Characterization of microplastics in the surface waters of Kingston Harbour

Characterization of microplastics in the surface waters of Kingston Harbour


Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /sc i totenv
Characterization of microplastics in the surface waters of
Kingston Harbour
Deanna Rose a,1, Mona Webber b,⁎,1
a International Centre for Environmental and Nuclear Sciences, 2 Anguilla Close, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica
b Centre for Marine Sciences, 1 Anguilla Close, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica
H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T
• Microplastic pollution is evident in sur-
face waters of Kingston Harbour,
Jamaica.

• Microplastics concentration ranged
from 0 to 5.73 particles/m3

(0–2,697,674.13 particles/km2).
• Fragments were the most abundant
morphology sampled from Kingston
Harbour.

• The average microplastic:zooplankton
ratio was 0.18%.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mona.webber@uwimona.edu.jm (M. W

1 Both authors contributed equally.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.319
0048-9697/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 November 2018
Received in revised form 17 January 2019
Accepted 24 January 2019
Available online 05 February 2019

Editor: Jay Gan
Microplastic contamination of themarine environment has garnered global attention in recent years, and its dis-
tribution and effects in many small island developing states (SIDS) are still undetermined. As such, this study
serves to detail an investigation of the abundance, spatial distribution and characteristics of surface water
microplastics in the Kingston Harbour, a heavily polluted embayment in Jamaica. Fortnightly sampling with a
manta trawl (335 μmmesh) revealed non-variable concentrations of 0–5.73 particles/m3 (0–2,697,674.13 parti-
cles/km2) across stations adjacent to mangrove forests, key nursery grounds for many commercially important
finfish and shellfish. Microplastics found in samples were predominantly fragments and were between 1 mm
and 2.5 mm. Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy identified polyethylene and polypropylene in frag-
ments selected for analysis. These data serve to establish a crucial baseline of the status of microplastic pollution
in Kingston Harbour.

© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Small island developing states
Kingston Harbour
Microplastic
Zooplankton
Jamaica
Caribbean
Marine debris
ebber).
1. Introduction

Since the start of production in the 1950's, an estimated 8.3 billion
metric tons (8300 × 106 MT) of plastic have been produced, up to

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.319&domain=pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.319
mona.webber@uwimona.edu.jm
Journal logo
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.319
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/
www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv


754 D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
2016 (Geyer et al., 2017). In 2015, annual global plastic production
reached 322 million metric tons (PlasticsEurope, 2016) and up to 12.8
million metric tons ended up in the sea (Jambeck et al., 2015). In
many countries, the exact quantities of plastic contamination are not
known and only fractions of the material are tallied through efforts
such as coastal clean-ups and other recovery activities. One European
report stated that single-use plastic products constituted an average of
51% of the litter recovered on beaches (Seas at Risk, 2017). Upon this
basis, many countries worldwide have devised policies and imple-
mented legislations for the ban of the use and manufacture of these
products (Xanthos and Walker, 2017; UNEP CEP, 2018). At the time of
writing this manuscript, the government of Jamaica had made signifi-
cant strides in imposing a ban, effective January 2019, phasing out the
importation, manufacture and usage of all Styrofoam products, as well
as single use polyethylene shopping bags and plastic straws (Jamaica
Gleaner, September 18, 2018). Voluntary efforts in 112 countries from
the 2016 International Coastal Clean-up day alone, recovered about
18.4 million pounds of marine debris from roughly 15,000 km of coast-
line (Ocean Conservancy, 2017); over 80% of which was comprised of
plastic (Moore, 2008; Cole et al., 2011).

Marine plastic pollution challenges especially many of the small is-
land developing states (SIDS) on several fronts: their geographical loca-
tion relative tomany of themarine litter hotspots threatens their shores
and wildlife; their economies are heavily dependent on activities sur-
rounding the marine environment (tourism, fisheries, trade); their cur-
rent waste management infrastructure is inadequate to properly
contain the country's waste and sanction indiscriminate activities in
that regard; their financial resources are indisposed to allocate funding
for mitigating marine litter issues (Lachmann et al., 2017).

The dominance of plastics in the marine environment has mani-
fested several threats to marine organisms and their environment.
Larger marine animals have often been found as victims of entangle-
ment, choking, malnutrition and premature death because of their en-
counters with large debris during feeding and locomotion (Green,
2014). In addition to the physical hazard, the hydrophobicity of plastics
has been related to the metabolic transfer of many organic and inor-
ganic compounds such as heavy metals, plasticizers and common per-
sistent organic pollutants, that adsorb to the surface of these plastics
(Rochman et al., 2013; Rochman et al., 2014).

The unrecovered plastic debris weather overtime and break up into
smaller and smaller fragments calledmicroplastics, thus increasing pol-
lutant concentration and potential bioavailability to smaller marine or-
ganisms. Microplastics are generally defined as plastic particles that
have at least one dimension measuring 5 mm or less (Barnes et al.,
2009; Andrady, 2011; Au et al., 2017), and can be further classified ac-
cording to the purpose for which thematerial was formed. Microplastic
particles either enter the environment as primary microplastics, which
weremanufactured as tinymicrobeads, such as those used in cosmetics;
or secondary microplastics, which were fragmented from larger debris
due to weathering; by microbial degradation, UV light exposure and
physical deterioration through wave action (Cole et al., 2011). At these
sizes, plastics in coastal productive waters, which have been shown to
bind to microalgae or adhere to the setae of feeding appendages
(Lusher et al., 2017), can be mistaken for food and ingested by a range
ofmarine organisms, especiallyfilter feeders as are found in coastal hab-
itats like Kingston Harbour and its mangroves (Cole et al., 2013; Steer
et al., 2017).

Kingston Harbour is Jamaica's most contaminated bay, through
its proximity to the country's capital city and the harbour's natural
physiography (Webber and Webber, 1998), which makes it almost
completely enclosed with a relatively small opening at its western
end. Kingston Harbour is reputed to be the world's 7th deepest nat-
ural harbour with only maintenance dredging being required for
most of its navigable areas. The Harbour has been extensively
researched, with studies documenting the increasing organic pollu-
tion (eutrophication) for over three decades and an entire volume
of the Bulletin of Marine Sciences (Webber and Webber, 2003)
being dedicated to research conducted in Kingston Harbour. While
the most significant contaminants of the harbour have historically
been organic in nature, the past ten years have seen a significant in-
crease in the amount of solid waste entering the Harbour via the 19
storm drains (gullies) and two rivers that enter the 51km2 water-
way. In 1993–1994, Green and Webber (1996) assessed solid waste
in the mangrove areas of Kingston Harbour, of which plastic debris
was found to be the most abundant and frequently encountered ma-
terial. Green (2014) characterized marine litter on Refuge Cay (an
ecologically important mangrove island found in the Kingston Har-
bour) and the effects of the material on the important bird popula-
tions found on the cay. However, both these studies focused on
macro-plastic debris (smallest size sampled being 50–150 mm).

Whilemicroplastics havebeendocumented inmarine environments
worldwide, their concentrations and implications have never been
assessed in Kingston Harbour or anywhere else in Jamaica. A study
was, therefore, designed to investigate quantities and types of
microplastic debris in Kingston Harbour with a focus on the mangrove
areas, which receive much of the macro-plastic debris brought into
the harbour. These areas are also important nursing grounds (Aiken
et al., 2009) for commercially important fish and shell-fish that are ex-
tracted from the Harbour and south coast shelf of Jamaica.

The study assesses the quantities of microplastics in Kingston
Harbour's mangrove areas and compares these quantities to zooplank-
ton which have already been extensively quantified for the water
body. Furthermore, this study will provide valuable baseline informa-
tion about microplastic contamination, in light of the legislation to re-
duce the volume of single-use plastics in Jamaica.

Our study questions were therefore as follows:

1. Are theremeasurable quantities ofmicroplastics in the KingstonHar-
bour and its mangrove areas?

2. What are the quantities of microplastic debris and how do these
abundances compare to zooplankton abundances in thewater body?

3. What are the types and size ranges of microplastic debris and can
these facilitate identification of origin/sources of the material?

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample collection

Sampling was conducted fortnightly (September 14, November 2,
November 16, December 1 and December 15, 2017) at four stations
(Fig. 1). Stations included; a control (Ctrl.), located outside the Harbour
adjacent to the town of Port Royal; stationswithin the harbour adjacent
to Gallow's Point (GP); Refuge Cay (RC); Buccaneer beach (BB), the lat-
ter at the eastern end of the Harbour. Stations inside the harbour were
selected near the southern shore along the Palisadoes tombolo, which
is home to many species of juvenile fish and shellfish and is threatened
by the accumulation of debris that constantly drifts south across the
harbour from the gullies and rivers. All microplastics samples (n =
40) were collected in duplicate trawls at each station between 10 a.m.
and 12 noon using a 335 μ mesh manta trawl (Fig. 2) (obtained from
5 Gyres Institute as part of the Trawl-Share programme). The trawl
had a 24″ × 9.84″ opening and was towed along a transect at each sta-
tion for 15 min at a speed of ~1 knot and ensuring that the net sampled
outside of the wake of the boat (Lippiatt et al., 2013). At the end of each
trawl, the contents of the 335 μ cod end bagwere transferred into clean
(acid-washed with 10% HNO3 and rinsed thoroughly with deionized
water (18.2MΩ)), labelled glass jars using 500mL of water from the re-
spective station and the bag rinsed thoroughly with seawater. The bot-
tles were placed in a cooler with ice packs for preservation and brought
to the laboratory for analysis. Zooplankton collections were done using
a 335 μ plankton net with a 0.5 m hoop diameter which was towed for
5 min just below the surface. The contents of the cod end were


Fig. 1. Google image of Kingston Harbour and the Palisadoes tombolo showing the location of the four stations sampled for zooplankton and microplastics.

755D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
transferred to labelled bottles containing 10mL of 200 proof ethyl alco-
hol for immediate preservation prior to enumeration in the laboratory.
Flow meters (General Oceanics L6) were placed across the mouth of
both nets to record the length of tow and hence the volume of sea
water sampled. In addition, GPS Coordinates were recorded at the be-
ginning and end of each tow using a handheld GPS (Garmin GPSMAP
62).
Fig. 2. Themanta trawl (obtained from 5 Gyres institute) used in sampling surface waters
in Kingston Harbour for microplastics.
2.2. Laboratory analysis

2.2.1. Microplastics

2.2.1.1. Wet sieving, digestion and density separation. Microplastics sam-
ples were prepared for analysis using modifications of the protocol
outlined by Masura et al. (2015). Samples were wet sieved through
5 mm and 0.25 mm stacked sieves. Material retained on the 0.25 mm
(250 μm) sieve was transferred to a beaker and placed in an oven at
90 °C for 24 h or more until completely dry. The organic material was
oxidized with 20 mL aliquots of 0.05 M Fe(II) solution and 30% H2O2
on a hot plate at 75 °C for 30 min, with additional 20 mL aliquots of
30% H2O2 added every 30 min until oxidation was complete. Lusher
et al. (2017) reported 95% recovery rates and potentially 6.2% loss in
size for PE and PP polymers using a comparable method. A saturated
NaCl solution (~5M)was used to facilitate the separation of the plastics
from heavier non-polymeric materials by the addition of 6 g of NaCl per
20mL of peroxide. The suspensionwas coveredwith foil and allowed to
separate overnight in the density separator funnel. Floating plastics
were then collected on a 0.25 mm (250 μm) sieve and rinsed free of
the hypersaline solution with distilled water. The settled portion was
also passed through the sieve and assessed for any additional
microplastics. Collectively, the microplastic particles were dried and
were placed in a vial prior to microscope separation, counting and
classification.

2.2.1.2. Quality assurance and contamination control. Contamination con-
trol procedures were employed, with utmost care, to minimise the
chance of plastic particles being introduced to the samples during sam-
ple collection, preparation and laboratory analysis. Glass jars (cleaned
with dilute HNO3 and rinsed thoroughly with 18.2MΩ deionized
water) were used to containerize samples collected for further


756 D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
processing in the laboratory. Glassware (beakers, watch glasses,
funnels) and stainless-steel apparatus (sieves, forceps, spatulas) were
used during sample processing and aluminium foil used to cover sam-
ples to minimise contamination from airborne fibres. A laboratory coat
and nitrile gloves were always worn while work was carried out in an
enclosed laboratory away from foot traffic.

To avoid misidentification of microplastics using a microscope, a
particle was established as microplastic based on visual criteria de-
scribed by Nor and Obbard (2014) and Löder and Gerdts (2015), ensur-
ing that there are no visible cellular or organic structures, coloured
particles are homogenous in colour, transparent particles are viewed
under high magnification to exclude a biological origin and fibres
should be equally thickwith three-dimensional bending to exclude a bi-
ological origin. Microscopic examination was carried out in a laboratory
designed with sealed windows and passage through the lab was re-
stricted to minimise airborne contamination. Procedural blanks using
deionized water were passed through the entire analytical process
and treated in the same manner as were samples, to identify any possi-
ble points of contamination. These tested negatively for contamination.

2.2.1.3. Visual identification and classification. Prepared samples were
illuminated with gooseneck lighting (Schott ACE 1) and viewed
under a Meiji EMZ8TR stereomicroscope at a magnification of ×40.
Microplastics were separated from any apparent undigested organic
material and categorized according to shape (fragment, fibre, foam,
bead) and size (0.335–1 mm, 1–2.5 mm. 2.5–5 mm, N5 mm) (Zhao
et al., 2014). Samples were photographed at a magnification of ×7
with the aid of Lumenera Infinity Analyze software. Microplastics abun-
dance in particles/km2 and particles/m3 was then computed from the
tally and the distanced towed and the dimension of the opening of the
manta net.

2.2.1.4. FT-IR analysis. Following visual sorting and classification, Fourier
Transform Infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopywas employed to identify poly-
mer composition of the microplastic particles using a Bruker Vector 22
FT-IR spectrometer equipped with a deuterated triglycine sulphate
(DTGS) detector, Zinc Selenide crystal and clamp. Fragments were
analysed from samples taken from each of the four (4) stations for anal-
ysis because of their high visibility to the naked eye and ease of transfer
to and from the crystal. The crystal was cleanedwith lint-free paper and
methanol and a background scan performed before each particle was
analysed. Particles were analysed in transmission mode at a speed of
5 Hz, within the range of 4000–600 cm−1 and a combination of 40
scans per analysis. The resulting spectra were processed in the accom-
panying Opus 65 software and were compared with the pristine FTIR
spectra of common polymers (polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropyl-
ene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride) obtained from the BIORAD Spectrabase
spectral library.

2.2.2. Zooplankton
Zooplankton collections whichwere stored in 90% ethanol were ho-

mogenized and split into requisite sub-samples (Van Guelphen et al.,
1982) before a tally of zooplankton was determined by counting totals
from sub-samples poured into a Bogorov counting tray and viewed
under aWild dissectingmicroscope (Mag ×60). Zooplanktonwere enu-
merated based on major taxonomic groups; Medusae, Cladocera,
Copepoda, Decapoda, Chaetognatha, Larvacea, Ichthyoplankton and
‘other’. Total numbers were converted to numbers per m3 based on vol-
ume of water sampled obtained from the flow meter readings (Francis
et al., 2014; Lue and Webber, 2014; Webber et al., 2015).

2.3. Statistical analysis

All data were tabulated into spreadsheets in Microsoft Excel 2010
and statistical manipulations performed using XLSTAT (2008). The
Sharipo-Wilks and Lilliefors tests were used to determine normality
and the data were subsequently log transformed for homogenization.
One-way ANOVA was applied to determine significance in spatial and
temporal variability for zooplankton abundances andmicroplastics con-
centrations across stations, followed by a Tukey's honestly significant
difference (HSD) post hoc test and Dunnett's test to assess similarities
between stations. All tests were performed at a 95% confidence level.

3. Results

Overall, the results confirmed surfacewatermicroplastic contamina-
tion at all four stations sampled on the 5 days of this study period (n=
1702). The mean microplastic concentration for the area over the sam-
pling period was 0.76 particles/m3 (359,593.41 particles/km2). Gener-
ally, concentrations differed greatly throughout the study period
(Fig. 3). On one occasion at RC (Refuge Cay), no microplastics (0 parti-
cles/m3; 0 particles/km2) were sampled. In another instance, the
highest microplastic concentration (5.73 particles/m3; 2,697,674.13
particles/km2), was recorded on a single occasion at BB (Buccaneer
Beach). A one-way ANOVA confirmed significant temporal variability
(p = 0.014) in microplastic concentrations during the study period.
There was, however, no significant spatial variability of microplastic
concentrations across stations (p = 0.519). Pair-wise comparisons
using Tukey's HSD test and Dunnett's test for comparison with the con-
trol (Ctrl) station further revealed microplastic tehomogeneity across
stations.

Zooplankton abundances were dominated by the Copepoda (71%)
followed by Crustacea larvae (16%), the decapod Lucifer faxoni (5%)
and the cladoceran Penilia avirostris (4%). Zooplankton abundance at
each station (Fig. 4) was separated (by Tukey's multiple range test)
into three discrete station groupings, in likemanner tomicroplastic con-
centrations, with Stations GB and GP in one group and Stations Ctrl and
RC segregated into two separate groups.

Furthermore, there was significant variability in the spatial
distribution of zooplankton abundance across stations (ANOVA,
p≤0.001), with Refuge Cay (RC) having the highest mean abundances
overall (1.92 × 103–1.32 × 104 individuals/m3). On the contrary, zoo-
plankton abundances exhibited no significant temporal variability
(ANOVA, p = 0.409), across sampling dates. Mean zooplankton
abundances were generally lowest at Ctrl, ranging from 0.12 × 103–
0.30 × 103 individuals/m3 throughout the study period. The ratios of
microplastic abundance (n/m3) to zooplankton abundance (n/m3)
counts were used to estimate encounter probabilities for planktivores.
Microplastics: zooplankton ratios averaged 0.18% and were generally
low overall, with the highest ratio (1.74%) observed at the Control
(Ctrl) station on September 14, 2017.

Twenty four percent (24%) of the microplastics sampled were esti-
mated to be between 0.335 mm and 1 mm, having similar dimensions
to that of common species of zooplankton (Acartia tonsa, Penilia
avirostris, Temora turbinata, Paracalanus spp.), which have been used
as bioindicators of pollution in the Kingston Harbour in the past
(Francis et al., 2014). However, majority of microplasticswere classified
(Fig. 5) between 1 mm and 2.5 mm (47%), while others were between
2.5 mm and 5 mm (22%) and fewer having a dimension N5 mm (7%).

Microscopic examination of the recovered plastics also facilitated
the categorization of the particles into four main types: fragment,
fibre, foam and microbead (Fig. 6). Fragments accounted for 86.08%,
with fibres second in abundance (12.68%) followed by foam (0.92%)
and beads (0.31%). Microplastics were also identified by a wide range
of colours, with most being transparent (35%), opaque (27%), white
(19%) and black (10%). Others were either blue (5%), green (2%), red
(1%), yellow (1%) or multi-coloured (1%).

From the particles enumerated, a representative group of fragments
were selected for FT-IR analysis from samples collected at the 4 stations
from the 5 sampling occasions. Spectra generated from the analysis of
fragments were compared with pristine spectra of the common poly-
mers, polyethyelene, polypropylene and polystyrene from BIORAD's


Fig. 3.Microplastic abundance in n/m3 (Left) andmicroplastic abundance in n/km2 (Right) of the four stations sampled between September and December 2017. Control (Ctrl) station just
outside tombolo; Gallows Point (GP); Refuge Cay (RC); Buccaneer Beach (BB).

757D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
Spectrabase online comparison tool. Polyethylene (78%) dominated the
fragments analysed while polypropylene was found in 22% of the frag-
ments analysed. However, the application of FT-IR in this study revealed
that therewere non-polymer particles thatwere initially enumerated as
microplastic (Fig. 7) and has re-emphasized the importance of spectro-
scopic analysis for polymer identification in microplastics studies.

4. Discussion

These findings indicate the presence of measurable quantities of
microplastics in the surface waters of Kingston Harbour. Though sev-
eral studies have been published on plastic and microplastic debris
in relation to the Caribbean and by extension, small island develop-
ing states (Lachmann et al., 2017; Bosker et al., 2018), limited knowl-
edge exists for surface water microplastics concentrations in surface
waters of these regions. However, several other reports of surface
water microplastics concentrations exist in other regions (Aytan
et al., 2016; Collignon et al., 2012; Di Mauro et al., 2017;
Gündoğdu, 2017; Lattin et al., 2004; Zhao et al., 2014). The mean
microplastic abundance reported in this study (0.76 particles/m3)
were similar that found in the Bohai Sea, China (0.33 particles/m3,
Fig. 4.Total zooplankton abundances collectedbetween September andDecember 2017 at
the four stations in the study area of Kingston Harbour. Control (Ctrl) station just outside
of the tombolo; Buccaneer beach (BB); Refuge Cay (RC); Gallows Point (GP).
Zhang et al., 2017), but appreciably different from other studies in
the Yangtze estuary, China (4137.3 particles/m3; Zhao et al., 2014),
the SE Black Sea (600–1200 particles/m3; Aytan et al., 2016) and on
the opposite end of the spectrum, the west coastal waters of
Sweden (0.01–0.04 particles/m3; Norén, 2007). A study reporting
concentrations in particles/km2 by Gündoğdu (2017) in the Iskende-
run Bay, Turkey (mean of 1,067,120. particles/km2) was roughly 10-
fold higher than in the Kingston Harbour (359,593.41 particles/km2).

Each study area is unique to marine debris load, hydrodynamics
influencing vertical mixing and the level of aquatic primary productiv-
ity, and the efficiency of the sampling equipment used can also affect
the concentrations of microplastics estimated (Zhao et al., 2014; Aytan
et al., 2016; Song et al., 2018). One study conducted in False Bay,
South Africa that evaluated the rate of fouling of polyethylene (HDPE
& LDPE) sheets of varying thicknesses (0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.5 mm,
1 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm, 9 mm and 50 mm), tethered 10 cm below the
water surface, found that most microplastic fragments were negatively
buoyant six weeks after their deployment (Fazey and Ryan, 2016). Field
and laboratory experiments done by Kaiser et al. (2017) also
highlighted that after 6 weeks of incubation in estuarine and marine
waters both polyethylene and polystyrene pellets displayed an in-
creased sinking velocity.

With a history of highly eutrophicwaters, zooplankton communities
in the Kingston Harbour have been used as bioindicators of the level of
organic pollution that has been persistent over the years (Webber and
Webber, 1998; Francis et al., 2014). This was reflected in the generally
low microplastic:zooplankton ratios throughout the study (Table 1),
suggesting that planktivores would have a probability of 0.01–1.74% of
encountering a microplastic particle instead of zooplankton. Research
to date has noted several consequences of ingestion of microplastics
by plankton and planktivorous organisms and continues to be of signif-
icant concern (Cole et al., 2013; Lusher et al., 2013; Rochman et al.,
2014; Desforges et al., 2015). Various bacterial colonies and microor-
ganisms residing on the surface of these plastics may have contributed
to biofouling of surface water microplastics, causing increased
density and eventual submersion (Kaiser et al., 2017). Therefore,
surface water microplastics in Kingston Harbour may have been
underestimated, and additional work would be pivotal to assessing
microplastic distribution throughout the water column.

The widely used wet peroxide oxidation (WPO) protocol by Masura
et al., 2015 employed in this study successfully preconcentrated the
microplastics present in the samples, but possibly could have partially
or completely dissolved some particles (b1 mm), resulting in an under-
estimation of initial particle size (before digestion) and overall tally
(Lusher et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2017). Factors such as degree of


Fig. 5. Size classification of microplastics sampled in the Kingston Harbour between September and December 2017. Bars indicate frequency in each size class.

758 D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
weathering of the microplastics, size, shape, peroxide concentration,
temperature and exposure time to oxidation may impact the degree
to which the microplastic particles are impacted by the WPO process
(Gewert et al., 2017; Lusher et al., 2017; Munno et al., 2018). Other pro-
posed methods using acidic and alkaline reagents for digestion have
also been found to destroy the microplastics in the samples (Cole
et al., 2014; Enders et al., 2017). On the contrary, enzymatic digestion
has shown to have negligible impact on the microplastics retrieved
from biogenic-rich samples (Cole et al., 2014; Löder et al., 2017) but re-
mains a costly option for microplastic preconcentration compared to
the latter-mentioned alternatives.

Microplastics sampled in this study were varied in size but were
mostly (47%) between 1 mm and 2.5 mm, 24% between 0.335 mm
and 1 mm, and 22% between 2.5 mm and 5 mm. Stations at Gallows
Point and Refuge Cay recorded the highest number of microplastics
enumerated between 0.335 mm and 5 mm, and are notable for being
two of themost severely pollutedmangrove forested areas in the Kings-
ton Harbour by large anthropogenic debris. At sizes b1 mm, they are
bioavailable to a wider range of species of plankton and other filter
feeders such as oysters. Additionally, planktivoreswould also be suscep-
tible to accidental ingestion at these sizes.

Fragments were the most frequently encountered morphology
(86.04%) and is an indication that microplastic contamination in Kings-
ton Harbour is predominantly from secondary sources, i.e., from the
weathering and fragmentation of meso- and macroplastics (Cole et al.,
2011). The high variability in the common shape found in surface wa-
ters from previous literature (Nor and Obbard, 2014; Zhao et al., 2014;
Gewert et al., 2017; Gündoğdu, 2017) is unique to the main anthropo-
genic influence (effluents from wastewater treatment plants, typical
consumer products used near that region, waste management infra-
structure) that contributes to microplastic pollution of the study area.
Fig. 6. Morphologies of microplastics sampled in the Kingston Harbour between
September and December 2017.
The application of FT-IR spectroscopy in the elucidation of polymer
type of microplastics sampled, proved an important step in the classifi-
cation ofmicroplastics found in the KingstonHarbour. Polyethylene and
polypropylene were dominant polymer types found and are two of the
greatest subsets of plastics manufactured worldwide (Geyer et al.,
2017). However, the analysis of certain particles revealed non-
polymer spectra generated from FT-IR spectroscopy and highlights the
inadequacies of visual identification in confirming microplastics
(Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Löder and Gerdts, 2015; Li et al., 2018). FT-
IR spectroscopy (and other spectroscopic techniques such as Raman
spectroscopy) is, therefore, a pivotal supplementary forensic tool in
microplastic pollution studies and highlights the importance of the ap-
peal for established standard operating procedures in studying and
reporting on microplastics.

Notably, microplastic contamination was observed at the control
station, which was outside the Harbour and shielded from direct plastic
inputs from the northern shore of the Harbour. Neither would this sta-
tion be influenced by surface outflow currents, based on the study by
Webber et al. (2003). Therefore, microplastic concentrations are more
likely influenced by currents of the Caribbean Sea transporting debris
from adjacent bays or neighbouring land masses and possible rafting
on vectors such as Sargassum, which was abundant on some sampling
days.

5. Conclusion

Microplastic pollution was ubiquitous at all stations in the Kings-
ton Harbour, ranging from 0 to 5.73 particles/m3 (0–2,697,674.13
particles/km2). Though quite variable temporally, there was no ap-
parent spatial variability in microplastic distribution, but the poten-
tial threat to marine life that spawn in this region is noteworthy.
Surface water microplastic pollution in Kingston Harbour is mainly
100015002000250030003500
Wavenumber (cm-1)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. FTIR spectra of a (a) non-polymer particle initially enumerated inmicroscopic visual
assessment and (b) polyethylene-based particle sampled from Kingston harbour.


Table 1
Microplastics and zooplankton abundances at the four stations of this study; Control (Ctrl), Gallows Point (GP), Refuge Cay (RC), Buccaneer Beach (BB).

Station Replicates Date
(dd/mm/yyyy)

Microplastics
abundance

Microplastics
concentration

(n/km2)

Microplastics
concentration

(n/m3)

Zooplankton
abundance
(n/m3)

MP:Zooplankton
ratio
(%)a

Ctrl 1 14/9/2017 17 314165.96 0.67 147 0.45
Ctrl 2 14/9/2017 49 743027.58 1.58 91 1.73
GP 1 14/9/2017 12 192608.87 0.41 862 0.05
GP 2 14/9/2017 81 1416302.41 3.01 1001 0.30
RC 1 14/9/2017 37 573255.59 1.22 12277 0.01
RC 2 14/9/2017 40 629485.48 1.34 14092 0.01
BB 1 14/9/2017 35 585884.48 1.24 1503 0.08
BB 2 14/9/2017 39 696854.58 1.48 1594 0.09
Ctrl 1 2/11/17 15 82583.30 0.18 308 0.06
Ctrl 2 2/11/17 7 36363.21 0.08 295 0.03
GP 1 2/11/17 33 143625.40 0.30 163 0.19
GP 2 2/11/17 0 0.00 0.00 144 0.00
RC 1 2/11/17 118 561310.54 1.19 1891 0.06
RC 2 2/11/17 68 340934.83 0.72 1951 0.04
BB 1 2/11/17 28 144400.60 0.31 1127 0.03
BB 2 2/11/17 24 123813.12 0.26 864 0.03
Ctrl 1 16/11/2017 38 191544.39 0.41 295 0.14
Ctrl 2 16/11/2017 10 50088.88 0.11 268 0.04
GP 1 16/11/2017 109 441611.33 0.94 3591 0.03
GP 2 16/11/2017 68 972682.00 2.07 4172 0.05
RC 1 16/11/2017 128 630045.03 1.34 6588 0.02
RC 2 16/11/2017 95 517196.76 1.10 6574 0.02
BB 1 16/11/2017 102 2697674.13 5.73 1335 0.43
BB 2 16/11/2017 30 151059.65 0.32 1408 0.02
Ctrl 1 15/12/17 6 28675.38 0.06 201 0.03
Ctrl 2 15/12/17 2 9865.59 0.02 228 0.01
GP 1 15/12/17 64 325324.45 0.69 1217 0.06
GP 2 15/12/17 15 88063.31 0.19 1272 0.01
RC 1 15/12/17 39 243509.74 0.52 10079 0.01
RC 2 15/12/17 52 292176.39 0.62 11378 0.01
BB 1 15/12/17 43 216782.84 0.46 1112 0.04
BB 2 15/12/17 28 155341.41 0.33 1166 0.03

a The microplastics:zooplankton ratio is calculated as (number of microplastics/zooplankton abundance) ∗ 100.

759D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
attributed to fragmentation of larger plastic debris via mechanical
action during their passage to the harbour or persistent wave action
as they move about throughout the water column and in the root
networks of the mangroves. Polyethylene and polypropylene were
the dominant polymer types sampled. Our results also reflect a sce-
nario in a SIDS, where inadequate waste management infrastructure
and capital for mitigation efforts for larger plastic debris result in the
generation of surface water microplastics. Moreover, these
microplastics threaten the longevity of the existing mangrove eco-
system. The importance of this area as a source of fin-fish and shell
fish for adjacent communities makes the potential for trophic trans-
fer and human consumption of microplastics very great. Future re-
search must also assess microplastic contamination in organisms
found in the Kingston Harbour (water column and benthos).

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the International Centre for Environ-
mental and Nuclear Sciences (ICENS), the Department of Life Sciences,
Centre for Marine Sciences and a GraceKennedy Foundation, James S.
Moss Solomon Snr. Grant to M. Webber. The authors wish to thank
the staff of the Port Royal Marine Laboratory, University of theWest In-
dies, Jhénelle Williams for giving invaluable assistance in sampling and
RayleeDunkley for his vital contribution to spectroscopic analysis. Great
appreciation is also extended to the 5Gyres Institute for their loan of the
manta trawl as part of their Trawl Share programme.

References

Aiken, K.A., Pal, A.R., Perry, G., 2009. Nursery grounds for fishable species in Kingston har-
bour: do they still exist? Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.
61, pp. 358–374
Andrady, A., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (8),
1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.

Au, S.Y., Lee, C.M., Weinstein, J.E., van den Hurk, P., Klaine, S.J., 2017. Trophic transfer of
microplastics in aquatic ecosystems: identifying critical research needs. Integr. Envi-
ron. Assess. Manag. 13 (3), 505–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1907.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.05.009.

Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmenta-
tion of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1985–1998.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.

Bosker, T., Guaita, L., Behrens, P., 2018. Microplastic pollution on Caribbean beaches in
the Lesser Antilles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.05.060.

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. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025.

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R.M., Moger, J., Galloway, T.,
2013. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 6646–6655.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es400663f.

Cole, M., Webb, H., Lindeque, P.K., Fileman, E.S., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2014. Isola-
tion of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Sci.
Rep. 4, 4528. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04528.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.011.

Desforges, J.P., Galbraith, M., Ross, P.S., 2015. Ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in
the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69 (3), 320–330. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5.

Di Mauro, R., Kupchik, M.J., Benfield, M.C., 2017. Abundant plankton-sized microplastic
particles in shelf waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Pollut. 230,
798–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.030.

Enders, K., Lenz, R., Beer, S., Stedmon, C.A., 2017. Extraction of microplastic from biota:
recommended acidic digestion destroys common plastic polymers. ICES J. Mar. Sci.
74 (1), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw173.

Fazey, F.M.C., Ryan, P.G., 2016. Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics: an experimental
study into the effect of size on surface longevity. Environ. Pollut. 210, 354–360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.026.

Francis, P.A., Maxam, S.A., Webber, M.K., 2014. Rapid assessment of the eutrophication
status of Kingston Harbour, Jamaica using the zooplankton community. Rev. Biol.
Trop. 62 (3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v62i0.15918.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1907
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.05.009
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.060
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.060
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
https://doi.org/10.1021/es400663f
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04528
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.011
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.030
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw173
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.026
https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v62i0.15918


760 D. Rose, M. Webber / Science of the Total Environment 664 (2019) 753–760
Gewert, B., Ogonowski, M., Barth, A., MacLeod, M., 2017. Abundance and composition of
near surface microplastics and plastic debris in the Stockholm Archipelago, Baltic
Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.062.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.
Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.

Green, C.D.I., 2014. The Ecological Impacts of Environmental Stressors (Solid Waste) on
Two Bird Populations (Brown Pelican and Magnificent Frigatebird) on Refuge Cay,
Kingston Harbour, Jamaica. (MSc Thesis). Department of Life Sciences, U.W.I.

Green, S., Webber, M., 1996. A survey of the solid waste pollution in Kingston Harbour
mangroves, near Port Royal, Jamaica. Caribb. Mar. Stud. 5, 14–22.

Gündoğdu, S., 2017. High level of micro-plastic pollution in the Iskenderun Bay NE Levan-
tine coast of Turkey. Ege J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 34 (4), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.12714/
egejfas.2017.34.4.06.

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. En-
viron. Sci. Technol. 46 (6), 3060–3075. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505.

Jamaica Gleaner, 2018. Gov't Bans Single Use Shopping Bags, Plastic Straws, Styrofoam Ef-
fective January 1, 2019 (September 17).

Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347,
768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.

Kaiser, D., Kowalski, N., Waniek, J.J., 2017. Effects of biofouling on the sinking behavior of
microplastics. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
aa8e8b.

Lachmann, F., Almroth, B.C., Baumann, H., Broström, G., Corvellec, H., Gipperth, L.,
Hassellov, M., Karlsson, T., Nilsson, P., 2017. Marine Plastic Litter on Small Island De-
veloping States (SIDS): Impacts and Measures. Swedish Institute for the Marine Envi-
ronment, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg https://doi.org/10.2788/690366.

Lattin, G.L., Moore, C.J., Moore, S.L., Weisberg, S.B., Zellers, A., 2004. A comparison of
neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the southern
California shore. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2004.01.020.

Li, J., Liu, H., Chen, J.P., 2018. Microplastics in freshwater systems: a review on occurrence,
environmental effects, and methods for microplastics detection. Water Res. 137,
362–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.056.

Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., Arthur, C., 2013. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46).

Löder, M., Gerdts, G., 2015. Methodology used for the detection and identification of
microplastics—a critical appraisal. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Ma-
rine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, pp. 201–227 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
16510-3_8.

Löder, M.G.J., Imhof, H.K., Ladehoff, M., Löschel, L.A., Lorenz, C., Mintenig, S., Piehl, S.,
Primpke, S., Schrank, I., Laforsch, C., Gerdts, G., 2017. Enzymatic purification of
microplastics in environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (24),
14283–14292. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03055.

Lue, K., Webber, M.K., 2014. A new comparative study of zooplankton from oceanic, shelf
and harbour waters, south-east coast, Jamaica. Zool. Stud. 53, 18. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40555-014-0018-2.

Lusher, A.L., McHugh,M., Thompson, R.C., 2013. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastro-
intestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 67, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028.

Lusher, A.L., Welden, N.A., Sobral, P., Cole, M., 2017. Sampling, isolating and identifying
microplastics ingested by fish and invertebrates. Anal. Methods 9, 1346–1360.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02415G.

Masura, J., Baker, J., Foster, G., Arthur, C., 2015. Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of
Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Syn-
thetic Particles in Waters and Sediments (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-
OR&R-48).
Miller, M.E., Kroon, F.J., Mooti, C.A., 2017. Recovering microplastics from marine samples:
a review of current practices. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.08.058.

Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing,
long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108 (2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2008.07.025.

Munno, K., Helm, P.A., Jackson, D.A., Rochman, C., Sims, A., 2018. Impact of temperature
and selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic particles. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 37 (1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3935.

Nor, N.H.M., Obbard, J.P., 2014. Microplastics in Singapore's coastal mangrove ecosystems.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79, 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.11.025.

Norén, F., 2007. Small Plastic Particles in Swedish Waters. KIMO Sweden, N-Research,
Lysekil, Sweden.

Ocean Conservancy, 2017. Together for Our Ocean: International Coastal Cleanup 2017
Report (Washington, DC).

PlasticsEurope, 2016. Plastics—the facts: an analysis of European plastics production. De-
mand and Waste Data https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/
4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf.

Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S.J., 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous
chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Rep. 3 (3263), 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1038/srep03263.

Rochman, C.M., Hentschel, B.T., Teh, S.J., 2014. Long-term sorption of metals is similar
among plastic types: implications for plastic debris in aquatic environments. PLoS
One 9, e85433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085433.

Seas at Risk, 2017. Single-use Plastics and the Marine Environment: Leverage Points for
Reducing Single-use Plastics. European Union, Belgium.

Song, Y.K., Hong, S.E., Eo, S., Jang, M., Han, G.M., Isobe, A., Joon Shim, W., 2018. Horizontal
and vertical distribution of microplastics in Korean coastal waters. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 52 (21), 12188–12197. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04032.

Steer, M., Cole, M., Thompson, R.C., Lindeque, P.K., 2017. Microplastic ingestion in fish lar-
vae in the Western English Channel. Environ. Pollut. 226, 250–259. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062.

UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, 2018. The Status of Styrofoam and Plastic Bag
Bans in the Wider Caribbean Region: An Overview.

Van Guelphen, L., Markle, D.F., Duggan, D.J., 1982. An evaluation of the accuracy, precision
and speed of several zooplankton subsampling techniques. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer
40, 226–236.

Webber, D.F., Webber, M.K., 1998. The water quality of Kingston Harbour: evaluating the
use of the planktonic community and traditional water quality indices. Chem. Ecol. 14
(3–4), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757549808037614.

Webber, M.K., Webber, D.F. (Eds.), 2003. A collection of studies conducted from the Port
Royal Marine Laboratory on the status of Kingston Harbour, Jamaica, in relation to
continued organic pollution. Bull. Mar. Sci. 73 (2), 249–526.

Webber, D.F., Webber, M.K., Williams, D.D., 2003. The relative importance of meteorolog-
ical events, tidal activity and bathymetry to circulation and mixing in Kingston Har-
bour, Jamaica. Bull. Mar. Sci. 73 (2), 273–289.

Webber, M., Persad, G., Harris, N., Wilmott, I., Webber, D., 2015. Assessment of the bays of
the Morant Wetlands area using Ecopath with Ecosim. Ocean Coast. Manag. 105,
127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.01.006.

Xanthos, D., Walker, T.D., 2017. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution
from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
118 (1–2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048.

Zhang, W., Zhang, S., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Mu, J., Wang, P., Lin, X., Ma, D., 2017. Microplastic
pollution in the surface waters of the Bohai Sea, China. Environ. Pollut. 231 (1),
531–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.058.

Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Wang, T., Li, D., 2014. Suspended microplastics in the surface water of the
Yangtze Estuary System, China: first observations on occurrence, distribution. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 86, 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.032.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.062
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0120
https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.2017.34.4.06
https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.2017.34.4.06
https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0135
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8e8b
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8e8b
https://doi.org/10.2788/690366
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.056
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0165
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_8
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_8
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03055
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40555-014-0018-2
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40555-014-0018-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028
https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02415G
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.058
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.058
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.025
https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3935
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.11.025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0235
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0235
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03263
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03263
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085433
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0255
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0255
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04032
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0280
https://doi.org/10.1080/02757549808037614
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0295
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0295
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0295
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0305
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0305
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(19)30368-7/rf0305
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.01.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.058
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.032

Characterization of microplastics in the surface waters of Kingston Harbour
1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample collection
2.2. Laboratory analysis
2.2.1. Microplastics
2.2.1.1. Wet sieving, digestion and density separation
2.2.1.2. Quality assurance and contamination control
2.2.1.3. Visual identification and classification
2.2.1.4. FT-IR analysis

2.2.2. Zooplankton

2.3. Statistical analysis

3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References


Cie Gullies


? .
oye *e
oer
.
tr


Encounter
Zooplankton rates

A )
Wet Sieving
eee Nt


Dror inc
Visual Sorting via Microscope
Emory
FT-IR


Science one
Total Environment


Kingston

Hunts Bay

Dawkins Pond KINGSTON HARBOUR

RC
e
| Little Refuge Cay
Sy

NMr,

The ps);
dlisadg
es Tomb
Olo

\ Lime Cay CARIBBEAN SEA

Key
@ Station
Ctrl- Control
GP- Gallows Point
RC- Refuge Cay
BB- Buccaneer Beach
NMIA- Norman Manley
International Airport


Microplastics concentration (n/m?)

BB

w

&

Ww


x

mK

= J
tr - +
== a + +
Ctrl GP RC BB

Stations

+Mean = ¢ Minimum/Maximum _X Outliers


3.00E+06

2.50E+06

2.00E+06

1.50E+06

1.00E+06

Microplastics abundance (n/km?)

5.00E+05

0.00E+00

4

n

4

1


mK
x

= 4
tr + a
= rt + =
Ctrl GP RC BB

Stations
+ Mean « Minimum/Maximum > Outliers


Zooplankton abundance (n/m?)

16000

14000

12000

6000

4000

2000


=F
e
So =
—+— tL
Ctrl GP RC BB
+Mean = ¢ Minimum/Maximum — o Outliers(1)


SASSE]D OZIS

wws< WWG>WWS'Z WWG'7>WWT wuwtqT>

(so1ysejdosaiu jo ‘ou) Asuanbal4


0.29%


0.88% 12.08%

= Fragment Foam Fibre Bead