (2019) Evaluation of existing methods
to extract microplastics from bivalve tissue: Adapted KOH digestion protocol
improves filtration at single-digit pore size. Marine Pollution Bulletin 142: 384-
393.

Topcu, E.N., Oztürk, B. (2010) Abundance and composition of solid waste

materials on the western part of the Turkish Black Sea seabed. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management 13(3): 301-306.

Topcu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Ozturk, A.A., Ozturk, B. (2013) Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
coast. Marine Environmental Research 85: 21-28.

Van Cauwenberghe, L., Janssen, CR. (2014) Microplastics in bivalves cultured

for human consumption. Environmental Pollution 193: 65-70.

Van Cauwenberghe, L., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., Janssen, C.R.
(2015) Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence and
effects. Marine Environmental Research 111: 5-17.

Van Sebille, E., Wilcox, C., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Hardesty, B.., van
Franeker, J.A., Eriksen, M., Siegel, D., Galgani, F., Law, K.L. (2015) A global
inventory of small floating plastic debris. Enviromental Research Letters 10:
124006.

312
Wesch, C., Bredimus, K., Paulus, M., Klein, R. (2016) Towards the suitable
monitoring of ingestion of microplastics by marine biota: A review.
Environmental Polluttion 218: 1200-1208.

Yang, D.Q., Shi, H.H., Li, L., Li, J.N., Jabeen, K., Kolandhasamy, P. (2015)
Microplastic pollution in table salts from China. Environmental Science and
Technology 49: 13622-13627.

313
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Presence of microplastics in zooplankton and

planktivorous fish in the southeastern Black Sea

Ülgen Aytan1*, F. Başak Esensoy1, Yasemen Şentürk1,

Ertuğrul Ağırbaş1, Andre Valente2
1 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Marine Biology,
Rize, TURKEY
2 MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências,

Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, PORTUGAL

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Present work provides preliminary results that microplastics are present in critical
components of the Black Sea pelagic food web, namely in copepods and planktivorous fish
European anchovy. A total of 6 and 8 microplastics were detected after the examination of
2136 Acartia (Acartiura) clausi and 2123 Calanus euxinus, resulting in microplastics
ingestion of 0.002 par/Acartia (one MP for every 356 Acartia) and 0.004 par/Calanus (one
MP for every 265 Calanus), respectively. The microplastic size was in the same range of
natural preys of these copepods. Fragments were the most common type of ingested
microplastics, followed by film. Colour of ingested particles were black, blue and red.
Regarding MP presence in planktivorous fish, we examined the digestive tract content of
230 individuals of European anchovy. A total of 57 microplastics were found in 47 fishes,
representing a presence of MP in 20 % of fish analysed. Fibres were the most common
microplastics, followed by films and fragments. The findings show presence of
microplastic in both copepods and European anchovy, calling for urgent investigations on
effects of microplastics on biota and human health.

Keywords: Microplastic, zooplankton, European anchovy, ingestion, Black Sea

Introduction

Plastic is one of the major waste disposal problems in the world. Global annual
production continues to increased (360 million tons in 2018, Plastics Europe
2019) and ~ 5% of this production has been estimated to end in the ocean
(Jambeck et al. 2015), making up the majority of marine litter (Derraik 2002).
Once plastic enters the marine environment, it breakdowns into smaller particles
called as microplastic (< 5 mm) which further fragment into nanoplastics (<100
nm) (Arthur et al. 2009). Microplastics (MPs) also include primary particles
produced in microscopic sizes including granulates used in cosmetics, washing
powders, cleaning agents or pellets (Fendall and Sewell 2009). Because of their
durability, MPs then become widely abundant and may require centuries to
decompose (Moore 2008; Barnes et al. 2009).

314
The MP sizes are in the same range of plankton, therefore they are bioavailable
for many marine organisms (Wright et al. 2013). Once MPs are ingested, they can
enter the food web (e.g. Setala et al. 2014) with potential ecotoxicological effects
due to adsorption of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants (e.g. Martins
and Sobral 2011). Recent studies have shown that filter feeders and zooplankton
ingest MPs (Cole et al. 2013; Steer et al. 2017; Botterell et al. 2019) and that MP-
associated contaminants may transfer through food chain into human diets (Zarfl
and Matthies 2010). The effects of MP ingestion on vital functions of zooplankton
such as growth, reproduction, survival rates, nutritional behaviour, and life cycle
has been reported in experimental studies (Botterell et al. 2019).

Zooplankton plays an important role in the marine food web, linking between
primary producers and higher trophic levels (Steinberg and Landry 2017), and by
producing faecal pellets important for benthic organisms (Turner 2002). The
zooplankton in the Black Sea is less diverse, but more abundant, when compared
to neighbouring Mediterranean Sea (BSC 2007). Any changes in the function of
zooplankton due to the MPs might negatively affect the whole ecosystem,
particularly the fish stocks.

Ingestion of MPs by fishes has also been reported from many other regions in the
world (e.g. Davison and Asch 2011; Boerger et al. 2010; Lusher et al. 2013;
Compa et al. 2018) but this has not yet been quantified for Black Sea. Relatively
high concentration of microplastics in the surface waters of the Black Sea was
reported in recent studies (Aytan et al. 2016; Öztekin and Bat 2017; Berov and
Klayn 2020). The SE Black Sea is an important area for feeding, spawning and
nursery grounds for commercially important fishes (FAO 2015), thus
bioavailability of MPs has to be understand as much as possible.

European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) is small pelagic fish that distributes

throughout the Black Sea. European anchovy is among the species most
consumed, and commercially, it is the most important fish landed in Turkish
Black Sea national ports (TUIK 2019). European anchovy feed on plankton over
a broad size-spectrum, from small phytoplankton cells up to large crustaceans and
fish eggs. European anchovy can directly feed on MPs or indirectly by trophic
transfer (through zooplankton), however, there is no yet published study on the
presence of MPs in fish in the Black Sea.

This study provides preliminary results on the most likely pathways of MPs in the
pelagic food web of the SE Black Sea and risks affecting commercial fish stocks
and consumers. In the present study, we assessed the presence of MPs in
copepods, which are the dominant zooplankton group in the Black Sea, and in
planktivorous fish European anchovy.

315
Materials and Methods

Assessment of Presence of MPs in Zooplankton

Presence of MPs in zooplankton were assessed in the SE Black Sea as a part of
TUBITAK 117Y207 project. Sampling were carried out at 12 stations located in
the SE Black Sea (Figure 1) during August 2015, November 2015, February 2016,
May 2016 and August 2016. (Table 1). Zooplankton samples were collected from
upper boundary of anoxic waters (sigma theta 16.2) to surface by WP2 net (0.38
m-2 opening, 200-µm mesh). To collect all MPs samples stocked, net was washed
with seawater. Samples were immediately transferred into the glass bottle and
preserved in 4% borax-buffered formaldehyde.

Figure 1. Sampling stations

In the laboratory, the dominant zooplankton species Acartia (Acartiura) clausi

Giesbrecht, 1889 and Calanus euxinus Hulsemann, 1991 were chosen for
assessment of MP ingestion. Individuals of copepods were picked out by using a
forceps and Pasteur pipette using a Zeiss Stemi Stereo microscope. Each
specimen was examined for externally adhered MPs, rinsed with deionized water
several times and placed into single wells of glass-coated polypropylene 96-well
plates (Desforges et al. 2015). Hydrogen peroxide (30 %) was added to each well
till covering each individual. Then plates were covered with glass slides and kept
at 40°C until all organic tissue was removed (app. 4-6 h). After that, for the
presence of MPs, plates were directly examined under a Zeiss Stemi Stereo
microscope (zoom range 8:1, 0.63 objective with 259/10 ocular lenses), armed

316
with a camera (Figure 2). When MPs were found, they were counted, and the
colour and shape (i.e., fibre, fragment, and film) was noted. The largest cross
sections of MPs were measured by an image analysis software. Microplastics
were identified according to morphological characteristics and physical response
features (Desforges et al. 2014).
Table 1. Distance from the shore, depths and coordinates of sampling stations and the
sampling dates
Station Distance Depth Latitude Longitude Sampling dates
(nm) (m) (N) (E)
G2 2 650 41º 01’ 51” 38º 38’ 14”
T2 2 400 41o 10’ 24” 39o 25’ 23”
C2 2 400 40o 59’ 44” 40o 14’ 27”
P2 2 450 41o 14’ 27” 40º 54’ 32”
K2 2 120 41o 31’ 48” 41º 30’ 29”
17-18.08.2015
G8 8 1300 41o 06’ 07” 38o 34’ 39” 14-17.11.2015
39o 21’ 07” 09-10.02.2016
T8 8 500 41o 15’ 37”
23-27.05.2016
C8 8 750 41o 04’ 02” 40o 07’ 46” 02-03.08.2016
P8 8 1500 41o 19’ 28” 40o 49’ 09”
K8 8 350 41o 35’ 11” 40o 23’ 42”
T15 15 1700 41o 21’ 04” 39o 15’ 27”
P15 15 1500 41o 24’ 33” 40o 42’ 52”

Figure 2. Analyses of microplastics in copepods

317
Microplastic ingestion encounter rate (ER) was calculated as total number of MP
ingested, divided by the total number of copepods analysed (Desforges et al.
2015). One-way ANOVA was used to compare the MP encounter rates and
size/shape/colour of MPs ingested between copepod species.

Assessment of Presence of MPs in European Anchovy

European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus Linnaeus, 1758) was obtained from
cooperative research with local fishermen in January 2019. For each individual,
the weight (TW, nearest 0.1 g) and the total length (TL, nearest 0.1 g) were
recorded. The entire gastrointestinal tracks (GIT) of each fish from the upper part
of the oesophagus to the anal opening was dissected and the weight (nearest 0.1
g) was recorded (Lusher et al. 2013). GIT was rinsed with Milli-Q water,
transferred into the glass beakers and HNO3 (63 %) was added to remove
biological material (Desforges et al. 2015). Beakers were covered with aluminium
foil and kept at 40°C till all the organic tissue removed. Then, dissolved solutions
were filtered on 10-micron mesh and placed into petri dish with lids and dried
using oven (temperature < 40 °C). Presence of potential MPs were visualised
under a Leica SAPO Stereo microscope, and their images of were taken with an
integrated digital camera. Microplastics were classified into shapes (fibres,
fragments, films, foams and microbeads) and colour (black, blue, red, white,
transparent, green, yellow, grey, pink and purple). The largest cross sections of
MPs were measured and classified to five size classes (≤0.5 mm, 0.5-1 mm, 1-
2mm, 2-5 mm). Suspected items were checked whether they were plastics or not
using the hot needle test (Hermsen et al. 2018). GIT sampling and content analysis
was conducted under strict clean-air conditions. The mean MP concentration was
calculated (mp.ind-1). The mean frequency of occurrence (FO %) of MPs in all
examined GITs was calculated.

Contamination control

To prevent contamination, cotton laboratory coats were worn. Working surfaces

and all equipment was cleaned by ultra-pure water before used. During all steps
of the analyses, several procedural blanks were performed simultaneously with
sample processing. To account for a potential air borne contamination, dampened
PCTE filters in a petri dish were placed for every stage of the laboratory work. In
case contamination was noted in control samples, particles were excluded from
the data.

Results and Discussion

Microplastics in Copepods

After analysis of 2136 individuals of A. clausi and 2123 individuals of C. euxinus,

a total of 6 and 8 MPs were found, respectively (Table 2). Microplastic ingestion
encounter rate was calculated as 0.002 par/Acartia and 0.004 par/Calanus for A.

318
clausi, and C. euxinus. These results on MP ingestion encounter rate are lower
compared to studies conducted in the NE Pacific Ocean (Desforges et al. 2015),
in the East China Sea (Sun et al. 2017) and coastal waters of Kenya (Kosore et
al. 2018). Fragments (50 %) and films (50 %) were found in A. clausi, whereas
only fragments were found in C. euxinus. In the NE Pacific, the primary shape of
MPs ingested by copepods was also found as fragment (Desforges et al. 2015).

Colour of MPs were red and black in A. clausi and red, black and blue in C.
euxinus, in agreement with the results from Kenya coastal waters (Kosore et al.
2018) and NE Pacific (Desforges et al. 2015). Colour is an important factor that
might increases the selectivity and attractiveness of MPs. The observed MP
colours could be related to the colour of their natural prey (Wright et al. 2013).

The size of MPs varied from 0.104 to 0.153 mm (mean 0.121±0.128 mm) for
fragments and 0.021 to 0.051 mm (mean 0.038± 0.015 mm) for films in A. clausi
and 0.033 to 0.163 mm (mean 0.066±0.043 mm) for fragments in C. euxinus. The
sizes of MPs ingested by the A. clausi and C. euxinus coincide with the size range
of their prey (phytoplankton, microzooplankton and marine snow/aggregation) in
their natural environment.

Table 2. Number of Acartia (Acartiura) clausi and Calanus euxinus analysed (N), total
number (N), size (mm), shape and colour of microplastics found in copepods, encounter
rates (ER=number of MPs/copepod).

Copepod Microplastic
Species N N Size Shape Colour ER
A.clausi 2136 6 0.121±0.128 Fragment Black 0.002
0.038± 0.015 Film Red
C.euxinus 2123 8 0.066±0.043 Fragment Black 0.004
Blue
Red

No significant differences were found on MP ingestion by A. clausi and C.

euxinus between sampling date and stations (one-way ANOVA, p>0.05), most
possibly due to the low number of MPs found.

Microplastics in European Anchovy

In total, 57 MPs were found in GIT of 20 % (n=47) of the total number of

European anchovy analysed (n=230). A maximum of three MPs was found in a
single individual of European anchovy. The mean MP ingestion was 0.25
particles per fish (considering all the fish analysed, n=230) and was 1.21 particle
per fish (considering the fish that ingested them, n=47). The mean MP ingestion
by European anchovies in previous reports from Mediterranean varied between,
and within geographic regions (Table 3).

319
Tree types of microplastics were found in the GIT of fish analysed; fibre, film
(Figure 3) and fragment. No foam or microbeads were found. Fibres (53 %) were
the primarily shapes of MPs, followed by films (37 %) and fragments (10%)
(Figure 4). Fibres were also usually reported as the primary shape ingested by
European Anchovies in the Mediterranean Sea (Table 3). Ingested MP size ranged
between 0.07-4.94 mm, with the majority being < 2 mm (75 %). Our results for
the size of ingested MPs are in the same range of size reported by Lefebvre et al.
(2019) and Renzi et al. (2019) from the NW and Northern Mediterranean Sea,
respectively.

Table 3. Comparison with previous studies from Mediterranean Sea (Number of fish
analyzed (N), Frequency of occurrence (FO), Ingestion rate (IR), size (mm), primary
shape and color of ingested microplastics).
Location N FO IR Size Shape Color Reference
NW
0.32 ± Collard et
Mediterranean 20 40 0.85 - -
0.10 al. 2015
Sea
Western
0.07- 0.12 ± Compa et
Mediterranean 105 15 Fibre Blue
0.33 0.06 al. 2018
Sea
NW
0.11 ± 1.81 ± Lefebvre et
Mediterranean 84 11 Fibre Red
0.31 1.52 al. 2019
Sea
Western Rios-
0.07±
Mediterranean 39 2.56 - - - Foster et al.
0.26
Sea 2019
Northern
0.04- Renzi et al.
Mediterranean - 91 1.25 Fibre -
2.22 2019
Sea
Eastern Kazaour et
2.5 ± Fragm
Mediterranean - 83.4 - - al.
0.3 net
Sea 2019
0.25 ± 1.55 ±
SE Black Sea 230 20 Fibre Black This study
0.57 1.29

A total of ten different colours of microplastics found in the GIT of the fish
(Figure 5). The most prevalent MP colours were black (16 %), blue (13 %),
transparent (13 %) and red (10 %). Blue and red were also reported to be the
dominant colours of ingested MPs in European anchovies the Mediterranean Sea
(Table 3).

320
Figure 3. Examples of ingested fibres (a-c) and films (d-g) (Scale bar =200 µm)

Fibre Film Fragment

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
<0.5 mm 0.5-1 mm 1-2mm 2-5 mm
Figure 4. Size distribution of ingested microplastics

321
 1 1 1 Black
11
2 Blue
16
Red
Transparent
13 Grey
White
Pink
Yellow
13 Purple
10 Green

Figure 5. Colours of ingested MPs (%)

Conclusion

Recent studies have shown the presence of MPs in Black Sea, suggesting that
plastic is bioavailable to commercially and ecologically important species. Here,
we provide evidence of plastic ingestion by zooplankton and the commercially
important species European Anchovy. Copepods are a key component of the
pelagic food web and could be acting as a vector for MPs transfer to upper trophic
levels. European anchovy is a filter-feeder with a high risk of ingesting MP both
directly and indirectly (through zooplankton) and thus most likely to accumulate
MP-associated contaminants. The effects of MP ingestion on vital functions of
zooplankton and fish such as growth, reproduction, survival rates, nutritional
behaviour, and life cycle needs to be understood and a public health risk by diet
needs to be considered.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Turkey) (Project No: 117Y207). We thank to captain and crew of the R/V SURAT for
their assistance during the cruise.

References

Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H. (2009) Proceedings of the International

Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine
Debris, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical
Memorandum NOS-OR and R-30, 9-11 September 2008.

322
Aytan, U., Valente, A., Senturk, Y., Usta, R., Esensoy Sahin, F.B., Mazlum, R.E.,
Agırbas, E. (2016) First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Marine Environmental Research 119: 22-30.

Barnes, D., Galgani, F., Thompson, R., Barlaz, M. (2009) Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical
Transaction the Royal Society B 364: 1985-1998.

Berov, D., Klayn, S. (2020) Microplastics and floating litter pollution in

Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 156: 1112252.

Boerger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L., Moore, C.J. (2010) Plastic ingestion by
planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 60: 2275-
2278.

Botterell, Z.L.R., Beaumont, N., Dorrington, T., Steinke, M., Thompson, R.C.,
Lindeque, P.K. (2019) Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine
zooplankton: A review. Environmental Pollution 245: 98-110.

BSC (2007) Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: A Review of the Problem.
Black Sea Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul-Turkey, 160.

Compa, M., Ventero, A., Iglesias, M., Deudero, S. (2018) Ingestion of

microplastics and natural fibers in Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) and
Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758) along the Spanish Mediterranean coast.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 128: 89-96.

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J.,
Galloway, T.S. (2013) Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environmental
Science Technology 47: 6646-6655.

Collard, F., Gilbert, B., Eppe, G., Parmentier, E., Das, K. (2015) Detection of
anthropogenic particles in fish stomachs: An isolation method adapted to
identification by Raman Spectroscopy. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 69: 331-339.

Davison, P., Asch, R.G. (2011) Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the
North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Marine Ecology Progress Series 432: 173-180.

Derraik, J.G.B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris:
A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(9): 842-852.

Desforges, J.P., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N., Ross, P.S. (2014) Widespread
distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 79: 94-99.

323
Desforges, J.P., Galbraith, M., Ross, P.S. (2015) Ingestion of microplastics
byzooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 69(3): 320-330.

Fendall, L.S., Sewell, M.A. (2009) Contributing to marine pollution by washing

yourface: Microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 1225-
1228.

FAO (2015) The State of Food and Agriculture Social Protection and Agriculture:
Breaking the Cycle of Rural Poverty. FAO, Rome, 2015.

Hermsen, E., Mintenig S., Besseling, E., Koelmans, A. (2018) Quality criteria for
the analysis of microplastic in biota samples: A critical review. Environmental
Science and Techinology 52(18): 10230-10240.

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.

Kazour, M., Jemaa, S., Issa, C., Khalaf, G., Amara, R. (2019) Microplastics
pollution along the Lebanese coast (Eastern Mediterranean Basin): Occurrence in
surface water, sediments and biota samples. Science of the Total Environment
696: 133933.

Kosore, C.M., Ojwang, L., Maghanga, J.K., Kamau, J., Kimeli, A., Omukoto, J.,
Ngisiag’e, N., Mwaluma, J., Ong’ada, H., Magori, C., Ndirui, E. (2018)
Occurrence and ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in Kenya's marine
environment: First documented evidence. African Journal of Marine Science
40(3): 225-234.

Lefebvre, C., Saraux, C., Heitz, O., Nowaczyk, A., Bonnet, D. (2019)
Microplastics FTIR characterisation and distribution in the water column and
digestive tracts of small pelagic fish in the Gulf of Lions. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 142: 510-519.

Lusher, A.L., Mc Hugh, M., Thompson, R.C. (2013) Occurrence of microplastics

in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 67: 94-99.

Martins, J., Sobral, P. (2011) Plastic marine debris on the Portuguese coastline:
A matter of size? Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(12): 2649-265.

Moore, C.J. (2008) Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly

increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research 108: 131-139.

324
Öztekin, A., Bat, L. (2017) Microlitter pollution in sea water: A preliminary study
from Sinop Sarikum Coast of the southern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17: 1431-1440.

Plastics Europe (2019) Plastics – the Facts 2018: An analysis of European Plastics
Production, Demand and Waste data.

Renzi, M., Specchiulli, A., Blašković, A., Manzo, C., Mancinelli, G., Cilenti, L.,
(2019) Marine litter in stomach content of small pelagic fishes from the Adriatic
Sea: sardines (Sardina pilchardus) and anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus).
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26: 2771-2781.

Rios-Fuster, B., Alomar, C., Compa, M., Guijarro, B., Deudero, S. (2019)
Anthropogenic particles ingestion in fish species from two areas of the western
Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 144: 325-333.

Setala, O., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., Lehtiniemi, M. (2014) Ingestion and transfer of

microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environmental Pollution 185: 77-83.

Steer, M., Cole, M., Thompson, R.C., Lindeque, P.K. (2017) Microplastic
ingestion in fish larvae in the western English Channel. Environmental Pollution
226: 250-259.

Steinberg, D.K., Landry, M.R. (2017) Zooplankton and the ocean carbon cycle.
The Annual Review of Marine Science 9: 413-444.

Sun, X., Li, Q., Zhu, M., Liang, J., Zheng, S., Zhao, Y. (2017) Ingestion of
microplastics by natural zooplankton groups in the northern South China Sea.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 115: 217-224.

TUIK (2019) Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, Fisheries Statistics. Turkish

Statistical Institute March 2019. Available at: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/sgb
/Belgeler/SagMenuVeriler/BSGM.pdf

Turner, J.T. (2002) Zooplankton fecal pellets, marine snow and ratio between
planktonic predators and their prey. Limnology and Oceanography 39: 395-403.

Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S. (2013) The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution 178(4):
83-492.

Zarfl, C., Matthies, M. (2010) Are marine plastic particles transport vectors for
organic pollutants to the Arctic? Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(10): 1810-1814.

325
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Chemicals associated with plastics and their ecological

risks
Nigar Alkan1*, Ali Alkan2
1 Faculty of Marine Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61530, Sürmene, Trabzon,
TURKEY
2 Institute of Marine Science and Technology, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080,

Trabzon, TURKEY
*Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

Because of its numerous social benefits, plastics hold an important place in human
society. Plastic, a man-made material, is cheap, strong, durable, light weight and easy to
produce. Plastics usually contain additives (e.g., plasticizers, surfactants, flame
retardants, anti-microbials, UV filters), depending on the type of plastic (composition),
synthesis route, and degree of material purification. Microplastic uptake can also lead to
exposure of organisms to additive chemicals. Plastics debris, especially microplastics,
has been found worldwide in all marine environment. Many researches has been studied
on adsorbed pollutants on plastic pieces associated with microplastics. However, only a
few studies have focused on plastic additives. These chemicals are incorporated into
plastics, which they can leach out as most of them are not chemically bound. As a
consequence of plastic accumulation and fragmentation in oceans, plastic additives could
represent an increasing ecotoxicological risk for marine organisms. This study reviewed
some important plastic additives identified in the literature, their occurrence in the marine
environment. Phthalates (phthalic acid esters) (PAEs), organophosphates (OPEs) and
bisphenol A (BPA) the most common plastic additives. In addition, the transfer of these
plastic additives to marine organisms has been demonstrated in many studies. New
research focusing on the toxicity of microplastics should include these plastic additives
as potential hazards to marine organisms, and now more attention should be given to the
transport and fate of plastic additives, considering that these chemicals can easily leak
out of plastics.

Keywords: Plastic additives, phthalic acid esters, organophosphates, bisphenol A,

microplastic

Introduction

Plastics production, which started in the 1950s, increased from 225 million tons
in 2004 to 322 million tons in 2015 and increased by 43% in the last decade
(Plastics Europe 2016). Plastic materials occupy an important place in many
activities of human life. Many types of chemicals are mixed with polymers for
plastic production. Plastic materials represent a huge group of organic-based
polymers, and many different commercial varieties are available. Plastics
usually contain additives (e.g. plasticizers, flame retardants, antioxidants, light

326
and heat stabilizers, lubricants, pigments, antistatic agents, surfactants, anti-
microbials, UV filters) depending on the type of plastic (composition), the path
of synthesis and the degree of material purification (Baini et al. 2016; Hansen et
al. 2013). These additives can significantly increase polymer properties and give
some specific qualification (e.g., flexibility strength and color). Due to their
physical and chemical properties, plastic spills are associated with a “chemical
cocktail”, including what should be plastic material (e.g., monomers and
additives). These chemical products can leak at every stage of the life cycle of a
plastic product (from production to use, disposal) and tend to accumulate in the
environment (Baini et al. 2016). The uptake of microplastics by the organisms
may also cause the organisms to be exposed to additional chemicals. Some of
these additive chemicals may leak into the environment and are biologically
available and toxic to marine organism. Organic additives can infiltrate both
seawater and biological fluids. When additive chemicals leak into seawater,
from plastic debris, they are bioavailable to marine organisms and that they can
cause acute and sub lethal toxic effects in marine organisms, including algae and
mussels (Loughlin 2018). This chapter is focused on some additive groups
selected, based on concerns about the frequency of use and possible risks of the
chemicals it contains. Current information for these substances used in plastic
production and likely to be found in plastic end products has been compiled.
Phthalic acid esters (PAEs), organophosphate esters (OPEs), bisphenol A (BPA)
additive chemicals used to improve the mechanical performance of a plastic are
discussed in this context.

Commonly used chemical additives in plastics

Plastic materials are not just plastic polymers. Formulas with different additives
are used to improve the processing properties, performance and aging properties
of the plastic compound (Hermabessiere et al. 2017). The type of additive
depends on the plastic polymer and the requirements of the final product. Plastic
additives are used in different typical amount rates (% w/w) as functional
additives (plasticizers (10-70), flame retardants (3–25 (for brominated) 0.7-3),
stabilizers, antioxidants and UV stabilizers (0.05-3), heat stabilizers (0.5-3), slip
agents (0.1–3), lubricants (0.1–3; internal and external), anti-statics (0.1-1),
curing agents (0.1-2), biocides (0.001-1) and blowing agents), colorants
additives (soluble (e.g., azocolorants (0.25-5)), organic pigments (0.001-2.5),
inorganic pigments (0.01-10), special effect), filler additives (up to 50) and
reinforcement additives (15-30) (Hansen et al. 2013). Common plastic
additives functions and potential effects are given in Table 1 (Hermabessiere et
al. 2017).

Some organics such as Phthalates (PAEs), organophosphate esters (OPEs), and

bisphenols (BPs) are widely used as an additive in a wide variety of products
such as detergents (PAEs), textile products (OPEs, PAEs), dyes (OPEs, PAEs,
BPs) foods containers (PAEs, BPs) and above all plastics (OPEs, PAEs, BPs)
(Schmidt et al. 2020).

327
 Table 1. Common plastic additives and their functions and potential effects
Additives Function Effects
Brominated Flame Reduce flammability in plastic. Potential endocrine
Retardants (BFR) Also adsorbed on plastic from the disruptors
surrounding environment.
Phthalates Plasticizers to soften plastic Endocrine disruptors
mainly in polyvinyl chloride
Nonylphenol Antioxidant and plasticizer in Endocrine disruptors
some plastics
Bisphenol A Monomer in polycarbonate and Endocrine disruptors
resins, Antioxidant in some Endocrine mimic
plastics.
Irganox® Antioxidant in some plastics.

In environmental studies, it has been determined that the most commonly used
additive chemicals in plastic production are bromine flame retardants, phthalates
used as plasticizers, nonylphenols, bisphenol A and antioxidants. Additives have
recently started to attract attention as much as plastic particles and their transfer
to marine organisms have been demonstrated in both laboratory and field
studies. Plastic additive chemicals described with their associated octanol-water
partition coefficient (Kow). Kow has been used for predicting how a chemical will
concentrate in marine organisms and an increase in log Kow indicates an increase
in the potential bioconcentration in organisms (Hermabessiere et al. 2017; Net
et al. 2015a).

Plasticizers have been used as polymer additives since the nineteenth century.
The most important use of plasticizers is the plastic industry. Polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), the main component of the plastic industry, is the third most produced
synthetic plastic polymer after polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP). In
2014, 8.4 million tons of plasticizers were produced in the global plastic market
and 80-90% of the total production was used in the PVC industry (Chanda et al.
2007; Stepek et al. 1983).

Additives include inorganic fillers such as carbon and silica that reinforce the
material, plasticizers to render the material pliable, thermal and ultraviolet
stabilizers, flame-retardants and colourings. Many such additives are used in
substantial quantities and in a wide range of products (Meeker et al. 2009). Due
to the use of certain chemical additives during the manufacture of plastics,
plastics can be carcinogenic or have potentially risk and harmful effects that
could be carcinogenic or encourage endocrine disruption. Humans are exposed
to the chemicals through the skin, nose, or mouth. Although the exposure level
varies depending on geography and age, most individuals experience
simultaneous exposure to lots of these chemicals (Thompson et al. 2010;
Godswill and Godspel 2019).

328
Phthalic acid esters (PAEs)

Phthalic acid esters (PAE) or phthalates are a widely used as plasticizers in

order to make plastics such as PVC more elastic and flexible (Yuan et al. 2002).
Phthalates (PAEs) are phthalic acid (1,2-benzene dicarboxylic acid) esters with
two carbon chains of different lengths and constitute the largest synthetic
chemical class with a production volume of 6,000,000 tons / year (Xie et al.
2007). It is a family of synthetic compounds used as the main additive to
improve the flexibility, transparency, durability and longevity of plastics
(Campanale et al. 2020). Phthalates are known worldwide as the most produced
and consumed plasticizers and make up about 92% of the produced plasticizers
(Rahman et al. 2004; He et al. 2013). PVC can contain 10% to 60% phthalates
by weight (Net et al. 2015a). Phthalates are not chemically bound to the
polymer matrix, they can easily leach into the environment during
manufacturing, use and disposal (Net et al. 2015b). PAEs have been found in a
wide range of environments and this is of concern, since some phthalates have
been defined as endocrine disruptors, even at low concentrations (Net et al.
2015a). Common phthalates and primary application are given Table 2.

Epidemiology and toxicology studies demonstrated that some PAE congeners,

such as di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), di(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and their metabolites can act as environmental
hormones that could cause instability in internal secretions and procreation
(Kavlock et al. 2002). DEHP is considered an animal carcinogen that is also
potentially carcinogenic to humans per a report from the International Agency
for Research on Cancer. Due to the potential health and environmental risks, six
PAEs, i.e., dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), di-n-butly
phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
and di-n-octyl phthalate (DOP), were listed as priority pollutants by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (Li et al. 2017).

PAEs are among the most abundant organic plastic additives, which could be
released to the environment during polymer degradation/aging (Meng et al.
2014; Net et al. 2015b; Paluselli et al. 2019). PAEs measurement has been
carried out in many matrixes such as atmosphere (Lai et al. 2015),
food/estuarine food web (Cao 2010; Brandsma et al. 2015), lake water (Gao et
al. 2019; Zheng et al. 2014), fresh waters (Schmidt et al. 2019; Sung et al.
2003), drinking water (Ding et al. 2015), environmental water (Luo et al. 2012;
Li et al. 2008; Ling et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2013), surface water (He et al. 2013;
Song et al. 2016), marine water (Hu et al. 2014; Paluselli et al. 2018), treated
wastewater (Al-Saleh et al. 2017; Clara et al. 2010), sediment (Cao et al. 2017;
Wang et al. 2017; Xu and Li, 2008), wastewater treatment plant sludges (Zeng
et al. 2014; Meng et al. 2014; Gao et al. 2014).

329
 Table 2. Common phthalates and primary applications
Name/Abbreviation/Formula Application
Di- n-butly phthalate / DBP /
PVC, PVA and rubber
C16H2204
Diethylhexyl phthalate, (Di-2- PVC (dolls, shoes, raincoat, clothing, medical
Ethylhexyl Phthalate) / DEHP / devices, plastic tubing and intravenous storage
C24H38O4 bags)
Diisononyl phthalate / DINP PVC (teethers, rattles, balls, spoons, toys,
/C26H42O4 gloves, drinking straws)
Diisodecyl phthalate / DIDP / PVC (electrical cords, leather for car interiors
C28H46O4 and PVC flooring)
PVC, polyurethane, polysulfide (vinyl flooring,
Benzyl butyl phthalate / BBP / sealants, adhesives, car care products,
C19H20O4 automotive trim, food conveyor belts, food
wrapping material and artificial leather)
PVC, used in the manufacture of a variety of
Dimethyl phthalate / DMP /
products including plastics, insect repellents,
C10H10O4
safety glass, and lacquer coatings
PVC, used as a plasticizer in products such as
Diethyl phthalate / DEP / C12H14O4
automobile parts, tools, and food packaging
Commonly used plasticizer, some nail polishes,
Dibutyl phthalate / DnBP /
also used as an additive in adhesives or printing
C16H22O4
inks
Used as a plasticizer consumer products,
Diisobutyl phthalate / DiBP / including paints, lacquers, printing ink, pulp and
C16H22O4 paper, carpet, concrete, nail polish, and
cosmetics
PVC, used in other products such as food
Benzylbutyl phthalate / BzBP /
conveyor belts, carpet tile, artificial leather,
C19H20O4
tarps, automotive trim, weather stripping.

Organophosphate esters (OPEs)

One of the most commonly used groups as a plasticizing and flame retardant
additive is organophosphates. They are also known as organophosphate esters
(OPEs). The additives are not chemically bound to the plastic polymer in almost
any case; only some flame-retardants polymerize with plastic molecules and
become part of the polymeric chain (Hahladakis et al. 2018). OPEs have the
potential to easily leak into the environment through evaporation, corrosion and
dissolution, since they are not chemically bound to the polymer product (Wei et
al. 2015). Common organophosphates and their primary applications are given
Table 3.

Flame-retardants have the function of cooling or protecting a material by

preventing oxidation of flammable gases in the event of fire or by creating a
layer of ash (Dufton 1998). Because bromide flame-retardants have limited use
and are banned, organophosphorus compounds are widely used worldwide due

330
to their flame retardant and plasticizing properties. Generally, halogenated OPEs
are used as flame-retardants and halogen-free OPEs are used as plasticizers
(Van der Veen et al. 2012). OPEs are also known to be used for many years in
electronic equipment, plastic products, rubbers, textiles and building materials
(Reemtsma et al. 2008). It has been observed in extensive studies on humans
and animals that some OPEs exhibit biological effects, including in humans
(e.g. hemolytic and reproductive effects of TCP and TCEP), neurotoxic,
carcinogenic, mutagenic and hormone impairments (Andresen and Bester 2004;
Lai et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2014).

Table 3. Common organophosphates and primary applications

Name / Abbreviation / Formula Application
Used as a plasticizer, in hydraulic fluid, as a
Tripropyl phosphate / TPP / C9H21O4P solvent and extractant for metal ions and as a
heat exchange age.
PVC, TiBP is used in hydraulic fluids, as strong
Tri-iso-buthyl phosphate / TiBP /
wetting agent in the textile industry and as
C12H27O4P
antifoam agent.
used as a plasticizer, in hydraulic fluid, as a
Tri-n-butyl phosphate / TnBP /
solvent and extractant for metal ions, and as a
C4H9O)3PO
heat exchange agent.
Flame retardant, added to consumer and
Tri (2-chloroethyl) phosphate / TCEP
industrial products for the purpose of reducing
/ C6H12CI3O4P
flammability.
Flame retardants, added to consumer and
Tris (2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate /
industrial products for the purpose of reducing
TCPP / C9H18CI3O4P
flammability.
Flame retardants, added to consumer and
Triphenyl phosphate / TPhP /
industrial products for the purpose of reducing
OP(OC6H6)
flammability.
2- ethylhexyl-diphenyl phosphate / Used as a plasticizer. It is used in food packaging
EHDPP / C20H27O4P plastic wraps and tubing for sausages.
Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate / TEHP General adhesives and binding agents for a
/ C24H51O4P variety of uses.

Metabolic toxicity of OPEs to other species are reported frequently, which

indicates OPEs'potential health risks to human beings. For this reason, it has
prohibited the use of tris-(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) in products for
children under the age of three since 2013. TCEP and tris-(1,3-dichloro-2-
propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) have been banned from use in children's products
and home furniture since 2014 because of their toxicity (Zhong et al. 2018).
However, there is still a lack of information regarding temporal trends of OPEs,
especially in the coastal area. Recently there is increased interest in
understanding their environmental fate and transport. Research on OPEs in
different matrices has been carried out in the world such as fish (Guo et al.
2017), water (Lee et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2013; Chung and Ding 2009; Bollmann
et al. 2012), bottled water (Mousa et al. 2013), aquatic environment (Martínez-

331
carballo et al. 2007), sediment (Wang et al. 2017; Zhong et al. 2018; Lee et al.
2018; Cao et al. 2012), air and soil (Kurt-karakus et al. 2018; Jian-xia et al.
2014; Mihajlovic et al. 2011).

The occurrence and fate of OPEs in the aquatic ecosystem is of great concern
and prioritized issue due to their toxic and deleterious effects on water,
sediments, and biota. Water solubility and octanol-water partition coefficient
(log Kow) are important physicochemical properties of organic pollutants that
govern their behavior in the aquatic environment. Since most of the OPEs are
lipophilic and difficult to dissolve in water. They have a tendency to bind to
suspended particulate matters and accumulate in sediments (van der Veen and
de Boer 2012).

Bisphenol A (BPA)

Bisphenols (BPs), known for their endocrine-disrupting properties, which have

led to various national and international bans and regulations, are still used in
the production of thermal paper, plastic bottles and food can linings, among
other items (Danzl et al. 2009; Björnsdotter et al. 2017). Bisphenols have been
detected in sediment and seawater samples (Pojana et al. 2007; Xie et al. 2018)
as well as in the atmosphere, where the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) has been
linked to plastic burning (Fu et al. 2010).

Bisphenol A (BPA) associated compounds (alkylphenols) with chemical

formula (CH3)2C(C6H4OH)2, are found in several products used in daily life
such as dental sealants, cladding layers of tin cans, bottle caps, tooth adhesives,
CDs and DVDs, electronic equipment, and vehicle parts. It is a solid, colorless
and soluble in organic solvents. Bisphenol A (2,2-bis-(4-hy-droxyphenyl)
propane, was first synthesized in 1905 and reported in 1936. BPA. It is obtained
by condensing phenol with acetone using strong acidic ion exchange resin as a
catalyst in gel form (Vandenberg et al. 2009; Wei et al. 2011). BPA is poorly
soluble in water; 0.344 wt percent at 83 °C (Fiege et al. 2000). In addition,
thermal papers contain BPA in free or unpolymerized form (2.3% by weight)
and therefore BPA contamination can occur during paper recycling (Mendum et
al. 2011; Geens et al. 2012; Russo et al. 2017).

Global production of BPA exceeds 3 million tons per year, of which 700,000 are
produced and consumed in the European Union. Because of this huge use of
these products, BPA is dispersed in several environments (soils, seawater,
landfill leachates, sewage treatment plant discharges). Some studies have shown
that BPA is bioaccumulative and affect the endocrine systems of living
organisms and are harmful to human health (Ahmed 2016). BPA is an important
non-naturally occurring commercial chemical used to improve the mechanical
properties of plastics. BPA is used in the production of polycarbonate plastic (e.

332
g., lining layer of aluminium cans), epoxy resins, flame retardants and rubber
chemicals, in the production of unsaturated polyester and polysulfone resins,
thermal papers (plugs), food packaging products (canned coatings, canister
coatings, plastic bottles, bottle caps), in various products used in daily life
(Repossi et al. 2016; Tsai 2006; Vandenberg et al. 2009). BPA is also used as
an antioxidant or plasticizer in other polymers (PP, PE and PVC). Many
countries around the world, especially Germany, the Netherlands, the USA and
Japan, have large BPA production capacities (Vandenberg et al. 2009; Wei et al.
2011). BPA consumption in the world is thought to be 7.7 million metric tons in
2015, and it is estimated to reach 10.6 million metric tons in 2016 with an
annual growth rate of 8 million metric tons and 4.8% in 2022 (Almeida and
Almeida-gonz 2018). One of the most common plastic additives found in
marine environments is bisphenol A (BPA).

Many researches have been conducted on Bisphenol A in various matrices such

as biota; fish (Basheer et al. 2004; Lee et al. 2015; Belfroid et al. 2002; Wei et
al. 2011; Mita et al. 2011;), mussel (Gatidou et al. 2010; Belfroid et al. 2002),
water; sea water (Belfroid et al. 2002; Heemken et al. 2001), fresh water
(Belfroid et al. 2002; Kang and Kondo 2006; Staples et al. 2000; Kawahata et
al. 2004; Hashimoto et al. 2005; Bolz et al. 2001; Stachel et al. 2003; Heemken
et al. 2001) and sediment (Kawahata et al. 2004; Bolz et al. 2001; Heemken et
al. 2001; Stachel et al. 2005; Peng et al. 2006).
For many years BPA was threatened human health. Detection of BPA in the
natural environment, in drinking water, and food products has aroused the
interest of many researchers since 1990. The same time, negative effect of this
compound on human health was established. Consequently, in 1996 the
European Commission as a substance of external origin classified BPA with a
harmful effect on human health. Numerous toxicological and biochemical
studies have confirmed that bisphenol A has estrogenic properties and an
agonistic effect toward the estrogenic receptor. In recent studies bisphenol A
was classified as a xenobiotic disturbing hormonal balance in humans and other
animals, a so-called endocrine disruptor (Rykowska and Wasiak 2006).

Conclusions

In recent years, advances in materials science and engineering have led to

widespread and diverse uses of plastics to provide cheaper, lighter, stronger,
safer, more durable and versatile products and consumer goods that serve to
improve our quality of life. Today, the presence of plastic material in the
receiving environment, its effects on ecology and human health are better
known. Recent work has shown that the oceanic gyres are not the accumulation
endpoint of floating plastic debris, but merely an intermediate step, with plastics
rapidly disappearing to as yet unknown sinks in marine ecosystems. Many kind
chemical additives (e.g., plasticizers, surfactants, flame retardants, anti-

333
microbials, UV filters), used in plastic is cause concern. In the use, disposal and
recycling phase of plastic products, the environmental effects of various
additives raise concerns and cause concern by many scientists. The main
concern of plastics or microplastic pollution is whether it poses a risk to
ecosystems and human health. Negative effects on organisms exposed to
microplastics can be divided into two categories; physical effects and chemical
effects. Limited information is available on the chemicals effects that are
associated with microplastics. How toxic chemicals adsorb/desorb onto/from
microplastics is not well known, but reasonable mechanisms include
hydrophobic interactions, pH variations, the ageing of particles, and polymer
composition. Furthermore, not enough studies have fully explained the primary
sources of pollutants that are present on microplastics and whether their origin is
extrinsic from the surrounding ambient space, intrinsic from the plastic itself, or,
more probably, from a combination of both and from a continuous and dynamic
process of absorption and desorption that is related to the spread of the particles
into the environment and to their consequent exposure to weathering. Many
chemicals classified as hazardous according to EU regulations are used in the
manufacture of plastics. Bisphenol A, phthalates, as well as some of the
brominated flame retardants (organophosphates) used to pack home products
and food have been proven to be endocrine disruptors that can harm human
health if swallowed or inhaled. It has been reported by scientists that plastic
particles and additive chemicals cause very different problems such as drowning
and death for marine organism. Finally, it is worth noting that the above
contaminants are already included in the main European directives regulating
the production and use of chemicals (REACH, European Water Framework
Directive). Characterization and quantity of plastic additives associated with
microplastics in the marine environment needs to be examined. However, little
is known about the distribution, of these compounds in seawater, sediment as
well as on their transfer in the marine food web, mainly because of analytical
difficulties. Today, more research is needed about microplastics and additive
chemicals pollution, especially in vulnerable ecosystems such as the Black Sea,
which have a large number of freshwater inputs with high potential to transport
plastic pollutants.

References

Ahmed, R.G. (2016) Material bisphenol A alters fetal endocrine system:

Thyroid adipokine dysfunction. Food and Chemical Toxicology 95: 168-174.

Almeida, S., Almeida-gonz, M. (2018) Bisphenol A: Food exposure and impact

on human health. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 17:
1503-1517.

Al-saleh, I., Elkhatib, R., Al-rajoudi, T., Al-qudaihi, G. (2017) Assessing the
concentration of phthalate esters (PAEs) and bisphenol A (BPA) and the

334
genotoxic potential of treated wastewater (final effluent) in Saudi Arabia. Sci
Total Environ 578: 440-451.

Andresen, J., Bester, K. (2004) Organophosphorus flame retardants and

plasticisers in surface waters. Sci Total Environ 332: 155-166.

Baini, M., Martellini, T., Cincinelli, A., Campani, T., Minutoli, R., Panti, C.,
Finoia, G., Cristina, M. (2016) Analytical methods First detection of seven
phthalate esters (PAEs) as plastic tracers in superficial neustonic / planktonic
samples and cetacean blubber. Anal Methods 1-9.

Basheer, C., Lee, H.K., Tan, K.S. (2004) Endocrine disrupting alkylphenols and
bisphenol A in coastal waters and supermarket seafood from Singapore. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 48: 1145-1167.

Belfroid, A., Van Velzen, M., Van der Horst, B., Vethaak, D. (2002)
Occurrence of bisphenol A in surface water and uptake in fish: Evaluation of
field measurements. Chemosphere 49(1): 97-103.

Björnsdotter, M.K., Jonker, W., Legradi, J., Kool, J., Ballesteros-Goḿez, A.

(2017) Bisphenol A alternative sinthermalpaper from the Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden and Norway. Screening and potential toxicity. Sci Total Environ 601-
602: 210-221.

Bollmann, U.E., Moeler, A., Xie, Z.Y., Ebinghaus, R., Einax, J.W. (2012)
Occurrence and fate of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in
coastal and marine surface waters. Water Res 46: 531-538.

Bolz, U., Hagenmaier, H., K¨orner, W. (2001) Phenolic zenoestrogens in

surface water, sediments, and sewage sludge from Baden- Württemberg, south-
west Germany. Environ Pollut 115: 291-301.

Brandsma, S.H., Leonards, P.E.G., Leslie, H.A., Boer, J.De. (2015) Tracing
organophosphorus and brominated flame retardants and plasticizers in an
estuarine food web. Sci Total Environ 505: 22-31.

Campanale, C., Massarelli, C., Savino, I., Locaputo, V., Uricchio, V.F. (2020) A
detailed review study on potential effects of microplastics and additives of
concern on human health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17.

Cao, S.X., Zeng, X.Y., Song, H., Li, H.R., Yu, Z.Q., Sheng, G.Y., Fu, J.M.
(2012) Levels and distributions of organophosphate flame retardants and
plasticizers in sediment from Taihu Lake, China. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:
1478-1484.

335
Cao, X. (2010) Phthalate esters in foods: Sources, occurrence, and analytical
methods. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 9: 21-43.

Cao, D., Guo, J., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, K., Corcoran, M.B., Hosseini, S.,
Bonina, S.M.C., Rockne, K.J., Sturchio, N.C., Giesy, J.P., Liu, J., Li,A., Jiang,
G. (2017) Organophosphate esters in sediment of the Great Lakes.
Environmental Science & Technology 51(3): 1441–1449.

Chanda, M., Roy, S.K. (2007) Plastic technology handbook, 4th Boca Raton,
FL; CRC Press.

Chung, H.W., Ding, W.H. (2009) Determination of organophosphate flame

retardants in sediments by microwave assisted extraction and gas
chromatography mass spectrometry with electron impact and chemical
ionization. Anal Chim Acta 395: 2325-2334.

Clara, M., Windhofer, G., Hartl, W., Braun, K., Simon, M., Gans, O.,
Scheffknecht, C., Chovanec, A. (2010) Occurrence of phthalates in surface
runoff, untreated and treated wastewater and fate during wastewater treatment.
Chemosphere 78: 1078-1084.

Danzl, E., Sei, K., Soda, S., Ike, M., Fujita, M. (2009) Biodegradation of
bisphenol A, bisphenol F and bisphenol S in seawater. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 6(4): 1472-1484.

Ding, J., Shen, X., Liu, W., Covaci, A., Yang, F. (2015) Occurrence and risk
assessment of organophosphate esters in drinking water from Eastern China. Sci
Total Environ 538: 959-965.

Dufton, P.W. (1998) Functional Additives for the Plastics Industry; Rapra’s
Industry Analysis Group, 2nd.; CRC Press: Shrewsbury, UK.

Fiege, H., Voges, H-W., Hamamoto, T., Umemura, S., Iwata, T., Miki, H.,
Fujita, Y., Buysch, H-J., Garbe, D., Paulus, W. (2000) "Phenol Derivatives".
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
doi:10.1002/14356007.a19_313.

Fu, P., Kawamura, K. (2010) Ubiquity of bisphenol A in the atmosphere.

Environ Pollut 158: 3138-3143.

Gao, D., Li, Z., Wen, Z., Ren, N. (2014) Chemosphere occurrence and fate of
phthalate esters in full-scale domestic wastewater treatment plants and their
impact on receiving waters along the Songhua River in China. Chemosphere 95:
24-32.

336
Gao, X., Li, J., Wang, X., Zhou, J., Fan, B., Li, W., Liu, Z. (2019) Exposure and
ecological risk of phthalate esters in the Taihu Lake basin, China. Ecotoxicology
and Environmental Safety 171: 564-570.

Gatidou, G., Vassalou, E., Thomaidis, N.S. (2010) Bioconcentration of selected

endocrine disrupting compounds in the Mediterranean mussel, Mytilus
galloprovincialis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(11): 2111-2116.

Geens, T., Aerts, D., Berthot, C., Bourguignon, J. P., Goeyens, L., Lecomte, P.,
Maghuin-Rogister, G., Pironnet, A. M., Pussemier, L., Scippo, M. L., Van Loco,
J., Covaci, A. (2012) A review of dietary and non-dietary exposure to
bisphenol-A. In Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(10): 3725-3740.

Godswill, A.C., Godspel, A.C. (2019) Physiological effects of plastic wastes on

the endocrine system (Bisphenol A, Phthalates). International Journal of
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology 4: 11-29.

Guo, J., Venier, M., Salamova, A., Hites, R.A. (2017) Bioaccumulation of
Dechloranes, organophosphate esters, and other flame retardants in Great Lakes
fish. Sci Total Environ 583: 1-9.

Hahladakis, J.N., Velis, C.A., Weber, R., Iacovidou, E., Purnell, P. (2018) An
overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and
environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J Hazard Mater
344: 179-199.

Hansen, E., Nilsson, N.H., Lithner, D., Lassen, C. (2013) Hazardous substances
in plastic materials. Hazard Subst Plast Mater, 148p.

Hashimoto, S., Horiuchi, A., Yoshimoto, T., Nakao, M., Omura, H., Kato, Y.,
Tanaka, H., Kannan, K., Giesy, J.P. (2005) Horizontal and Vertical Distribution
of Estrogenic Activities in Sediments and Waters from Tokyo Bay, Japan.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology volume 49: 2009-
216.

He, W., Qin, N., Kong, X., Liu, W., He, Q., Ouyang, H., Yang, C., Jiang, Y.,
Wang, Q., Yang, B., Xu, F. (2013) Science of the total environment spatio-
temporal distributions and the ecological and health risks of phthalate esters
(PAEs) in the surface water of a large, shallow Chinese lake. Sci Total Environ
461-462: 672-680.

Heemken, O.P., Reincke, H., Stachel, R., Theobald, N. (2001) The occurrence
of xenoestrogens in the Elbe River and the North Sea. Chemosphere 45: 245-
259.

337
Hermabessiere, L. (2017) Occurrence and effects of plastic additives on marine
environments and organisms: A review. Chemosphere 182: 781-793.

Hu, M., Li, J., Zhang, B., Cui, Q., Wei, S., Yu, H. (2014) Regional distribution
of halogenated organophosphate flame retardants in seawater samples from
three coastal cities in China. Mar Pollut Bull 86: 569-574.

Jian-xia, L.U., Wen, J.I., Sheng-tao, M.A., Zhi-qiang, Y.U., Zhao, W., Han, L.I.,
Guo-fa, R.E.N., Jia-mo, F.U. (2014) Analysis of Organophosphate Esters in
dust, soil and sediment samples using gas chromatography coupled with mass
spectrometry. Chinese J Anal Chem 42: 859-865.

Kang, J.H., Kondo, F. (2006) Bisphenol A in the surface water and freshwater
snail collected from rivers around a secure landfill. Bull Environ Contam
Toxicol 76: 113-118.

Kavlock, R., Boekelheide, K., Chapin, R., Cunningham, M., Faustman, E.,
Foster, P., Golub, M., Henderson, R., Hinberg, I., Little, R., Seed, J., Shea, K.,
Tabacova, S., Tyl, R., Williams, P., Zacharewski, T. (2002) NTP center for the
evaluation of risks to human reproduction: Phthalates expert panel report on the
reproductive and developmental toxicity of butyl benzyl phthalate. Reproductive
Toxicology 16(5): 453-487.

Kawahata, H., Ohta, H., Inoue, M., and Suzuki, A. (2004) Endocrine disrupter
nonylphenol and bisphenol A contamination in Okinawa and Ishigaki Islands,
Japan-Within coral reefs and adjacent river mouths. Chemosphere 55: 1519-
1527.

Kurt-karakus, P., Alegria, H., Birgul, A., Gungormus, E., Jantunen, L. (2018)
Science of the total environment Organophosphate ester (OPEs) flame
retardants and plasticizers in air and soil from a highly industrialized city in
Turkey. Sci Total Environ 625: 555-565.

Lai, S., Xie, Z., Song, T., Tang, J., Zhang, Y., Mi, W., Peng, J., Zhao, Y., Zou,
S., Ebinghaus, R. (2015) Chemosphere occurrence and dry deposition of
organophosphate esters in atmospheric particles over the northern South China
Sea. Chemosphere 127: 195-200.

Lee, C.C., Jiang, L.Y., Kuo, Y.L., Chen, C.Y., Hsieh, C.Y., Hung, C.F., Tien, C.
J. (2015) Characteristics of nonylphenol and bisphenol A accumulation by fish
and implications for ecological and human health. Science of the Total
Environment 502: 417-425.

Lee, S., Cho, H., Choi, W., Moon, H. (2018) Organophosphate flame retardants
(OPFRs) in water and sediment: Occurrence, distribution, and hotspots of

338
contamination of Lake Shihwa, Korea Ansan City Shihwa Lake. Mar Pollut
Bull 130: 105-112.

Li, J., Cai, Y., Shi, Y., Mou, S., Jiang, G. (2008) Analysis of phthalates via
HPLC-UV in environmental water samples after concentration by solid-phase
extraction using ionic liquid mixed hemimicelles. Talanta 74: 498-504.

Li, R., Liang, J., Gong, Z., Zhang, N., Duan, H. (2017) Occurrence, spatial
distribution, historical trend and ecological risk of phthalate esters in the Jiulong
River, Southeast China. Sci Total Environ 580: 388-397.

Ling, W., Gui-bin, J., Ya-qi, C.A.I., Bin, H.E., Ya-wei, W., Da-zhong, S. (2007)
Cloud point extraction coupled with HPLC-UV for the determination of
phthalate esters in environmental water samples. Journal of Environmental
Science 19: 874-878.

Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Shen, J. (2013) Occurrence and removal characteristics of
phthalate esters from typical water sources in northeast China. J Anal Methods
Chem 2013: 1-8.

Loughlin, S. (2018) Final project report. Gov. Off. Sci. London. pp. 1-32.

Luo, Y., Yu, Q., Yuan, B., Feng, Y. (2012) Fast microextraction of phthalate
acid esters from beverage, environmental water and perfume samples by
magnetic multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Talanta 90: 123-131.

Martínez-Carballo, E., González-Barreiro, C., Sitka, A., Scharf, S., Gans, O.

(2007) Determination of selected organophosphate esters in the aquatic
environment of Austria. Sci Total Environ 388: 290-299.

Meeker, J.D., Sathyanarayana, S., Swan, S.H. (2009) Phthalates and other
additives in plastics: human exposure and associated health outcomes. Phil
Trans R Soc B 364: 2097-2113.

Mendum, T., Stoler, E., Vanbenschoten, H., Warner, J. C. (2011) Concentration

of bisphenola in thermal paper. Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews 4(1): 81-
86.

Meng, X., Wang, Y., Xiang, N., Chen, L., Liu, Z., Wu, B., Dai, X., Zhang, Y.,
Xie, Z., Ebinghaus, R. (2014) Flow of sewage sludge-borne phthalate esters
(PAEs) from human release to human intake: Implication for risk assessment of
sludge applied to soil. Sci Total Environ 476-477: 242-249.

339
Mihajlovic, I., Vojinovi c Miloradov, M., Fries, E. (2011) Application of
twisselmann extraction, SPME, and GC-MS to assess input sources for
organophosphate esters into soil. Environ Sci Technol 45: 2264-2269.

Mita, L., Bianco, M., Viggiano, E., Zollo, F., Bencivenga, U., Sica, V., Monaco,
G., Portaccio, M., Diano, N., Colonna, A., Lepore, M., Canciglia, P., Mita, D.
G. (2011) Bisphenol A content in fish caught in two different sites of the
Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy). Chemosphere 82(3): 405-410.

Mousa, A., Basheer, C., Al-arfaj, A.R. (2013) Determination of phthalate esters
in bottled water using dispersive liquid – liquid microextraction coupled with
GC – MS. J Sep Sci 36: 2003-2009.

Net, S., Delmont, A., Sempéré, R., Paluselli, A., Quddane, B. (2015b) Reliable
quantification of phthalates in environmental matrices (air, water, sludge,
sediment and soil): a review. Sci Total Environ 515-516: 162-180.

Net, S., Sempéré, R., Delmont, A., Paluselli, A., Ouddane, B. (2015a)
Occurrence, fate, behavior and ecotoxicological state of phthalates in different
environmental matrices. Environ Sci Technol 49: 4019-4035.

Paluselli, A., Fauvelle, V., Galgani, F., Sempéré, R. (2019) Phthalates release
and biodegradation from plastic fragments in seawater. Env Sci Technol 53(1):
166-175.

Paluselli, A., Fauvelle, V., Schmidt, N., Galgani, F., Net, S., Sempéré, R. (2018)
Science of the total environment distribution of phthalates in Marseille Bay
(NW Mediterranean Sea). Sci Total Environ 621: 578-587.

Peng, X., Wang, Z., Yang, C., Chen, F., Mai, B. (2006) Simultaneous
determination of endocrine-disrupting phenols and steroid estrogens in sediment
by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1116: 51-56.

Plastics Europe (2016) Plastics - the Facts 2016: An analysis of European

plastics production, demand and waste data. Available at:
http://www.plasticseurope.fr/Document/plastics---the-facts-2016 15787.aspx?
FolID=2

Pojana, G., Gomiero, A., Jonkers, N., Marcomini, A. (2007) Natural and
synthetic endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in water, sediment and biota
of a coastal lagoon. Environ Int 33: 929-936.

Rahman, M., Brazel, C.S. (2004) The plasticizer market: an assessment of

traditional plasticizers and research trends to meet new challenges. Prog Polym
Sci 29: 1223-1248.

340
Reemtsma, T., Benito Quintana, J., Rodil, R., Garcia-Lopez, M., Rodriguez, I.
(2008) Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in water and air I.
Occurrence and fate. Trac Trends Anal Chem 27: 727-737.

Repossi, A., Farabegoli, F., Gazzotti, T., Zironi, E., Pagliuca, G. (2016)
Bisphenol a in edible part of seafood. Italian Journal of Food Safety 5(2): 98-
105.

Russo, G., Barbato, F., Grumetto, L. (2017) Monitoring of bisphenol A and

bisphenol S in thermal paper receipts from the Italian market and estimated
transdermal human intake: A pilot study. Science of the Total Environment 599-
600: 68-75.

Rykowska, I., Wasiak, W. (2006) Properties, threats, and methods of analysis of

bisphenol A and its derivatives. ActaChromatogr 16: 7-27.

Schmidt, N., Castro-jiménez, J., Fauvelle, V., Ourgaud, M., Sempere, R.,
France, R., Fauvelle, V., Schmidt, N., Castro-jim, J. (2020) Occurrence of
organic plastic additives in surface waters of the Rhône River (France). Environ
Pollut 257: 113637 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113637

Schmidt, N., Fauvelle, V., Ody, A., Castro-Jiménez, J., Jouanno, J., Changeux,
T., Thibaut, T., Sempéré, R. (2019) The Amazon River: A major source of
organic plastic additives to the tropical North Atlantic? Environ Sci Technol 53:
7513-7521.

Song, X., Chen, Y., Yuan, J., Qin, Y., Zhao, R., Wang, X. (2016) Carbon
nanotube composite microspheres as a highly efficient solid-phase
microextraction coating for sensitive determination of phthalate acid esters in
water samples. J Chromatogr A 1468: 17-22.

Stachel, B., Ehrhorn, U., Heemken, O.P., Lepom, P., Reincke, H., Sawal, G.,
Theobald, N. (2003) Xenoestrogens in the river Elbe and its tributaries.
Environmental Pollution Bulletin 124: 497-507.

Stachel, B., Jantzen, E., Knoth, W., Kruger, F., Lepom, P., Oetken, A., Reincke,
H., Sawal, G., Schwartz, R., Uhlig, S. (2005) The Elbe flood in August 2002-
Organic contaminants in sediment samples taken after the flood event. J
Environ Sci Health A 40: 265-287.

Staples, C.A., Dorn, P.B., Klecka, G.M., O’Block, S.T., Branson, D.R., Harris,
L.R. (2000) Bisphenol A concentrations in receiving waters near US
manufacturing and processing facilities. Chemosphere 40: 521-525.

341
Stepek, J., Daoust, H. (1983) Additives for plastics. Berlin, Germany: Springer
Science Business Media.

Sung, H.H., Kao, W.Y., Su, Y.J. (2003) Effects and toxicity of phthalate esters
to hemocytes of giant freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Aquat
Toxicol 64: 25-37.

Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H. (2010) Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Phil Trans
R Soc B 364: 2153-2166.

Tsai, W.T. (2006) Human health risk on environmental exposure to bisphenol-

A: A review. Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part C
Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews 24(2): 225-255.

Van der Veen, I., de Boer, J. (2012) Phosphorus flame retardants: properties,
production, environmental occurrence, toxicity and analysis. Chemosphere 88:
1119-1153.

Vandenberg, L.N., Maffini, M.V., Sonnenschein, C., Rubin, B.S., Soto, A.M.
(2009) Bisphenol-a and the great divide: A review of controversies in the field
of endocrine disruption. Endocrine Reviews 30(1): 75-95.

Wang, Y., Wu, X., Zhang, Q., Hou, M., Zhao, H., Xie, Q., Du, J., Chen, J.
(2017) Organophosphate esters in sediment cores from coastal Laizhou Bay of
the Bohai Sea, China. Sci Total Environ 607-608: 103-108.

Wei, G.L., Li, D.Q., Zhuo, M.N., Liao, Y.S., Xie, Z.Y., Guo, T.L., Li, J.J.,
Zhang, S.Y., Liang, Z.Q. (2015) Organophosphorus flame retardants and
plasticizers: Sources, occurrence, toxicity and human exposure. Environ Pollut
196: 29-46.

Wei, X., Huang, Y., Wong, M. H., Giesy, J.P., Wong, C.K.C. (2011)
Assessment of risk to humans of bisphenol A in marine and freshwater fish from
Pearl River Delta, China. Chemosphere 85(1): 122-128.

Wu, X., Hong, H., Liu, X., Guan, W., Meng, L., Ye, Y., Ma, Y. (2013)
Graphene-dispersive solid-phase extraction of phthalate acid esters from
environmental water. Sci Total Environ 444: 224-230.

Xie, H., Chen, Q., Chen, J., Chen, C.-E. L., Du, J. (2018) Investigation and
application of diffusive gradients in thin-films technique for measuring
endocrine disrupting chemicals in seawaters. Chemosphere 200: 351-357.

342
Xie, Z., Ebinghaus, R., Temme, C., Lohmann, R., Caba, A., Ruck, W. (2007)
Occurrence and air- sea exchange of phthalates in the Arctic. Environmental
Science & Technology 41: 4555-4560.

Xu, X.R., Li, X.Y. (2008) Adsorption behaviour of dibutyl phthalate on marine
sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 57: 403-408.

Yuan, S.Y., Liu, C., Liao, C.S., Chang, B.V. (2002) Occurrence and microbial
degradation of phthalate esters in Taiwan river sediments. Chemosphere 49:
1295-1299.

Zheng, X., He, L., Cao, S., Ma, S., Yu, Z., Gui, H., Sheng, G., Fu, J. (2014)
Occurrence and distribution of organophosphate flame retardants/plasticizers in
wastewater treatment plant sludges from the Pearl River delta, China. Environ
Toxicol Chem 33: 1720-1725.

Zhong, M., Wu, H., Mi, W., Li, F., Ji, C., Ebinghaus, R., Tang, J., Xie, Z.
(2018) Occurrences and distribution characteristics of organophosphate ester
flame retardants and plasticizers in the sediments of the Bohai and Yellow Seas,
China. Sci Total Environ 615: 1305-1311.

343
 Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.,) 2020. Marine Litter in the Black Sea.
Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul, Turkey.

Perspectives and challenges of implementation of

Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter Management in
the Black Sea

Iryna Makarenko
LL.M Permanent Secretariat of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention), Istanbul, TURKEY

Corresponding author: [email protected],

[email protected]

Abstract

This paper will consider the challenges and legal gaps in the implementation of relevant
provisions of the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Black Sea,
adopted in 2018 by the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
(BSC) and other relevant marine litter related documents. It will also provide some
concrete recommendations on improving the implementation of BS ML RAP and
achieving of good environmental status (GES) in the Black Sea basin as regards to
marine litter and plastics. As indicates the recent report on the State of the Black Sea
Environment, marine litter makes the Black Sea a particularly sensitive area for marine
litter pollution and a microplastic hot spot. There is no doubt that marine litter becomes
one of the main pollution problem along the coasts of the Black Sea, the sea itself and its
bottom. There are more and more acknowledgments about contamination of leaving
resources by plastics; therefore, marine litter is no longer an aesthetic problem, but
seriously damages the living organisms and threatening the biodiversity of the Black Sea.
At the same time, despite all the problems listed above, there is still very limited data on
amounts of marine litter in the Black Sea and poor monitoring activities; the results of the
local surveys (few national and couple of regional surveys implemented within dedicated
marine litter projects) show that disposable packaging and short life or even single use
plastic goods (like bottles, cans, caps) are predominant; the sources mostly are municipal
waste/sewage, badly managed landfills, marine transport and ports, recreational activities
in coastal areas, illegal and unreported fishing activities. Therefore, considering that
marine litter is to a large extent cross-cutting and a transboundary issue, mostly due to
enclosed sea basin and dynamic current system of the Black Sea, it must be further
coordinated and addressed on the regional or sub-basin level.

Keywords: Marine litter, Bucharest Convention, Black Sea, Regional Action Plan,
management measures, ecosystem approach, descriptors, ecosystem quality objectives

Introduction

In April 2020, the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against
Pollution, also known as Bucharest Convention (Bucharest Convention 1994),
celebrated its 28th Anniversary. There is no doubt that after the Convention and
its Protocols were signed by all the Black Sea riparian countries, these

344
documents became and continue to be the powerful instruments of International
Environmental Law in the Black Sea Basin (Birnie 2009). Nowadays, the
Bucharest Convention is one of the most known Regional Sea Conventions,
establishing the legal ground for combating pollution from land-based sources
and maritime transport, achieving sustainable management of marine living
resources and pursuing sustainable human development in the Black Sea
Region. The activities implemented so far by the relevant Convention bodies
allowed to significantly increase the public involvement, address transboundary
environmental issues and introduce the sound environmental decision-making
related to the sustainable use of the Black Sea (Mrema 2006).

At the same time, given that the environmental science is being developed
rapidly and after those almost thirty long years of the implementation of the
Bucharest Convention’s provisions, it is now obvious that some of the important
issues related to the preservation of the precious Black Sea environment and
sustainable management of its resources for different reasons had fallen out
from the scope of the Bucharest Convention and its protocols. Meanwhile, some
of the provisions face the need to be improved or reinforced. These issues relate
to certain extent also to the management of marine litter and marine litter
monitoring in the Black Sea basin (Makarenko 2012; 2014; 2015).

Policy framework analysis

 There were numerous attempts to address the issue of marine litter on the
regional level in the Black Sea basin, at the same time, until 2018 there
were no concrete legal instruments dedicated specifically to the
management of marine litter. Moreover, the concept of marine litter
problem and definition of “marine litter” itself, as a legal term was neither
accepted nor was well known in the Black Sea community. Despite these
challenges: In 2005, the Regional Activity on Marine Litter, supported by
UNEP, was launched (UNEP 2005);
 During the following 3 years the two relevant Memorandums of
Understanding (MoUs) between the BSC Permanent Secretariat (BSC PS
2016) and UNEP were implemented (BSC 2007);
 2009 Report on Marine Litter in the Black Sea (incl. the text of the Draft
Marine Litter Action Plan for the Black Sea) was elaborated and published
(BSC 2009);
 Recommendations for updating the Strategic Action Plan for the
Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea, adopted in
Sofia, Bulgaria on 17 April, 2009 (BS SAP; BSC TDA 2007; BSC 2009),
on methodologies, monitoring and assessment, increased public awareness
on marine litter in the Black Sea were introduced;
 The BSC joined as partner or sub-contractor in a range of EU-funded
projects (Advisory Board of MARLISCO, CLEANSEA, PERSEUS,
STAGES, MSFD Projects etc.), participated in Berlin Conference on

345
 Marine Litter (International Conference on Prevention and Management of
Marine Litter in European Seas 2013);
 In 2015, BSC joined and is still an active member of the UNEP Partnership
on Marine Litter.

It is also worth mentioning that the Bucharest Convention and its Protocols
contain several Articles relevant to marine litter, inter alia, Annexes to Protocol
on Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution from
Land-Based Sources (LBS Protocol, 1994, in force) (Bucharest Convention,
1994) and Protocol on Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against
Pollution by Dumping (Dumping Protocol) (Bucharest Convention 1994)
contain three lists of hazardous substances and matter which include those
materials which constitute plastic marine litter. The new text of the LBS
Protocol agreed upon in 2009 (BSC 2009), but which has not yet entered into
force, includes a clear definition of marine litter (borrowed from UNEP), where
litter was defined as “any persistent manufactured or processed solid material
which is discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine environment and
coastal areas”. The latest version of BS SAP (2009) incorporated the
recommendations on fighting with marine litter, and presented a series of
management targets (number 18, 19 and 20) (BSC 2009). Therefore, marine
litter was only mentioned as one of the descriptors, as well as parameter of
discharges under the EcoQO #4 in the BS SAP (2009).

At the same time, in the structure of the Black Sea Commission with its six
Advisory Groups, there was never any specific Advisory Group on Marine
Litter, instead, due to its crosscutting nature, all of them were dealing to a
certain extent with the marine litter problematics. In 2006, a special session on
marine litter was held during the meeting of the Pollution Monitoring and
Assessment (PMA) Advisory Group. Since then, marine litter topic was never
on the agenda of the BSC Meetings. Finally, in 2014, the Advisory Group on the
Land-Based Sources of Pollution (LBS AG) at its meeting recommended to
Black Sea Commission to apply for UNEP Global Initiative on Marine Litter
(UNEP 2014), which was endorsed at BSC Regular Meeting in November 2014
(BSC 2014). Still, up to date, none of the reporting templates of the Advisory
Groups contained any information on the content or amount of marine litter,
which made it impossible to assess and to monitor the marine litter on the
regional level.

In October 2016, the Black Sea Commission eventually adopted the Black Sea
Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program (BSIMAP) for 2017-2022
(BSC 2005; BSC 2016). It for the first time foresees certain harmonization with
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (MSFD Directive 2008); defines
the Good Environmental Status (GES) for the Black Sea (MSFD Directive
2008); provides the common lists of indicators and parameters of reporting
coordinated with partners from UNEP, FAO General Fisheries Commission for

346
Mediterranean and Black Sea (GFCM), ACCOBAMS Agreement and the
International Commission on the Protection of Danube River (ICPDR). Again,
detailed monitoring program for marine litter was missing in its text and further
efforts to introduce marine litter into the BSC agenda, i.e. elaborate the
methodology of assessment and monitoring of marine litter specifically in the
Black Sea and to develop the set of marine litter indicators, became very urgent.

Although marine litter was already mentioned as one of the descriptors,

parameter of discharges and existing management target under the EcoQO #4 in
the BS SAP 2009, (targets number 18, 19 and 20), there was a strong
understanding that a separate document describing necessary actions, policy
measures and monitoring program were needed for the sake of the entire Black
Sea basin. Let alone the growing need to introduce and implement the European
acquis communautaire, which is already binding for five countries of the basin
and where marine litter is being assessed at least within provisions of the MSFD
Directive as one of the descriptors of the Good Environmental Status of the
European Seas (Borzel 2009).

During its 31st BSC Regular Meeting (7-8th October, 2015 in Istanbul) the
Black Sea Commission “welcomed the cooperation with UNEP and, in
particular, implementation of marine litter related activities under the BSC PS -
UNEP MoU” signed between the Secretariats earlier in 2015 (BSC 2016).
During this time, the first Drafts of Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter
Management in the Black Sea and Marine Litter Monitoring Guidelines for the
Black Sea (based on EC Joint Research Centre (JRC) experience) (BSC 2016)
were finalized by nominated experts under agreement with UNEP (BSC 2016),
but they were not adopted by the Black Sea Commission in October, 2016. The
Black Sea Commission instead tasked the Permanent Secretariat to revise the
documents against concrete actions, taking into account experience of other
Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) and relevant projects and organizations
(including cooperation with EMBLAS II Project, which introduced the marine
litter into its surveys).

During the same meeting, the Black Sea Commission also “took note of the
proposal of Bulgaria on the draft Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter
Management in the Black Sea and asked ESAS/LBS/PMA AGs to consider it and
to follow the issue”. The Commission also “agreed that further activities on the
Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Black Sea will be
included in the BSC Work Programme for 2015/2016”.

Aiming to address the environmental challenges in the Mediterranean and Black

Sea regions, as well as to set up joint plans for future, Memorandum of
Understanding between the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan and the
Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC 2016)
was solemnly signed at the 19th CoP of Barcelona Convention in the city of

347
Athens (Barcelona Convention 1976). This important initiative came from the
Republic of Turkey which is not only geographically connecting the
Mediterranean Sea through the Bosporus Strait, Sea of Marmara and the
Dardanelles Strait, but also, being a member to both Conventions, is constantly
contributing to the successful implementation and enforcement of its provisions.
This initiative was further supported by the members of the Black Sea
Commission, Mediterranean countries and the UNEP. The aim of the MoU was
to “increase interaction and exchange of information and experts among both
regions, as well as sharing the best practices on the topics of common concern”.

One of our major achievements of this MoU was an agreement with

UNEP/MAP signed in December, 2016 proposing a number of activities under
Marine Litter MED project (BSC 2016) to strengthen bilateral collaboration
aimed to: 1) finalize the draft Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter
Management in the Black Sea; 2) elaborate, further develop and finalize the
Marine Litter Monitoring Programme for the Black Sea; 3) draft a joint work
plan between UNEP/MAP and the BSC PS; 4) organize annual joint meetings
between both Secretariats.

During the last couple of years both the above-mentioned documents were
drafted under this Agreement and three bilateral meetings were held, as follows:

 Draft Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Black Sea
was adopted by the Black Sea Commission in October 2018 during its 34th
Regular meeting in Istanbul, Turkey (BSC 2018);
 Draft Marine Litter Monitoring Programme for the Black Sea was not yet
adopted, it is currently being considered by the national and international
experts and is planned to be provided for adoption by BSC in the nearest
future;
 The mechanism of regular bilateral cooperation between the Secretariats
was established, which is now used as an example of successful
collaboration between the Regional Seas on the global level;
 Three annual joint meetings between both Secretariats were held in 2017,
2018 and 2019, respectively; during these meetings joint work plans
between the UNEP/MAP and the BSC PS were prepared and further
successfully implemented (BSC 2019);
 Back-to-back to the third bilateral meeting on 12-13th December 2019 the
Regional Verification workshop to support the establishment of the Black
Sea Marine Litter Monitoring Programme and streamline the
implementation of Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter Management in
the Black Sea was held in Istanbul, Turkey. During the Workshop, the best
practices in Mediterranean Sea were presented and it also served as a
platform for consideration of draft Marine Litter Monitoring Guidelines for
the Black Sea and discussion of implementation of Regional Action Plan on

348
 Marine Litter management for the Black Sea, adopted during 34th BSC
Regular meeting in October, 2018 (BSC 2018);
 BSC also joined the efforts of UNEP/MAP on the global level, within the
work of UNEP Global Group on Indicators, in drafting the World Ocean
Assessment Report II, within activities of Sustainable Ocean Initiative
(SOI); implementation of European Union’ Marine Strategy Framework
Directive and reaching the Good Environmental Status of marine waters;
circular economy and ecosystem services; agreements under relevant global
and regional organizations covering our seas (i.e. General Fisheries
Commission for Mediterranean (GFCM) (BSC 2012a) and ACCOBAMS
Agreement on Conservation of Cetaceans in Mediterranean and the Black
Sea) (BSC 2012b).

During the Regional Verification workshop the participants considered the Draft
Guidelines on Monitoring of Marine Litter in the Black Sea environment and
proposed to introduce minor changes to the marine litter common indicators, as
follows (BSC 2019):

1. ECOQO4/11 C1. Composition and distribution of litter washed and/or

deposited on shores, on the sea floor and floating at the surface of the Black
sea, including transitional areas such as estuarine waters and beaches.
2. ECOQO4/11 C2. Composition and distribution of microlitter, mainly
microplastics, at the surface of the sea, and possibly on beaches and
sediments, including transitional areas such as estuarine waters and
beaches.
3. ECOQO4/11 C3. Candidate Indicator: Composition and distribution of
litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms focusing on selected
mammals, and marine birds.

The participants considered progress in implementation of the Regional Action

Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Black Sea and recommended to
review the timelines in the Annex to the Regional Action Plan.

The participants considered the marine litter reporting templates provided by

UNEP/MAP Secretariat and in line with them elaborated the proposal for
amendments to relevant Annexes of the BSIMAP 2017-2022 (including draft
marine litter-related Annual reporting template) to be presented to BSC for
further consideration and possible adoption (Tables 1 and 2).

The marine litter also became a subject of a dedicated chapter “Marine litter” of
BS State of Environment (SoE) Report 2009-2014 and is taken into account
when drafting the Report on the Implementation of the BS SAP 2009 – so called
SAPIR. As a result of elaboration of SAPIR, the BS SAP 2009 is planned to be
updated and marine litter-related management targets will also be reconsidered
in line with current requirements.

349
 Table 1. Proposal for monitoring of ML
Type of ML Status Beach Floating Sea-floor
Plastic M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Cloth/Textile M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Metal M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Rubber M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Paper/Cardboard M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Glass M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Ceramics M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year
Processed/worked wood M 2-4 times per year 2 times per year once per year

Table 2. PMA & LBS Regional Reporting Indicators

Agreed Criteria Beach Litter Floating Sea-floor Comments
litter litter
Type
Amount (mandatory: (Items/km2) (Items/km2)
Items/100m)

(optional:
items/km2)
Weight
Size
Composition
(specification of
items)
Spatial distribution
Source/Pressures
Impacts on marine
organisms (Optional)
*Impacts on marine
water quality
*Impacts on sea-floor
Measures
*Proposed to be further discussed

Meanwhile, Bulgaria and Romania, binded by the MSFD implementation,

reported that main conclusions from the Initial assessment of the status of
Bulgarian and Romanian parts of the Black Sea area regarding marine litter, are
the following (BSC 2019):

 Not defined definitions for Good Environmental Status (GES) for

Descriptor 10 (Marine litter);
 Insufficient data or no actual data for the most Descriptors for preparation
of qualitative and quantitative assessment of the Black sea status at national
and regional level. Difficulties to assess the data due to different level of
aggregation;

350
 Need of additional gathered data and information on the base of more high
frequency observations;
 Additional challenge is work on Descriptor 10 – Marine litter, for which
there is huge lack of data at European level, especially for the Black sea
marine region, indicators aren’t fully developed. For the moment only
beach litter, sunk litter and floating litter are monitored. Efforts are made
for micro-litter. Indicators should be developed;
 Need of using modern scientific field and laboratory equipment.

Considering marine litter problem in Republic of Turkey, the “strategic action

plan for marine litter” for Istanbul as a pilot region was prepared in 2013.
Strategic action plans for all coastal cities are planned to be implemented (BSC
2019).

In regards to implementation of BS SAP 2009 and its management target no. 18

“Amend national waste strategies and/or national coastal zone management
plans with the aim of coastal and marine litter minimization”, which was listed
in BS SAP as short and mid-term management target of medium priority,
Romania reported that it has no national waste strategy for the time being, but
the problem of the marine (and beach) litter is included in the MSFD as one of
the descriptors for GES. Various coastal management plans, such as Urban
planning for the Black Sea Coastal Zone (2010-2011), the Master Plan for
severe protected areas (2007), etc were developed and implemented. A focus on
the sustainable development is also taken by the Romania National Tourism
Development master plan 2007-2026.

In regards to implementation of BS SAP 2009 management target no. 19

“Develop regional and national marine litter monitoring and assessment
methodologies on the basis of common research approaches, evaluation criteria
and reporting requirements”, which was listed in BS SAP as short and mid-
term management target of medium priority, it was reported that among the
monitoring programmes developed under MSFD (and BS SAP), there is a sub-
programme for marine litter. Romania started to monitor both beach and marine
litter, but the problem of the microlitter still needs to be tackled.

In general, plastics is not yet addressed in the legally binding documents of the
BSC, but efforts to coordinate the Plastic Strategy and implementation of
UNEA-4 resolution on plastic litter and microplastics pollution are made
through above mentioned activities under agreement with UNEP/MAP, mostly
within BS Regional Action Plan for ML and Draft BS ML Monitoring
Guidelines.

As it was already mentioned, in October 2018, at its 34th BSC Regular meeting,
the BSC took a decision to adopt the BS ML RAP together with annexed Work
Programme for the implementation of its activities/measures.

351
This document was initially prepared by the well-known expert nominated by
the UNEP/MAP, same expert prepared similar action plans for Mediterranean
Sea and some other regional seas, therefore, the approach followed in the BS
ML RAP was completely compatible with global and European approaches
towards preparation of RAPs relevant to management of marine litter. The
document consists of preamble, 20 articles and Work Program annexed to its
text. In accordance with provisions of the BS ML RAP:

 The implementation of the BS ML RAP will be facilitated with a “number

of international activities in which the Black Sea Commission (BSC) is
taking part, among those(a) Joint Work Plan on Marine Litter between
UNEP/MAP and the BSC PS (Joint Work Plan) and (b) Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between UNEP/MAP and BSC PS”;
 It “shall apply to discharges referred to in Article 1 of the LBS Protocol and
any operational discharge from ships, platforms and other man-made
structures at the Black Sea”;
 The overall objective of the BS ML RAP is to “consolidate, harmonize and
implement necessary environmental policies, strategies and measures for
sustainable integrated management of marine litter issues in the Black Sea
region”;
 The Contracting Parties to the Bucharest Convention “may incorporate the
provisions of the BS ML RAP into their national marine strategies, plans
and/or programmes for the protection and rehabilitation of the Black Sea
and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources paying due
attention to national, sectoral and intersectoral interactions”;
 BS ML RAP also requires that “The Contracting Parties of the Bucharest
Convention will elaborate and implement, individually or jointly, as
appropriate, national and regional action plans (NAPs and RAPs) and
programmes, containing measures and timetables for their
implementation”, as well as they “shall prepare National Biennial Reports
on NAPs and BSC PS shall prepare Regional Biennial Reports on NAPs on
the basis of National Reports”.

For the purpose of implementing the BS ML RAP, the Contracting Parties of the
Bucharest Convention may adopt as appropriate the necessary legislation and/or
establish adequate institutional arrangements to ensure efficient marine litter
reduction and the prevention of its generation. To this aim, the Contracting
Parties may:

 Establish institutional coordination, where necessary, among the relevant

national policy bodies and relevant regional organizations and programmes,
in order to promote integration;
 Review and revise the existing legislation related to marine litter and solid
waste and implement the relevant legislation at the national level;

352
 Establish marine litter regional experts group (or task force) under BSC PS
and stimulate activities relevant to marine litter management;
 Ensure close coordination and collaboration between national, regional and
local authorities in the field of marine litter management and other relevant
measures.

Article 8 of the BS ML RAP “Prevention of marine litter pollution” foresees

that for Land-based Sources the Parties may base their urban solid waste
management on reduction at source, applying the following waste hierarchy:
prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery, e.g. energy recovery
and environmentally sound disposal. They may explore and implement to the
extent possible the following prevention measures:

(a) Adequate waste reducing/reusing/recycling measures in order to reduce the

fraction of plastic packaging waste that goes to landfill or incineration without
energy recovery;
(b) Extended Producer Responsibility strategy by making the producers,
manufacturer brand owners and first importers responsible for the entire
lifecycle of the product with measures prioritizing the hierarchy of waste
management in order to encourage companies to design products with long
durability for reuse, recycling and materials reduction in weight and toxicity;
(c) Sustainable Procurement Policies contributing to the promotion of the
consumption of recycled plastic-made products;
(d) Establishment of voluntary agreements with retailers and supermarkets to set
an objective of reduction of plastic bags consumption as well as selling dry food
or cleaning products in bulk and refill special and reusable containers;
(e) Fiscal and economic instruments to promote the reduction of plastic bag
consumption;
(f) Establishment of Deposits, Return and Restoration System for beverage
packaging prioritizing when possible their recycling;
(g) Establishment of procedures and manufacturing methodologies together with
the plastic industry, in order to minimize the decomposition characteristics of
plastic, to reduce micro-plastic;
(h) Improved solid waste infrastructure in order to reduce entry of litter into the
marine environment; and
(i) Improve or develop permanent services for marine litter collection and
removal along the entire coastline of the BS ML RAP area, including the
populated and unpopulated sections of the shore.

They may explore and implement to the extent possible the following
prevention measures:

(a) Establish as appropriate adequate urban sewer, wastewater treatment plants,

and waste management systems to prevent run-off and riverine inputs of litter;

353
(b) Close to the extent possible the existing illegal dump sites on land in the area
of the application of the BS ML RAP;
(c) Enforcement measures to combat illegal dumping in accordance with
national and regional legislation, including littering on the beach, illegal sewage
disposal in the sea, the coastal zone and rivers in the area of the application of
the BS ML RAP; and
(d) Develop and implement measures aimed to prevent litter carried by rivers
from deposition at sea.

For Sea-based sources, they may explore and implement to the extent possible:

(a) “Gear marking to indicate ownership” concept and ‘reduced ghost catches
through the use of environmental neutral upon degradation of nets, pots and
traps concept’, in consultation with the competent international and regional
organizations in the fishing sector;
b) Organize training courses on ghost fishing;
(c) Contact the Permanent Secretariat of the Black Sea Memorandum of
Understanding on Port State Control and carry out a Concentrated Inspection
Campaign (CIC) focussing on how requirements for preventing marine pollution
from ships (MARPOL Annex V) have been implemented. Such campaign is to
be conducted in connection with the new amendments to Annex V of MARPOL
convention related to products which are hazardous to marine environment
(HME) and Form of Garbage Record Book adopted by resolution MEPC.277
(70) and which is effective from 01st March, 2018;
(d) The cost effective measures to prevent any marine littering from dredging
activities, taking into account the relevant guidelines adopted in the framework
of Dumping Protocol of the Bucharest Convention; and
(e) Apply enforcement measures by the Contracting Parties to combat dumping
in accordance with national and regional legislation, including littering on the
beach, illegal sewage disposal in the sea, the coastal zone and rivers in the area
of the application of the BS ML RAP.

Article 9 defines the necessary measures for “Removing existing marine litter
and its environmentally sound disposal” and foresees the following measures:

(a) “Fishing for Litter” environmentally sound practices, in consultation with

the competent international and regional organizations, to facilitate clean up of
the floating litter and the seabed from marine litter caught incidentally and/or
generated by fishing vessels in their regular activities, including derelict fishing
gears;
(b) Improve Port reception facilities in order to fully implement obligations
arising from Annex V of the MARPOL Convention;
(c) Charge reasonable costs for the use of port reception facilities or, when
applicable apply the No-Special-Fee system, in consultation with competent
international and regional organizations, when using port reception facilities;

354
 (d) Identify, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, accumulations hotspots
of marine litter and implementation of national actions for their regular removal
and sound disposal;
(e) Where it is environmentally sound and cost effective, remove existing
accumulated litter;
(f) Apply as appropriate Adopt-a-Beach or similar practices and enhance the
public participation role with regard to marine litter management;
(g) Implement National Marine Litter Clean up Campaigns on a regular basis;
(h) Participate in International Coastal Clean up Campaigns and Programmes;
and
(i) Participate in the Blue Flag certification by the Foundation for
Environmental Education (FEE).

Article 10 “Other activities” recommends to implement also the following

activities:

(a) Establishment of direct cooperation of Contracting Parties, with assistance of

competent international and regional organizations, to address transboundary
marine litter cases;
(b) Identification of international, regional and national potential financial
sources and proposal of projects in order to raise funds. Allocation of essential
funds for the implementation of marine litter projects;
(c) Establish marine litter baseline values, using available data in the Black Sea
and in coordination with existing regional and global processes;
(d) Establish basin-wide marine litter reduction targets, based on available data
from the Black Sea region and harmonized with regionally and globally defined
targets. Indicators and thresholds regarding each target for the Black Sea region
should be established, taking into account the specifics of the Black sea
environment;
(e) Contracting Parties and BSC PS may identify financial sources and
allocation of essential funds for the implementation of national and regional
marine litter projects and ensure that relevant programmes and projects are
properly incorporated in national budgets;
(f) BSC may support development and use of common basin scale models of
circulation in connection with marine litter movement;
(g) Enhancement of usage of circular economy in marine litter management; and
(h) Establishment of institutional cooperation with various relevant regional and
global institutions and initiatives.

The Part III – Monitoring and Assessment proposes to Contracting Parties to

“assess the impact of marine litter on the marine and coastal environment and
human health, based on coordinated and, if possible, common agreed
monitoring methodologies and programmes, environmental targets and
indicators for assessment of the status of marine environment; prepare the
Guidelines on monitoring of marine litter in the Black Sea; prepare National

355
Marine Litter Monitoring Programmes; Implement Regional Marine Litter
Monitoring Programme, as part of the Black Sea Integrated Monitoring and
Assessment Program (BSIMAP); encourage the Contracting Parties to
undertake, when appropriate, joint monitoring initiatives on a pilot basis, with
the aim to exchange best practices, use harmonized methodologies, and ensure
cost efficiency; encourage the Contracting Parties to support and take part in
regional initiatives and projects lead by competent partner organizations in
order to strengthen strategic and operational regional synergies; request the
BSC PS to work further with relevant partner organizations, in order to
strengthen technical support that countries might need to implement BSIMAP;
the BSC PS will prepare and publish the Marine Litter Assessment in the Black
Sea every five years using the results of the national monitoring programmes,
using all other available relevant regional and international data; Regional
Data Base on Marine Litter, based on national data bases, compatible with
other regional or overarching databases will be established for the Black Sea;
Contracting Parties shall prepare and publish Biennial Reports on National
Marine Litter Monitoring Programmes...”.

Under Article 14 “Enhancement of public awareness and education”, “the

Contracting Parties will undertake, where appropriate, in synergy with existing
initiatives in the field of education for sustainable development and environment
and partnership with civil society, public awareness and education activities,
with adequate duration and follow up, with regard to marine litter management
including activities related to prevention and promotion of sustainable
consumption and production”. This foresees (a) Enhancement of public
awareness and education by holding a set of national and regional awareness
seminars/workshops, including higher and secondary education institutions
involvement; and (b) Participation in UNEP Open online course on marine
litter.

Under Article 16 “Regional and international cooperation”, for the purpose of

facilitating the implementation of the BS ML RAP the Permanent Secretariat is
supposed to “establish institutional cooperation with various relevant regional
and global institutions and initiatives”.

In line with Article 17, “the Contracting Parties will report on a biennial basis
on the implementation of the BS ML RAP, in particular the implementation of
the above measures, their effectiveness and difficulties encountered and data
resulting from monitoring and assessment programmes. The BSC PS will
prepare and distribute to Contracting Parties the structure for preparation of the
National Biennial Reports. The Contracting Parties will review biennially the
status of implementation of the BS ML RAP”.

The Contracting Parties will implement the BS ML RAP, in particular the above
activities and measures according to the deadlines indicated in the Work

356
Programme - Annex I) of the BS ML RAP, which includes: (a) relevant
Articles; (b) Activities/ Measures; (c) Timetable; (d) Responsible Body; (e)
Indicators; and (f) Cost.

Regarding enforcement of measures, “the Contracting Parties shall take the

necessary actions to enforce the measures in accordance with their national
regulations and for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of the BS ML
RAP the Permanent Secretariat will establish institutional cooperation with
various relevant regional and global institutions and initiatives”.

Therefore, the BS ML RAP clearly describes all necessary measures and

timelines needed for its successful implementation. At the same time, the
participants of the Regional Verification Workshop, “recommended to review
the timelines in the Annex to the Regional Action Plan”, considering that some
of the actions were already outdated and/or may not be implemented in time or
in full. The lack of enforcement mechanism and concrete guidance may hinder
successful, timely and coordinated implementation of the BS ML RAP.

For this reason, the BSC PS should take all necessary steps to provide
Contracting Parties with clear reporting templates and deadlines, to make sure
that the preparation of the first Regional Biennial Report by the BSC PC on the
basis of National Biennial Reports on NAPs, currently planned in the Work
Program for year 2022, will be running smooth and that the Regional Report
will be comprehensive and exhaustive.

Another visible challenge of the BS ML RAP implementation is to ensure the

close coordination between national, regional and local authorities in the field of
marine litter management, allowing the proper revision of the existing national
legislation in this regard.

There is also an assumption that the allocation of financial resources for BS ML

RAP implementation in individual countries may differ from country to country,
therefore, implementation of fiscal and economic instruments to promote the
reduction of plastic bag consumption and improvement of solid waste
infrastructures, foreseen by the Work Program, may be uneven or not properly
reported.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Marine litter issues are not properly addressed and managed so far on the
regional, national and global scales. Despite the lack of its monitoring and
assessment in the Black Sea riparian countries, the need to reduce amount of
marine litter entering the Black Sea, including plastics, is obvious.

357
There is no doubt that the Black Sea Commission plays significant role in
harmonizing and coordinating the national efforts of Black Sea countries to
improve management of marine litter on the regional and global level. The
evidence of this significant progress is the adoption in 2018 of the Regional
Action Plan on marine litter management for the Black Sea basin.

Despite the very clear formulations and deadlines, there are still challenges and
gaps in the successful implementation of the BS ML RAP, relevant to both,
organizational and financial aspects. That is why the introduction of stronger
measures for marine litter monitoring and management in the Black Sea proper
and its catchment basin, as well as enforcement of the provisions of the BS ML
RAP is still on the agenda of the Black Sea Commission and its individual
Contracting Parties.

Implementation of these measures, as well proper monitoring and reporting,

must be very seriously taken into consideration and adequately implemented by
all Black Sea countries, mostly by strengthening environmental policies for
shipping and tourist industries and raising public awareness and involvement.

As regards to marine litter monitoring, despite the signature of BS ML RAP and

other above mentioned regional commitments, there is still an urgent need to
adopt the Draft Marine Litter Monitoring Guidelines for Black Sea, containing
regional methodology for requirements of assessment and monitoring of marine
litter in the Black Sea and to develop the set of indicators, thresholds and
baselines for marine litter to be included in the upcoming BSC reporting
requirements and related documents: BS SAPIR Report, next BS SoE Report
2015-2020, draft BSIMAP 2022-2027. The first step to adequately introduce
and assess the marine litter, obviously, is the inclusion of this indicator into the
annual country’s reporting templates for relevant Advisory Groups, given the
cross-cutting nature of the marine litter. Another step could be an active
participation in the UNEP Global Initiative on Marine Litter, further
implementation of the so called “Message in the bottle”, adopted during the
International Conference on Marine Litter (Berlin April 2013). There is also a
room for cooperation with EU on the implementation of the MSFD Directive,
since the Black Sea represents one of the European Regional Seas in the
provisions of the MSFD, two countries are members of the EU, three more
countries applied for EU membership and signed Association Agreements with
EU and, therefore, are expected to comply with EU acquis communautaire and
MSFD requirements, in particular. Last but not least, deepening of collaboration
and further successful implementation of the MoU and dedicated arrangements
on marine litter with UNEP/MAP (Barcelona Convention 1976).

Meanwhile, in order to better coordinate and harmonize all relevant efforts on

the regional level, the Black Sea Commission should pay its utmost attention to
implementation of the following measures:

358
 To coordinate the mechanism of implementation of BS ML RAP with
relevant regional partners (BSEC, PABSEC, industries, academia, NGOs
etc.);
 To harmonize approaches with other three European RSCs ML RAPs, as
well as relevant fisheries organizations and initiatives on regional and
global levels(UN activities, FAO (GFCM), CBD Convention, Regular
process on Global Reporting (World Ocean Assessment II); Global
Working Group on Indicators; EU MSFD Directive, Sustainable Ocean
Initiative (SOI), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Aichi Targets
etc.);
 To harmonize the approaches on establishing the baselines and thresholds
for marine litter and monitoring techniques on regional and global level;
 To encourage appropriate involvement of various authorities and other
stakeholders (regional, national and local authorities from Fisheries and
Aquaculture sector, Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil
society).

All the above mentioned measures are of paramount importance in the light of
implementation of the BS ML RAP and other relevant regional and global
documents and commitments in the field of marine litter management described
in this article.

References

Barcelona Convention (1976) Convention for the Protection of the

Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, Barcelona, Spain signed 1976, in force
1978.

Birnie, P.W. (2009) International Law and the environment, In: P. Birnie, A.
Boyle, C. Redgwell (Eds.), 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 166 pp.
Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol, 2002.

Borzel, A.T. (2009) Coping with Accession to the European Union. New Modes
of Environmental Governance. Palgrave MacMillan, Washington DC, 304 pp.

BSC (2005) Black Sea Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program

BSIMAP 2006-2010.

BSC (2007) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concluded between the

Permanent Secretariat to the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution (BSC Permanent Secretariat) and The United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), Division of Environmental Policy
Implementation (DEPI), Regional Seas Programme (RSP), 2007.

BSC TDA (2007) Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA).

359
BSC (2009) Protocol on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Black
Sea from Land-Based Sources and Activities.

BSC (2012a) Memorandum of Understanding between Commission on the

Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution and the General Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (GFCM).

BSC (2012b) Memorandum of Understanding Between the Permanent

Secretariat of the Agreement on Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, the
Mediterranean Sea and the contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS) and the
Permanent Secretariat of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution concerning the Sub-Regional Coordinating Unit for the Black
Sea.

BSC (2014) Black Sea State of Environment Report 2009-2014/5 (ISBN 978-
605-84837-0-5).

BSC (2016) Black Sea Integrated Monitorıng and Assessment Program for
years 2017-2022 (BSIMAP 2017-2022).

BSC (2018) Conclusions and Recommendations of Regional Verification

workshop to support the establishment of the Black Sea Marine Litter
Monitoring Programme and streamline the implementation of Regional Action
Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Black Sea, 12-13th December, 2019,
Istanbul, Turkey.

BSC (2019) State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2009-2014/5). Edited by
Anatoly Krutov. Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the Black
Sea against Pollution (BSC) 2019, Istanbul, Turkey, 811 pp. Available at:
http://www.blackseacommıssıon.org/ınf.%20and%20resou rces/publıcatıons/
soe2014/

BSC PS (2016) Memorandum of Understanding Between Secretariat of the

Barcelona Convention and the Mediterranean Action Plan (Barcelona
Convention-UNEP/MAP) and the Permanent Secretariat of the Commission on
the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC PS), signed at 19th
Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the
Mediterranean and its Protocols, Athens, Greece, 9-12 February 2016
(UNEP(DEPI)/MED IG.22/28, Decision 22/18, Annex III, pp. 693-699.

BS SAP (2009) Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and
Rehabilitation of the Black Sea (2009).

360
Bucharest Convention (1994) Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea
against Pollution, Bucharest, Romania, 1992.

MSFD Directive (2008) 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the
field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

Mrema, E.M. (2006) 'Cross-cutting Issues Related to Ensuring Compliance with

MEAs'. In: Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements,
(eds., Beyerlin, U., Stoll, P.T., Wolfrum, R.), Academic Analisis and Views
from Practice.

Makarenko, I. (2012) Challenges of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

procedure for transboundary projects in the Black Sea Basin. Turkish Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 12: 445-452.

Makarenko, I. (2014) European Union’ Accession to the Bucharest Convention:

legal aspects and challenges in transboundary context. Cercetari Marine 44:
136-146.

Makarenko, I. (2015) The role of the Black Sea Commission in the sustainable
management of the marine living resources in the Black Sea area. In:
Progressive Engineering Practices in Marine Resource Management, (eds.,
Zlateva, I., Raykov, V., Nikolov N.), Idea Group, U.S., pp. 306-325.

UNEP (2005) Marine Litter: An Analytical Overview.

UNEP (2014) Available at: https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-

topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/addressing-land-based-pollution/global-partners
hip-marine.

361
I
SBN978-
975-
8825-
48-
6