Distribution and characteristics of microplastics in beach sand and the study effect of

the dry and rainy days on distribution.

Contents
1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................2

2 objectives..........................................................................................................................19

3 Methodology.....................................................................................................................20

3.1 Site selection..............................................................................................................20

4 Results ..............................................................................................................................24
1 Introduction
In the 1950s, worldwide plastics manufacturing was roughly 1.5 million t/y. It is currently
expected to be around 250 million t/y, and it is expanding by 10% per year [1]. While precise
estimates of the input of manufactured plastics into the environment are impossible to get,
significant volumes wind up in the marine environment via industrial discharge, littering, and
terrestrial runoff [2]. This has resulted in an increase in the amount of plastic garbage in the
world's oceans.

Microplastic has become a major challenge to the environment. Plastic particles in less than 5
mm in size are categorised as microplastics and they can be find as in many forms such as
beads, pellets, fibres, films and foams [1]. Primary and secondary microplastics are the two
main categories found in the field. Plastics produced in a small size are called primary
microplastic and the fragmented plastics from the macro plastics are known as secondary
microplastics[2]. In the world today, the significant amount of plastics is being produced,
which is contributing to the increase of microplastics [3]\Gago, 2018 #591//\Gago, 2018
#591//\Gago, 2018 #591//\Duis, 2016 #842//\Duis, 2016 #842//. Microplastics can last longer
in the ecosystem due to their high durability, high resistance, and strength. In recent years,
microplastics have gained significant attention, and studies have examined their distribution
and occurrence among the environment [2, 4-6].

These particles, which are formed by the breakdown of larger plastic pieces (secondary
microplastics) or are manufactured to be microscopic in size (primary microplastics), can be
bioavailable for organisms at all trophic levels and have the ability to sorb toxic chemicals
from the surrounding water, such as persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals [3]. When
ingested, they can have a negative impact on species' health by inflicting physical and
chemical harm (e.g., gastrointestinal tract injury, disruption of essential physiological
processes, and behavioural problems), possibly affecting natural ecosystems [4]. Moreover,
microplastic particles provide a substrate for the colonization of diverse microbial
communities, also known as plastispheres [5], where pathogenic bacteria and harmful algal
bloom species have been discovered [6], and they increase the chances of exotic species
invasion [4].

It has been reported that microplastics are polluting many parts of the eco system [1-3, 7-10].
Among these, the aquatic environment plays a crucial role as it comprises a large part of the
eco system. Thus, it is imperative to study about the microplastics present in the aquatic
environment in order to understand how they are dispersed. The marine environment plays an
essential role in the life of many living organisms, and microplastics accumulate in seawater
and sediment, causing many problems for these organisms [9, 11-13]. Microplastics make
adverse effects (e.g. entanglement of fibers, ingestion of beads or other microplastics,
blockage of gills and make a toxicity) on the marine animals (including fish, turtle, birds,
marine mammals and planktons) have been reported in many studies [14-17].

The scale of the problem remains unknown as many of the behaviours as well as the amount
of the microplastics have yet to be fully explored [18]. There is still room for more studies on
weathering patterns, sinking behaviour, transportation, leaching chemicals, vector behaviour
to transport some toxic chemicals, and the effects of microplastics on the environment. These
studies will lead to the estimation of the microplastics pollution and impacts.

Microplastics are transported over long distances by currents and wind in the marine
environment, making oceanic islands vulnerable to particle buildup [7]. The island mass
effect can alter the dynamics of ocean circulation near islands and cause vertical turbulence,
resulting in the creation of eddies and upwelling occurrences [8]. Small-scale oceanographic
mechanisms, such as the interaction of ocean currents and local topography, aid in the
retention of pelagic plastic debris around islands [9], which is likely to wash ashore on
beaches and return to the ocean by tides and waves [8]. Because islands are biodiversity
hotspots with high levels of endemism, they are particularly sensitive to this form of pollution
[7].

There are various sources contribute to the microplastics present in the eco systems. Most of
the microplastics are ended up in the ocean and they may enter through the terrestrial system
to surface water flow, river waters, or some anthropogenic activities such as shipping,
transporting, fishing, house hold waste, factories, application of sludge and many other
agricultural activities [19, 20].

Beach sediment is thought to be a substantial reservoir of plastic objects and has been
proposed as the optimum compartment for understanding the dynamics of plastic trash
dispersal over time [10]. Various oceanic and climatic factors, such as tides, waves, and
wind, impact this distribution [10]. Despite the enormous number of research on microplastic
dispersal on beaches across the world, many of them do not take these processes into account
in their findings. Investigating how microplastics interact with physical factors and
environmental features is crucial for better understanding long-term patterns and trends. It
may also aid in the sample design of future research and enhance modelling studies.

Various methods are used to separate microplastics from environmental samples, since no
standard process has been developed. According to the literature, size of the sieves, digestion
chemicals, density separation chemicals, and identification methods are dependent on the
study and sample type. Moreover, inconsistencies in sample and extraction methodologies,
size fractions, and concentration units, on the other hand, make meaningful comparisons
between studies difficult, making it difficult to grasp the larger geographical distribution of
these particles and find trends in time and space [11]. Aside from recent initiatives to
standardize data collecting in order for it to be comparable [12], a large body of literature
already exists in multiple concentration units that cannot be interconverted. In order to
overcome this limitation, the present study has adopted three different dimensions to measure
microplastic concentration: type, colour and size. The main objective is to investigate the
distribution and characteristics of microplastics (1–5 mm) in beach sand and the study effect
of the dry and rainy days on distribution.
2 Results

On the six days when all the for locations were surveyed, 50 mL of sediment was collected
next to each quadrat for grain size characterization. The dry sieving method was applied and
the sediment was classified according to Folk and Ward (1957) [13]. Characteristic analysis
was conducted using four different locations.

Table 1 : Characteristics of the surveyed

Location Type Description

Corrimal With canal Place with human activities

Lagoon With canal High tourist attracted area
Belmore With canal Near to the children play ground and it has covered its ground
with artificial floor with rubber. This particle found in black
color particles
Fairy medow Without canal low human involvement is less than other sites
Source: Primary data

Corrimal and belmore beach destination have the wide array of human activities in place, it is
therefore not surprising that pollution levels, particularly of plastics including microplastics
(≤ 5 mm).

Table 2: Amount, colour, type and size of microplastics found on each location, with
concentrations expressed in terms of dry day 1
Sub Total
locatio Particle
n s Foam Fiber Bead Fragment Film
Parti
Particl Particl Particle cle Particl
e size e size size size Colo e size
Color N (mm) Color N (mm) Color N (mm) Color N (mm) r N (mm)
white 2 4 red 1 2 blue 1 2 blue 1 3
Corrima
11 white 3 2 blue 1 4
l1
white 1 3 white 1 4

white 1 1

white 2 2
Corrima
9 whit
l2 white 1 3 red 2 3 blue 1 2 1 1
e
whit
1 2
e
gree
white 1 1 1 4 blue 1 2 red 2 1
n
whit
Corrima white 2 2 1 2 black 1 1
13 e
l3 light
white 2 3 1 3
blue
light 1 2
 blue
light
white 1 3 2 3
blue
light
white 1 4 1 2
blue
Lagoon brow dark
9 1 2 1 3
1 n blue
white 1 2

black 1 2
brow
2 1
n
brow
8 2
Lagoon n
15
2 brow
3 3
n
brow
2 4
n
brow
2 1
n
brow
4 2
n
brow
1 3
n
brow
Lagoon 5 4
16 n
3
white 1 1

white 1 2

white 1 3

white 1 4
brow
5 1 blue 1 3
n
Belmor brow
12 4 2
e1 n
brow
2 4
n
brow
2 2 white 1 2
n
brow
1 3 white 2 3
n
Belmor dark light
12 3 2 1 2
e2 green blue
dark
1 3
green
dark
1 4
green
white 1 1 blue 1 2
dark
2 1
green
Belmor dark
15 3 2
e3 green
dark
3 3
green
dark
5 4
green
brow
3 2 black 1 3 green 1 3
n
brow
2 3 red 1 2
n
pink 1 3
Fairy light
1 3
medow 15 blue
1 white 1 2

white 1 3

yellow 1 1

yellow 2 2
Fairy 15 white 1 1 blue 1 2
medow
2 brow
1 1 green 3 1
n
brow 1 2 green 2 2
n
 red 1 2

white 1 1

white 1 2

white 2 3

white 1 4

white 2 2

white 3 3

Fairy brow brow

1 2 2
medow 10 n n 1
3 black 1 2

black 1 3

white 1 2

TOTAL 152 96 5 7 42 2

Source: Primary data

Overall, 152 microplastics were collected in four beach locations in dry day 1. Samples
accounted for 33 particles from which 21.7% were found on the corrimal side, 26.3% (40
pieces) were found on the lagoon side, 25.7% (39 pieces) were found on the belmore side and
26.3% (40 pieces) were found on the fairy medow side. A total of 152 particles were
identified as microplastics (1–5 mm). In general, the replicates presented a large difference
between them, therefore, high values of standard deviation were obtained. A significant
difference was observed between the four locations and each three sub locations. Sampled
microplastics comprised heterogeneous particles with diverse shapes, colours and sizes. Five
different types were identified: foam (63.2%) , fiber (3.3%) , bead (4.6%), fragments (27.6%)
and film (1.3%). On the corrimal beaches, where microplastics were much less abundant,
foam was the most abundant type (45.4%). Two film observed in this study, only from the
corrimal beach side.

3%
5%

12%
Brown
34%
White
Dark Green
Light Blue
Other

29%

Figure 1: Colours of microplastics identified in dry day 1

Brown particles were dominant (33.6%), followed by white (29%), dark green (11.8%), and
green/light blue (4.6%) particles. Other colours accounted for 3.3%. The size of microplastics
was between 1.00 to 4.00 mm, and majority of particles ranged from 2.00 mm (42.7%) and
from 3.00 mm (25%).

Table 3: Amount, colour, type and size of microplastics found on each location, with concentrations
expressed in terms of dry day 2

Sub
location Total
Particles Foam Fiber Bead Fragment

Particle Particle Particle

Colou size size Colou Particle Colou size
r N (mm) Colour N (mm) r N size (mm) r N (mm)
white 1 1 black 1 4 Red 1 3

white 3 2 Red 1 4
Corrima
12 white 1 3 green 1 4
l1
white 1 4 white 1 2

white 1 4

white 1 1

Corrima white 2 2
9
l2 white 2 3 black 1 1

white 2 4 black 1 2

white 2 1 green 1 2 white 1 1 white 2 4

Corrima white 6 2 brown 1 2

17
l3 white 2 3

white 2 4

white 1 1 white 1 2

white 1 2 white 1 3

white 1 3 white 1 4
Lagoon
15 white 1 4 yellow 1 4
1
brown 1 1 green 1 2

brown 3 2 black 1 4

brown 1 4

white 2 1

Lagoon white 4 2
8
2 white 1 3

white 1 4

white 1 1

Lagoon white 2 2
8
3 white 1 3

white 4 4
dark
2 1 black 1 1
green
dark
9 2 white 2 2
Belmore green
21
1 dark
2 3 white 1 3
green
dark
2 4
green
 white 1 2

white 1 3
dark
1 1
green
dark
2 2
Belmore green
8
2 dark
1 3
green
dark
4 4
green
brown 1 1

brown 2 2

brown 1 3
dark
Belmore 3 1
25 green
3
dark
9 2
green
dark
4 3
green
dark
5 4
green
white 2 1
Fairy white 2 2
medow 9
1 yellow 3 2

brown 2 2

brown 2 2

brown 2 4
Fairy white 1 1
medow 8
2 white 1 2

white 1 3

white 1 4

white 1 3
Fairy
medow 3 black 1 1
3
black 1 2

TOTAL 143 117 2 1 23

Source: Primary data

On dry day 2, 143 microplastics were collected in four beach locations. Samples accounted
for 38 particles from which 26.6% were found on the corrimal side, 21.7% (31 pieces) were
found on the lagoon side, 37.8% (54 pieces) were found on the belmore side and 13.9% (20
pieces) were found on the fairy medow side. A total of 143 particles were identified as
microplastics (1–5 mm). In addition, a significant difference was observed between the four
locations and each three sub locations. Sampled microplastics comprised heterogeneous
particles with diverse shapes, colours and sizes. Four different types were identified: foam
(81.8%) , fiber (1.3%) , bead (0.7%) and fragments (16.1%). On the fairy medow beaches,
where microplastics were much less abundant, foam was the most abundant type (11.9%).
Only one beads observed in this study, it was found on the corrimal beach side.
 6% 11%
5%

Brown
White
Dark Green
31%
Black
Other
47%

Figure 2: Colours of microplastics identified in dry day 2

White particles were dominant (46.9%), followed by dark green (30.8%), brown (11.2%), and
black (4.9%) particles. Other colours accounted for 6.3%. The size of microplastics was
between 1.00 to 4.00 mm, and majority of particles ranged from 2.00 mm (44.1%).

Table 4: Amount, colour, type and size of microplastics found on each location, with concentrations
expressed in terms of dry day 3

Foam Fiber Bead Fragment

Sub Total
location Particles
Particle Particle Particle Particle
size Colou size Colou size size
Colour N (mm) r N (mm) r N (mm) Colour N (mm)
black 1 1 black 1 4

blue 1 4 Blue 1 1

brown 1 3 Blue 1 3

green 2 4 green 1 4
Corrima
17
l1 red 1 2 Red 1 3

white 1 1 white 3 2

white 1 2

white 1 3

white 2 2 Red 1 2 White 1 2

white 1 3 Blue 1 2 White 1 3

Corrima
15 white 3 4 Blue 1 4 White 1 4
l2
White 1 4 Blue 1 3

Blue 1 4

white 1 2 blue 1 2 red 2 1

black 1 1
Corrima
7 light
l3 1 2
blue
light
1 3
blue

Lagoon Black 1 1 white 2 2

10
1 Blue 1 3 white 1 4
 Red 1 2

White 1 2

White 1 3

White 2 4

Blue 1 2 Green 1 2 Blue 1 1 White 1 3

Lagoon Blue 1 3 Green 1 3 Blue 1 2 White 1 4

14
2 White 1 2 Red 1 3 Red 1 3

White 2 4 Red 1 4

green 1 1 red 1 1
Lagoon
5 green 1 2 red 1 2
3
blue 1 3

white 1 3 black 1 2 red 1 2 red 1 2

white 1 4 blue 1 3 red 1 3

Belmore
13 green 1 3 blue 1 4 red 1 4
1
green 1 4 blue 1 2

blue 1 4

white 1 3 green 1 2 white 1 4

Belmore
6 blue 1 2 green 1 3
2
blue 1 4
dark
5 2 black 1 1
green
dark
3 3 white 2 2
green
Belmore dark
21 7 4 white 1 3
3 green
white 1 2

white 1 3

white 1 2 blue 1 1 white 1 3

Fairy
medow 9 white 2 4 blue 1 2 red 1 3
1
red 1 3 red 1 4

Blue 1 2 Green 1 2 Blue 1 1 White 1 3

Fairy Blue 1 3 Green 1 3 Blue 1 2 White 1 4
medow 14
2 White 1 2 Red 1 3 Red 1 3

White 2 4 Red 1 4
Fairy Red 1 2 Green 2 4
medow 4
3 Red 1 3
1
TOTAL 135 62 16 42
5
Source: Primary data
On dry day 3, 135 microplastics were collected in four beach locations. Samples accounted
for 39 particles from which 28.9% were found on the corrimal side, 21.5% (29 pieces) were
found on the lagoon side, 29.6% (40 pieces) were found on the belmore side and 20% (27
pieces) were found on the fairy medow side. A total of 135 particles were identified as
microplastics (1–5 mm). In addition, a significant difference was observed between the four
locations and each three sub locations. Sampled microplastics comprised heterogeneous
particles with diverse shapes, colours and sizes. Four different types were identified: foam
(45.9%) , fiber (11.1%), bead (11.9%) and fragments (31.1%). On the fairy medow beaches,
where microplastics were much less abundant, foam was the most abundant type (37%). Out
of the 16 beads observed in this study, only one was found on the corrimal beach side.

7%
19%

17%
Blue
White
Dark Green
Red
Other
11%

35%

Figure 3: Colours of microplastics identified in dry day 3

White particles were dominant (34.8%), followed by blue (19.3%), red (17%), and green/dark
green (11.1%) particles. Other colours accounted for 6.7%. The size of microplastics was
between 1.00 to 4.00 mm, and majority of particles ranged from 2.00 mm (32.6%) and from
4.00 mm (31.1%).

Table 5: Amount, colour, type and size of microplastics found on each location, with concentrations
expressed in terms of wet day 1
Sub
locatio Total
n Particles Foam Fiber Bead Fragment

Particl Particl Particle Particle

Colou e size Colou e size Colou size Colou size
r N (mm) r N (mm) r N (mm) r N (mm)
Blue 1 2 Blue 1 1 green 1 2

Blue 1 3 Blue 1 2 green 1 4

Green 1 4 Red 1 3

Red 1 2
Corrim
13
al 1 Red 1 3

White 1 2

White 1 3

White 1 4

White 1 2 green 2 4 Red 1 2 Red 1 3

Corrim White 1 4 Red 1 3 Blue 1 4

12
al 2 Blue 1 2 White 1 3

Blue 1 3 White 1 4
Corrim 14 White 1 3 Black 2 4 Yello 1 2 Blue 1 2
al 3 w
 White 1 2 White 1 2 Red 1 3 Blue 1 4

Green 2 4 White 1 3

Blue 1 2

Blue 1 3

Blue 1 2 Green 1 2 Blue 1 1 White 1 3

Lagoon Blue 1 3 Green 1 3 Blue 1 2 White 1 4

14
1 White 1 2 Red 1 3 Red 1 3

White 2 4 Red 1 4

Blue 1 2 green 2 2 Blue 1 2 Red 1 3

Lagoon Blue 1 3 green 2 3 Red 1 4

14
2 Blue 2 4 green 1 4 White 1 2

White 1 3

Blue 1 2 green 2 2 Blue 1 2 Red 1 3

Lagoon Blue 1 3 green 2 3 Blue 1 3 Red 1 4

16
3 Blue 2 4 green 1 4 Red 1 3 White 1 2

White 1 3
Light
2 1 Blue 1 2
blue
Light
3 2
blue
Belmor Light
14 3 3
e1 blue
Light
5 4
blue

Red 1 2 Green 1 2 White 1 1 Green 1 4

Red 1 3 Green 1 3 White 1 2 Blue 1 4

Red 1 4 Red 1 3
Belmor
14 Green 1 3
e2
Green 1 4

Blue 1 2

Blue 1 3

Blue 1 3 Green 1 2 red 1 3 White 1 2

Belmor Blue 1 4 Green 1 3 White 1 3

11
e3 Green 2 4 White 1 2

White 1 3
Fairy White 2 3
medow 4
1 White 2 4
Fairy Black 1 1 White 1 4
medow 4
2 White 1 4 White 1 2
Fairy white 1 3 green 1 2 white 1 4 white 1 3
medow 5
3 white 1 4
6 2 1 2
TOTAL 135
3 5 9 8
Source: Primary data

Samples were collected during wet days. On the 1 st wet day, 135 microplastics were collected
in four beach locations. Samples accounted for 39 particles from which 28.9% were found on
the corrimal side, 30.8% (44 pieces) were found on the lagoon side, 28.9% (39 pieces) were
found on the belmore side and 9.6% (13 pieces) were found on the fairy medow side. A total
of 135 particles were identified as microplastics (1–5 mm). Four different types were
identified: foam (46.7%) , fiber (18.5%) , bead (14.1%) and fragments (20.7%). On the fairy
medow beaches, where microplastics were much less abundant, foam was the most abundant
type (61.5%). Out of the 19 beads observed in this study, only one was found on the fairy
medow beach side.

13%
24%

15% Blue
White
Green
Red
Other

22% 27%

Figure 4: Colours of microplastics identified in wet day 1

White particles were dominant (27.4%), followed by blue (23.7%), green (21.5%), and red
(14.8%) particles. Other colours accounted for 12.6%. The size of microplastics was between
1.00 to 4.00 mm, and majority of particles ranged from 3.00 mm (34.1%).

Table 6: Amount, colour, type and size of microplastics found on each location, with concentrations
expressed in terms of wet day 2
Sub
locatio Total
n Particles Foam Fiber Bead Fragment

Particl Particl Particle Particl

Colou e size Colou e size Colou size e size
r N (mm) r N (mm) r N (mm) Colour N (mm)
white 2 2 Blue 1 3

white 2 3 Blue 1 4

white 3 4 black 1 2

Corrim brow dark

16 1 2 1 3
al 1 n blue
light
1 2
blue
light
2 3
blue
white 1 2

white 1 1 green 1 2

Corrim white 3 2 white 1 3

10
al 2 white 2 3

white 2 4

Corrim 8 white 1 3
 white 1 4

blue 1 2

blue 1 3

al 3 green 1 2

green 1 3

red 1 3

red 1 4

Blue 1 2 Green 1 2 Blue 1 1 Red 1 3

Lagoon Blue 1 3 Green 1 3 Blue 1 2 Red 1 4

14
1 White 1 2 Red 3 White 1 3
1
White 2 4 White 1 4
dark
2 1
green
dark
7 2
green
Lagoon dark
13 1 3
2 green
dark
2 4
green
white 1 3
yello
1 2 black 2 4 1 2 blue 1 2
white w
Lagoon
9 1 3 blue 1 4
3 white
green 2 4

Blue 1 2 Red 1 2 Blue 1 1 Green 2 4

Belmor Blue 1 3 Red 1 3 Blue 1 2 White 1 3

14
e1 Green 1 2 Red 1 3 White 1 4

Green 2 4

Blue 1 2 Green 1 2 Blue 1 1 Blue 1 3

Belmor Blue 2 4 Green 1 3 Blue 1 2 Blue 1 4

14
e2 White 1 2 Red 1 3 Red 1 3

White 1 3 Red 1 4

green 2 3 Blue 1 1 white 1 2

Belmor green 4 4 Blue 1 2 white 1 3

12
e3 Red 1 3

Red 1 4

Red 1 2 white 1 2 Blue 1 1 green 1 4

Fairy Red 1 3 white 1 3 Blue 1 2
medow 10
1 Red 1 4 Blue 1 3

Red 1 4

Green 1 2 Blue 1 1 white 1 3

Fairy
medow 7 Green 1 3 Blue 1 2 white 1 4
2
Red 1 3

blue 2 4 Green 1 2
Fairy
medow 5 Green 1 3
3
Red 1 2
6 1 2 3
TOTAL 132
1 5 1 5
Source: Primary data
On the second wet day, 132 microplastics were collected in four beach locations. Samples
accounted for 34 particles from which 25.8% were found on the corrimal side, 27.3% (36
pieces) were found on the lagoon side, 30.3% (40 pieces) were found on the belmore side and
16.7% (22 pieces) were found on the fairy medow side. A total of 132 particles were
identified as microplastics (1–5 mm). Four different types were identified: foam (46.2%) ,
fiber (11.4%) , bead (15.9%) and fragments (26.5%). On the fairy medow beaches, where
microplastics were much less abundant, foam and bead were most abundant types (31.8%).

16%
23%

Blue
14% White
Green
Red
Other

28%
19%

Figure 5: Colours of microplastics identified in wet day 2

White particles were dominant (28%), followed by blue (22.7%), green (18.9%), and red
(14.4%) particles. Other colours accounted for 15.9%. The size of microplastics was between
1.00 to 4.00 mm, and majority of particles ranged from 2.00 mm (32.6%).

Table 7: Amount, colour, type and size of microplastics found on each location, with concentrations
expressed in terms of wet day 3
Sub
locatio Total
n Particles Foam Fiber Bead Fragment

Particl Particl Particle Particle

Colou e size e size Colou size Colou size
r N (mm) Colour N (mm) r N (mm) r N (mm)
Light
1 3 Blue 1 2 White 1 2
blue
Light
2 4 Blue 1 3 White 1 3
blue
Corrim Dark
14 1 2 Red 1 4 White 1 4
al 1 green
Dark
1 3 Red 1 3
green
Dark
1 4 Red 1 4
green
Blue 1 3 White 1 2 Red 1 2
Corrim
14
Blue 2 4 White 1 3 Red 1 3
al 2 Gree
n
1 2 White 1 4 Blue 1 4
Gree 1 3 Blue 1 3
 n
Gree
1 4 Blue 1 4
n
Gree
Black 1 2 White 1 3 1 3
n
Gree
Black 2 White 1 4 1 4
Corrim 4 n
13
al 3 Whit Yello
1 Blue 1 2 1 2
e 3 w
Whit Yello
1 Blue 1 3 1 3
e 4 w
Gree
1 2 White 1 2 Red 1 4
n
Lagoon Gree
7 1 3 White 1 3 Blue 1 3
1 n
Gree
1 4
n
Whit
1 3 green 1 2 red 1 3
e
Whit
Lagoon 1 4 green 1 3
7 e
2
Blue 1 2

Blue 1 3

Blue 1 2 Blue 1 2 green 3 4

Gree
1 4 Blue 1 3
n
Lagoon Whit
12 1 2 Red 1 1
3 e
Whit
1 3 Red 1 2
e
Whit
1 4
e
Blue 1 2 green 1 2 Blue 1 1 Red 1 3

Blue 1 3 green 1 3 Blue 1 2 Red 1 4

Belmor Whit
14 1 2 Red 1 3
e1 e
Whit
1 3
e
Whit
3 4
e
Blue 1 2 green 1 2 Blue 1 1 Red 1 3

Blue 1 3 green 1 3 Blue 1 2 Red 1 4

Belmor
13
e2 Blue 1 4 Red 1 3
Whit
2 4 1 4
e Red
Gree
Blue 1 2 Blue 1 2 1 4
n
Gree
3 2 Blue 1 3
Belmor n
12
e3 Gree
2 3 Red 1 1
n
Gree
1 4 Red 1 2
n
Whit
Fairy 1 2 Blue 1 1 Red 1 3
e
medow 7
Whit
1 2 4 Blue 1 2 Red 1 4
e
Gree
2 3 Red 1 2 Blue 1 2
Fairy n
medow 7 Gree
1 4 Blue 1 3
2 n
Blue 1 4
Whit
2 2 green 1 4
e
Whit
Fairy 2 3
e
medow 10
Whit
3 2 4
e
Gree
3 4
n
6 1 2 2
TOTAL 130
4 7 2 7
Source: Primary data
On wet day 3, 130 microplastics were collected in four beach locations. Samples accounted
for 41 particles from which 31.5% were found on the corrimal side, 20% (26 pieces) were
found on the lagoon side, 30% (39 pieces) were found on the belmore side and 18.5% (24
pieces) were found on the fairy medow side. A total of 130 particles were identified as
microplastics (1–5 mm). Four different types were identified: foam (49.2%) , fiber (13.1%) ,
bead (16.9%) and fragments (20.8%). On the fairy medow beaches, where microplastics were
much less abundant, foam was the most abundant type (66.7%).

8.50%

25.40%
White
16.20%
Green
Red
Other

24.60%

Figure 6: Colours of microplastics identified in wet day 3

White and blue particles were dominant (25.4%), followed by green (24.6%), red (16.2%)
particles. Other colours accounted for 8.5%. The size of microplastics was between 1.00 to
4.00 mm, and majority of particles ranged from 4.00 mm (36.2%).
Figure 7: Microplastics concentration at each location according to sampling order in dry weather
condition.

In the dry weather days, the highest proportion of the microplastic were found at 3 rd sample
area at belmore location. Here, study has focus using average microplastic concentration of
each location by considering sample area. On average, concentrations of microplastics
20.83±10.34 particles/cm² in the 1st sample location, 24.77±13.12 particles/cm² in the 2nd
sample area and 30.58±18.9 particles/cm² in the 3rd sample area.
Figure 8: Microplastics concentration at each location according to sampling order in wet weather
condition.

Here, study has focus using average microplastic concentration of each location by
considering sample area in the wet weather condition. On average, concentrations of
microplastics 13.28±5.642 particles/cm² in the 1st sample location, 16.14±7.256 particles/cm²
in the 2nd sample area and 15.2±6.032 particles/cm² in the 3rd sample area.

4.1 Type of Polymers of Microplastics

The result shows that the polymer types of microplastic particles were divided into 8 types:
polyamide (PA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),
polyester (PES), polystyrene (PS), Polyacrylic acid (PAA), polyvinylchloride (PVC),
unidentified plastic polymers, etc. Because the presence of benzene increases the distance
between neighbouring polymer chains, chemicals can diffuse into the polymer more easily
[13]. Polystyrene has a high sportive capacity. Because of the fundamentally particular
interactions between polymers and other chemicals, these patterns may not be relevant to all
types of pollutants [14]. Polyamide, for example, is more capable of adsorbing trimethoprim
than polyethylene and polystyrene [15]. Microplastic sizes also influence the adsorption
capacity of microplastics and the rate of adsorption of chemical pollutants [13].

Compared between twelve sub locations, the most common polymer types were present at
belmore 1 and belmore 3 = PS. The highest amount (percentage) found was PS since this type
of plastic used in food packaging and laboratory ware. The most common microplastic was
foam (56.12%), and the most common chemical compositions were PS. For the microplastic
debris with fiber appearance, the highest proportion found was PA, and it might have sources
from fishing equipment such as nets, trawl, and ropes that could accumulate more in sediment
than other plastic polymers.
Figure 9: Polymer types found on the four locations

When Compared between the locations, the most common polymer types were present during
the dry day 2 at belmore 3 and belmore 1 locations = PS and. In the wet days, the most
common types of polymer were found at fairy medow 3 locations = PS. Plastic particles in
the foam included PS (42.4%), fiber included PA (24.2%) followed by PES (9.13%), PP
(5.6%), PAA (4.8%), PS (2.17%), fragment included PE (8.73%), PVC (5.48%), PP (3.32%),
PAA (3.03%) and PE (1.84%). All other plastics accounted for 5% or less of the plastic
particles.

3 Discussion
This study provides evidence that microplastic contamination is recurrent on four locations in
Australia. However, different particle size ranges and methods for sampling, extraction and
identification of microplastics in dry and wet days were important limitations for comparison
with other studies. The current study did not include microplastics smaller than 1 mm (small
microplastic particles, SMP), since it only looked at the 1-5 mm percentage (large
microplastic particles, LMP). According to Monteiro, the smaller percentage may be more
plentiful and frequent than the bigger one [15].

4 objectives

Assess and identify microplastics in marine sediments and also to categorize according to
their polymer type.
Note ;
 I have collected the data to study the effect of water canal located towards to
the beach and dry and rainy days on microplastic distribution
So, in the analysis we need to compare the
 4 different locations
 3 sub locations of each main locations
 Rain and dry day

5 Methodology
5.1 Site selection
Environmental samples were collected from 4 different locations around Wollongong. Three
different locations were selected with an urban water canal and one without a canal for beach
sediment sampling as a control.

A B
A

C D
5.2 At the site

Figure 10. Sampling locations A) Belmore basin B) Pucky's beach C) Fairymedow

beach D) Corrimal beach

Sample locations were selected along with high tide line. Then randomly selected the 3
locations along the selected high tide line and place the quadrat (50 cm×50 cm) with the tide
line. Samples were taken one near to the canal (1) ,one near to the beach (3) and one in
between canal and the beach (2). Sand samples were taken using the metal shovel withing the
quadrat area up to 3 cm depth from the surface. Then sand samples were filtered through the
5 mm and 1 mm sieves using sea water. Later, the collected samples on the 1 mm sieves were
carefully placed into the containers and brought to the laboratory for further analysis.

In order to study the effect of weather samples were collected in 3 rainy days and 3 dry days
separately.

5.3 At the laboratory

Using density separation, it was possible to separate microplastics from sand samples. Sand
samples were mixed with 300 ml saturated NaCl solution and mixed well in a beaker. Once
the solution has been mixed, sediments are allowed to settle to the bottom of the beaker while
low density particles remain suspended on the surface. After 3 hours, floating materials from
the supernatant were obtained manually by metal forceps and stored in a petri dish for
identification. As a final step, the supernatant was passed through vacuum filtration in order
to obtain any invisible floating materials that may have been present. To obtain the
maximum number of results from the same sample, this step was repeated three times. Later,
all the extracted samples were oven dried overnight and performed the identification.
 Figure 11.. Sample before sample extraction and after sample preparation
5.4 Microplastic identification and characterisation
Identification of the microplastics done by using the microscope and ATR-FTIR.
Characterisation of the microplastics were performed by according to their shapes, colour and
material. The microplastics that we separated could only be found between the sizes of 4 mm
and 1 mm, as we used only 5 mm and 1 mm sieves.
6 References

7 References
Aiken Besley, M. G. (2017). A standardized method for sampling and extraction methods for
quantifying microplastics in beach sand. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 77-83.
André R. A. Lima, M. B. (2016). Seasonal-dial shifts of Ichthyoplankton Assemblages and
Plastic Debris around an Equatorial Atlantic Archipelago. Front. Environ. Sci.
Derraik, J. (2002, October). The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: A
Review. pp. 842-852.
Doty, M., & Oguri, M. (1956). The Island Mass Effect. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 33-
37.
Erik R. Zettler, T. J.-Z. (2013). Life in the “Plastisphere”: Microbial Communities on Plastic
Marine Debris. Environmental Science & Technology, 7137–7146.
Europe, P. (2008). The Compelling Facts About Plastics 2007: An analysis of plastics
production, demand and recovery for 2007 in Europe. Brussels, Belgium:
PlasticsEurope.
Folk, R. L., & Ward, W. C. (1957). BRAZOS RIVER BAR: A STUDY IN THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF GRAIN SIZE PARAMETERS. Sedimentary Research, 3-26.
H.S. Auta, C. E. (2017). Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine
environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions.
Environment International, 165-176.
Inga V. Kirstein, S. K.-F. (2016). Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic
Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. Marine Environmental Research, 1-8.
Li, J., & Zhang, K. (2018). Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics. Environmental
Pollution, 460-467.
Melvin A. Pascall, M. E. (2005). Uptake of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) from an
Aqueous Medium by Polyethylene, Polyvinyl Chloride, and Polystyrene Films. Food
Science and Technology, 164-169.
Noreen Khalid, M. A. (2021). Linking effects of microplastics to ecological impacts in
marine environments. Chemosphere, 264-285.
Qing Yu, X. H. (2020). Distribution, abundance and risks of microplastics in the
environment. Chemosphere, 249, 126059.
Raqueline C.P. Monteiro, J. A. (2018). Plastic pollution in islands of the Atlantic Ocean.
Environmental Pollution, 103-110.
Rebeca Oliveira Castro, M. L. (2020). Spatio-temporal evaluation of macro, meso and
microplastics in surface waters, bottom and beach sediments of two embayments in
Niterói, RJ, Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 160-175.
Smedes, F. G. (2009). Polymer−Water Partition Coefficients of Hydrophobic Compounds for
Passive Sampling: Application of Cosolvent Models for Validation. Environ. Sci.
Technol, 7047-7054.

1. Tibbetts, J., et al., Abundance, Distribution, and Drivers of Microplastic

Contamination in Urban River Environments. Water, 2018. 10(11).
2. Zhang, B., et al., Microplastics in soils: a review of possible sources, analytical
methods and ecological impacts. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology,
2020.
3. Duis, K. and A. Coors, Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment:
sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environ
Sci Eur, 2016. 28(1): p. 2.
4. Barrett, J., et al., Microplastic Pollution in Deep-Sea Sediments From the Great
Australian Bight. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2020. 7.
5. Maynard, I.F.N., et al., Analysis of the occurrence of microplastics in beach sand on
the Brazilian coast. Science of The Total Environment, 2021. 771: p. 144777.
6. Wei, Y., et al., Microplastic Distribution and Influence Factor Analysis of Seawater
and Surface Sediments in a Typical Bay With Diverse Functional Areas: A Case
Study in Xincun Lagoon, China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022. 10.
7. Gago, J., et al., Synthetic microfibers in the marine environment: A review on their
occurrence in seawater and sediments. Mar Pollut Bull, 2018. 127: p. 365-376.
8. Liu, F., A. Vianello, and J. Vollertsen, Retention of microplastics in sediments of
urban and highway stormwater retention ponds. Environmental Pollution, 2019. 255:
p. 113335.
9. Lusher, A., Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and
Effects, in Marine Anthropogenic Litter, M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M. Klages,
Editors. 2015, Springer International Publishing: Cham. p. 245-307.
10. Sun, J., et al., Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Detection, occurrence
and removal. Water Res, 2019. 152: p. 21-37.
11. Van Cauwenberghe, L., et al., Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments.
Environmental Pollution, 2013. 182: p. 495-499.
12. Sharma, S. and S. Chatterjee, Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem
and human health: a short review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
2017. 24(27): p. 21530-21547.
13. Ivar do Sul, J.A. and M.F. Costa, The present and future of microplastic pollution in
the marine environment. Environmental Pollution, 2014. 185: p. 352-364.
14. Wang, X., et al., Polystyrene microplastics impaired the feeding and swimming
behavior of mysid shrimp Neomysis japonica. Mar Pollut Bull, 2019: p. 110660.
15. Chae, Y., et al., Trophic transfer and individual impact of nano-sized polystyrene in a
four-species freshwater food chain. Sci Rep, 2018. 8(1): p. 284.
16. Bradney, L., et al., Particulate plastics as a vector for toxic trace-element uptake by
aquatic and terrestrial organisms and human health risk. Environ Int, 2019. 131: p.
104937.
17. Galgani, F., et al., Marine animal forests as useful indicators of entanglement by
marine litter. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2018. 135: p. 735-738.
18. Xu, C., et al., Are we underestimating the sources of microplastic pollution in
terrestrial environment? Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2020. 400: p. 123228.
19. Zhu, F., et al., Occurrence and Ecological Impacts of Microplastics in Soil Systems:
A Review. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 2019. 102(6): p. 741-749.
20. Zhang, S., et al., Microplastics in the environment: A review of analytical methods,
distribution, and biological effects. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2019. 111:
p. 62-72.