Next Article in Journal
Healing Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures with Polymer Capsules Containing Rejuvenator under Different Water Solutions
Previous Article in Journal
Offshore Wind Power Resource Assessment in the Gulf of North Suez
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 21
10.3390/su152115259
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microplastics in Sandy Beaches of Puerto Vallarta in the Pacific Coast of Mexico

by
Ixchel Alejandra Mejía-Estrella
1,
Carolina Peña-Montes
2,
Luis Alberto Peralta-Peláez
2,
Jorge Del Real Olvera
3 and
Belkis Sulbarán-Rangel
1,*
1
Department of Water and Energy, Campus Tonala, University of Guadalajara, Tonalá 45425, Mexico
2
Instituto Tecnológico de Veracruz, Unidad de Investigación y Desarrollo en Alimentos, Veracruz 91897, Mexico
3
Environmental Technology, Center of Research and Assistance in Technology and Design of the State of Jalisco, Normalistas 800, Guadalajara 44270, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15259; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115259
Submission received: 27 September 2023 / Revised: 16 October 2023 / Accepted: 19 October 2023 / Published: 25 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Analytical and Environmental Chemistry Research toward Sustainable Coastal Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this research, the abundance and physical and chemical characteristics of microplastics (MPs) in coastal sediments from three beaches of Puerto Vallarta in Mexico were investigated. The objective of characterizing and finding MPs in sand is to generate information that is useful to manage macroplastic waste, prevent its additional generation, and thus reduce environmental pollution and achieve sustainable development. The MPs were classified according to their physical characteristics such as color, size, and shape under a stereoscopic microscope, and their wear and surface were observed using a scanning electron microscope. The chemical composition of the most representative types of polymers were detected by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. It can be observed that Los Muertos beach presents the highest number of MPs (97.5 particles/m2) followed by Boca de Tomates beach (69.75 particles/m2) and Oro beach (28.75 particles/m2). The differences found between the beaches are attributed to the tourist influx and proximity to the mouth of a river. In total, 37% of MPs were white, followed by 19% yellow, and 11% transparent. The shape distribution of microplastics of sizes < 5 mm and 1 mm was fragmented, the greatest abundance was microfibers, microfragments, and microfilms for MPs between <1 mm and 1 µm, and these corresponded to polyester, polyethylene, cellophane, and polystyrene, respectively.

1. Introduction

Global plastic production reached an astounding 390.7 million tons in just 2021 [1]. This industry has transformed modern living, offering unmatched convenience but at a high environmental cost. The exacerbated use of plastics has inevitably led to plastic pollution, emerging as one of the most persistent pollutants in oceans and beaches around the world. This pollution stems from diverse sources, including riverine and atmospheric transport, aquaculture, and maritime activities [2,3]. Environmental sustainability is affected by the lack of public policies, prevention agreements on the use of plastics, consumer awareness, regulations, and good practices in the management and recycling of plastic waste [4]. These factors have caused the uncontrolled proliferation of plastics in ecosystems, causing great disruption at all trophic levels since it is the anthropogenic element with the greatest distribution on planet earth and requires sustainable solutions [5]. Poor plastic waste management can vary from one region to another, and the amount of mismanaged plastic waste generated by the costal population of a single country ranges from 1.1 MT to 8.8 MT per year [6].
Macroplastics, large plastic debris like bottles, bags, and containers, constitute a significant portion of the plastic pollution in the environment [7,8]. Macroplastic degradation is critical for the effects it creates in the environment since plastic fragments can cause alterations and deteriorations in any place [9]. These fragments are called microplastics (MPs), which are plastic particles measuring less than 5 mm [10]. Recent studies have shown that degraded macroplastics release a wide range of toxic chemicals, inherent to their formulations, such as plasticizers, flame retardants, and dyes, which have the potentials to leach into the environment, thus contaminating soil, water and air [11]. Their micro sizes allow them to infiltrate various environmental compartments, ranging from ocean waters to sediments [12]. Due to the particles’ sizes, they serve as vectors that can disrupt ecosystems in multiple ways. In addition, they are diverse in shapes and sizes and can carry toxic chemicals, adhering to their surfaces through various mechanisms [13]. As these MPs traverse aquatic environments, they become carriers of potential toxins, turning them into agents of ecological disturbances [14,15].
Furthermore, global research has also brought the persistent issue of MPs in coastal areas to the forefront. An example is the coastline of the Gulf of Beibu in the South China Sea, which exhibits a high microplastic concentration, varying between 5020 and 8720 particles per kilogram of dry weight sand. Other similarly affected areas include Halifax Harbor in Canada and the bay adjacent to Huatulco’s beaches in Mexico, both of which are proximate to human and touristic activities [16]. Moreover, the seasoning of measurements can also influence the quantity of MPs found in sediments, as evidenced in the case of Huatulco’s beaches, where MP levels fluctuated with touristic activity. These studies suggest that the presence of MPs in both terrestrial and maritime sources contributes to the pollution issue in coastal zones, underscoring the need for a deeper understanding of the establishment of effective mitigation measures [17].
The Mexican coastline, spanning 11,122 km, covers seventeen states of the country [18] and constitutes a significant source of plastics in the ocean, with estimated contributions ranging from 0.01 to 0.25 million metric tons [6]. Despite its vast expanse, focused research about MP in Mexico has been scarce; nevertheless, recent studies have shed light on this issue. For instance, an analysis of sediments across the five marine regions of the country revealed MP concentrations on Mexican beaches [19], and recent contributions have also delved into the dispersion of MPs within the sediment of Tecolutla Beach in the Gulf of Mexico [20,21]. Other investigations have identified MPs in the coastal sediments of the Baja California Peninsula [22,23]; Oaxaca [19]; and also in the Mexican Gulf area, such as Tampico [10] and Veracruz [24].
The abundance of MPs in the sediments of Puerto Vallarta’s beaches has not yet been investigated, despite being an area of great economic importance. Puerto Vallarta is a popular tourist destination located on the Pacific coast of Mexico [25]. One of the largest bays in Mexico, it is situated in the state of Jalisco over the Bay of Banderas [26]. As an important tourist destination on the Pacific coast, Puerto Vallarta is one of the most popular getaways in Mexico, making 8% of the total Foreign Direct Investment of the country. Puerto Vallarta’s unique blend of natural beauty, cultural richness, and modern amenities makes it a beloved destination for travelers seeking a diverse and enjoyable vacation experience [25,27]. Certainly, Puerto Vallarta is a place of captivating geographical diversity situated on the Mexican Pacific coast. Its landscape is a tapestry of contrasting terrains, from the rugged, mountainous regions to the pristine stretches of coastline. Adding to the site’s natural allure are its diverse river systems [28].
The Ameca River demarcates the boundary between the territories of Jalisco and Nayarit in the occident of Mexico. Meanwhile, the Mascota River flows its waters into the Ameca River near the town of Las Juntas. Notably, the Cuale River, which meanders through the city, is an integral part of Puerto Vallarta’s hydrographic tapestry [29]. The beautiful nature of this region draws a substantial number of visitors, who inadvertently contribute to microplastic generation. Furthermore, the mouths of significant rivers, such as the Ameca River, Cuale River, and Pitillal River, can contribute to increased MPs in beach sediments, as they carry runoff from urban areas.
This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the abundance and distribution of microplastics in the sediments of three beaches in Puerto Vallarta (Boca de Tomates, Oro, and Los Muertos), to identify the physical characteristics (size, shape, color, length, and surface morphology), to classify these solids in based on their polymer composition using Fourier-transformed infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy. Likewise, this study strives to furnish valuable insights into the presence and constitution of MP on Puerto Vallarta’s beaches. Despite its natural beauty, this coastal haven is not immune to the far-reaching impacts of MP contamination due to the interaction of climatic conditions, proximity to freshwater currents, beach tourism, and waste management practices. This endeavor aligns with global concerns, considering the potential long-term repercussions of MP on ecosystems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area was located on three beaches in Puerto Vallarta on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Boca de Tomates beach is located at the coordinates 20°40′17.72″ N 105°16′32″ W, Oro beach is situated at the coordinates 20°38′46.69″ N 105°14′31.52″ W and Los Muertos Beach at the coordinates 20°35′54.75″ N 105°14′21.55″ W as seen in Figure 1. These beaches in Puerto Vallarta are found in the Cuale River basin on the west coast of Mexico; it lies in the region where the Neovolcanic Transversal Axis and the Sierra Madre del Sur Mountain ranges converge. This basin belongs to the Huicicila Hydrological Region [29] and comprises numerous tributary rivers that feed into the main river, known as the Cuale River. The dominant soil types in the Cuale River basin are Eutric Regosols and Lithosols [28]. The average climate is semi-tropical and humid ambiance characterized by maximum temperatures of 31 °C, and minimums of 19 °C. The year-round average temperature hovers around 25 °C. The rainy season commences in mid-June and concludes by the end of August, although sporadic showers linger until mid-October. The annual average rainfall is approximately 1417 mm. Prevailing winds from the southwest [27].

2.2. Coastal Sand Sampling

Sampling was carried out in May 2022 after a high tourism season on the three beaches (Boca de Tomates, De Oro and Los Muertos). Sampling points were chosen considering the total length of the beach and the high tide line. The length of the beach was measured and then divided by 10 points to have the same distance between each of them. 10 points were located at the same distance, along the beach and other intermediate points, some above and others below, as seen in Figure 2. In total 16 points were taken per beach and the sampling was directed. The sand samples were taken following the methodology proposed by the Marine Debris Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for sand on beaches [30], which consists of making a quadrant of 0.5 m by 0.5 m at each point and taking a sample of the sand surface from a depth of approximately 3 cm with a stainless steel shovel. The collected sand was passed through a 5 microns mesh sieve to avoid collecting larger particles and only the sand that was collected was stored in a stainless-steel tray to later be labeled with the quadrant number and name of the beach, date, and geographical coordinates.

2.3. Sample Preparation

The collected sand samples were dried in the sun to prevent the microplastic in the sample from undergoing any physical transformation. Each sand sample was sieved into six different mesh sizes: 841 µm, 297 µm, 149 µm, 106 µm, 63 µm and ≤63 µm using an AS 200 series-vibrating sieve. A grain size analysis was carried out by collecting and measuring each fraction in grams to identify the type of sand on each beach and to facilitate the identification of plastic particles smaller than 5 microns.

2.4. Visual Identification and Cuantification of Microplastic

The sand samples separated from the meshes greater than 149 µm were observed under a magnifying glass illuminated by LED, in an aluminum tray. All potential MP were then placed in a Petri dish for further inspection in a Zeizz Stemi 305 stereomicroscopic camera, Jena, Germany with K EDU mount and Zeizz Spot Illuminator K LED, Jena, Germany. The MPs were classified according to their shape (fiber, sphere, granule, and film), color (transparent, black, white, red, yellow, and blue, etc.) following Crawford standard identification guide [31]. The length of MPs was measured using a Digital Vernier Caliper.
MP were visually distinguished based on the following criteria: particles exhibited light reflection and crystallinity, the absence of cellular or organic structures. These particles commonly displayed various colors, often accompanied by adherences of salts or sand on their surface. A meticulous visual classification was essential to differentiate plastics from other materials, such as organic debris (shell fragments, animal parts, dried algae, or seagrasses, among others) and other elements. This visual discrimination process was crucial for ensuring the accurate separation of MP in the sand samples. The MP reported in this section of the research are in the visible range of 5 mm–0.09 mm, and were classified as fragments (FR), fibers (FB), foams (FM), films (FI), and spherical particles (PT). Crawford’s classification also suggests a subcategorization based on particle size: mini microplastics (MMP), encompassing particles smaller than 1 mm that might not be visible to the naked eye, including micro-fragments (MFR), microfibers (MFB), microfoams (MFM), microparticles (MFI), and microspheres (MBD) [31].
Classification by color, shape and size made it possible to quantify the number of plastic particles on each sampled beach and then with this the concentration of microplastics was calculated as the number of pieces per surface and per kg of sand, for each sampling point (particles/m2 and particles/kg). A database was created with all the information and the mean and median values, and the variance (%) for each beach were determined using Microsoft Excel 2016 (Table S1 in Supplementary Materials).

2.5. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

The surface and shape of the MPs were visualized by SEM (JEOL JSM-IT300, Tokyo, Japan), operating at 10 keV. The MP samples were prepared in a sample holder with carbon tape and were coated with gold by sputtering, to act as conductive materials. Images were taken at different magnifications to visualize adhered substances, fractures, and wear.

2.6. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

The FTIR analysis was performed to the MPs sample classified by color, shape and size. This is a non-destructive technique that allows for the rapid and direct identification of the types of chemical structures present in the samples. The equipment used was an ALPHA FT-IR Spectrometer Bruker equipment (Leipzig, Germany), with a diamond crystal containing ZnSe lens, which contains a sampling area of 1.5 mm, and an optical window of 400 to 3500 cm−1. The spectra were acquired with a resolution of 4 cm−1. The equipment software used was Opus as well as the OMNIC program version 9, and compared with the commercial spectral libraries.

3. Results

3.1. Microplastics Present in Sediment Samples Based on Their Physical Attributes

A total of 48 of coastal sediment samples were collected from the beaches of Boca de Tomates, Oro, and Los Muertos located in the municipality of Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco (Table S2 in Supplementary Materials). 1173 visible plastic particles were counted from the sampled beaches, distributed as follows: 480 particles on Los Muertos beach, 201 particles on Oro beach and 492 particles on Boca de Tomates beach. These found plastic particles were of different sizes and colors. Figure 3 shows the results of the distribution of plastic particles by size ranges found per square meter on the sampled beaches, where it is observed that the largest number corresponds to MPs in a range between 5 mm and 0.09 mm. Also, it can be observed that Los Muertos beach presents the highest amount of MPs (97.5 Particles/m2), followed by Boca de Tomates beach (69.75 particles/m2), and Oro beach (28.75 particles/m2).
The particles collected were classified and characterized physically to extract detailed information about their sizes, shapes, and colors, following the classification proposed by Crawford et al. (2017). Color analysis of the MPs illustrated in Figure 4 unveiled trends, like colors found in other Mexican beaches: 37% of MPs were white, followed by 19% of particles being yellow, and 11% being transparent. These results aligned with the findings of a study conducted in Banderas Bay in 2019, just a few kilometers from sampled beaches, reporting the highest prevalence of white MPs (44%) and transparent (29%) fragments [26]. Similarly, a study on Pacific coast beaches in the states of Colima and Jalisco reported a higher prevalence of fragments (3820 MP/kg dry sediment) followed by fibers (2880 MP/kg dry sediment), with blue being the predominant color [32].
Figure 5 shows the results of the shape distribution of microplastics of size < 5 mm and 1 mm. It stands out that the fragments are the most abundant, followed by the foams, films, fibers, and, to a lesser extent, pellets for the three beaches. These results are in accordance with what has been reported for microplastics found in sand [33,34].
Some of the MP particles were photographed using a Stemi 305 stereomicroscopic camera with K EDU mount and Spot Illuminator K LED stereoscope; Figure 6 shows images taken of the variety type of MP found in this study. Such fragments come from the fragmentation of polymers due to interperisms of different types of materials that have been discarded and that reach the shores of the beaches. Foams can come from polystyrene-type polymers present in single-use utensils for food that are very common among tourists, and the films can be attributed to single-use bags [35].
The forms of MPs found between <1 mm and 1 µm can be seen in Figure 7. In this case, it is observed that the greatest abundance is of microfibers between 49 and 82%, followed by microfragments between 10 and 35%, microfilms between 7 and 15%, and a very small amount of microfoams between 1 and 2%. The microfibers come from fishing activities or synthetic fibers used in laundry, and the microfragments from the fragmentations of larger fragments by interperism [10,14,36]. These results show variations both in the quantity and distribution of different microplastic forms across the three evaluated beaches. These differences may be influenced by tourist influx and river mouth proximity. A study conducted in 2019 in the Bay de Banderas consolidated various research on plastic abundance during the rainy season, concluding that post-rainy season beaches tend to have higher plastic densities, primarily due to surface runoff carrying plastic waste from inland areas through rivers to eventually deposit on nearby beaches. Conversely, during dry seasons, accumulated debris can enhance runoff quantities after rainfall during the dry season [26].
Figure 8 shows the SEM images of the microplastics with a size between <1 mm and 1 µm. In the images, fractures and porosities resulting from environmental degradation can be seen. Particles adhered to the surface are also observed, and this is in accordance with previous publications. When zooming in on the images, the presence of substances on the surface is more evident and is patent in all images. This can be attributed to the fact that MPs can act as absorbent agents for a variety of contaminants dispersed in water. Contaminants found by other authors include heavy metal ions, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides [37,38,39]. This accumulation means that MPs can increase the mobility of contaminants, making them harmful when ingested by organisms in the niche in which they settle [40]. By virtue of the bioaccumulation and biomagnification capacity of these contaminants in the food chain, they can impact humans who consume seafood products [13,14,15,38,39].

3.2. Chemical Identification of the Types of Microplastics Present in Sand Samples

MPs of different shapes (size between <5 mm and 1 mm) and that were among the most abundant found on the different beaches were selected to identify them by their compositions. FTIR techniques allowed for the analysis of MPs by identifying the functional groups included in the polymer structures and helped to study the evolutions of absorption peaks usually associated with the environmental aging of polyolefin, such as hydroxyl stretching peaks and carbonyls, the peaks relative to the presence of double bonds [41,42]. The infrared spectra in Figure 9 show the different chemical compositions of the MPs corresponding to fragments, fibers, films, and foams, respectively.
In Figure 9a, it is observed that the FTIR of the fiber corresponds to polyester. The infrared spectra show a major transmittance band at 3426 cm−1, which corresponds to the stretching of OH groups. A signal at 2965 cm−1 was assigned to a CH3 asymmetric stretch, a 1708 cm−1 C=O stretch, 1410 cm−1, 1244 cm−1, 1089 cm−1, 1018 cm−1, 870 cm−1, 845 cm−1, and a peak at 724 cm−1, which is a bending rock vibration [43]. On the other hand, Figure 9b of the fragments corresponds to polyethylene. This is because the infrared spectra show a major transmittance band at 2914 cm−1, which corresponds to the CH2 asymmetric stretching, a signal at 2845 cm−1 assigned to the CH2 symmetric stretching, as well as a CH3 umbrella mode 1472 cm−1, and a peck at 719 cm−1 corresponding at a C-CH2 bending rock vibration [44]. The FTIR spectrum corresponding to the film (Figure 9c) reflects that it is cellophane. Cellophane exhibits major FTIR bands at several key points. These include a strong band at 3265 cm−1, which corresponds to the stretching of OH groups. A signal at 2918 and 2962 cm−1 is assigned to CH stretching, whereas a band at 1617 cm−1 is attributed to the absorption of water [10,45]. Finally, Figure 9d, corresponding to foam, shows that this is a polystyrene. This shows a major transmittance band at 3396 cm−1 and at 2918 cm−1, which corresponds to the CH2 asymmetric stretching. A signal at 1620 cm−1 is assigned to the aromatic ring modes 1002 cm−1, 908 cm−1, and 691 cm−1, corresponding to the aromatic ring bend [46].

4. Discussion

MPs comprise a very heterogeneous set of particles that vary in sizes, shapes, colors, chemical compositions, and other characteristics. Sizes and origin are factors that enhance its impact on ecosystems [47]. In this research, the methodology of taking sand samples was carried out along the three beaches using quadrants, with this it was possible to determine the abundance per unit of surface in m2. The comparison of this study’s findings align with the extensively reported results from various researchers in diverse coastal regions in Mexico [10,16,20,22,24,26,32,48] and some countries [49,50,51], as seen in Table 1. The number of particles found per unit kg of sand (20–49.2 particles/kg) is low compared to the Gao, 2022, study in the sediments of Mississippi, USA, which found 590 ± 360 particles/kg; the study reported by Forsythe, 2016, which found 268 particles/kg on the coasts of Canada; and even lower than the study reported by Purca, 2017, from the coasts of Peru, which reported 1133.3 ± 811.3 particles/kg. The type of particles found in this study with sizes between <5 mm and 1 mm corresponded to fragments and foams, and sizes between <1 mm and 1 µm corresponded to fragments and fibers, in accordance with works reported in Mexico [19,23,24]. In this context, to carry out meaningful comparisons and monitoring, it is important to define specific methodological criteria to estimate their abundance, distribution, and composition [36].
In this research, the average and median MP concentrations across the three beach sites were 123 ± 50 particles/m2. Los Muertos beach presents the highest number of MPs (97.5 particles/m2), followed by Boca de Tomates beach (69.75 particles/m2), and Oro beach (28.75 particles/m2). This difference in the number of particles by type of beach can be attributed mainly to the activities carried out around the beaches. The high abundance of MPs on the beaches can be fueled primarily by the presence of hotels and untreated wastewater discharges [16,32,52]. Studies conducted in the beaches of Huatulco Bay, Mexico, support the correlation between high microplastic abundance and intensive tourist activity [16]. In this study, the results confirm this relationship since Los Muertos Beach is the beach that experiences the greatest tourist influx due to its proximity to the center of Puerto Vallarta and little waste management [53]. Hotels and sewage disposal near beaches have previously been identified as potential sources of plastic waste [17]. Boca de Tomates Beach is characterized by limited waste management and low tourist presence [25]. Playa de Oro presented a low number of MP compared to the other two beaches, and this is because, despite being touristy, they have good waste management since they have a Blue Flag certification due to the conservation measures currently in force [54].
Other important aspects found in this research were the shapes, sizes and colors of the MPs found. It was highlighted that fibers and fragments consistently emerged as the most frequent microplastic types on the beaches of Puerto Vallarta, indicating a potential pattern related to their origins and compositions. Several authors agree that the shapes combined with the colors also allow us to decipher the possible sources of contamination by microplastics [10,12,19,55]. Therefore, it is possible to say that the predominant particles found in the sediments of the beaches of Puerto Vallarta of type fragments and fibers were mostly related to the color found (white, yellow, and transparent). These physical characteristics were corroborated chemical analyses for the identification of polymer type. It was found that the fiber corresponds to polyester, the fragments correspond to polyethylene, the film corresponds to cellophane, and the foam corresponds to polystyrene [42]. These polymers are related to human activities, such as synthetic fibers discharged from water effluents from rivers near beaches, fragments of water bottles, and single-use packaging.
This underscores the importance of understanding not only the presence of microplastics but also their sources and the broader context of plastic pollution. Mitigating the generation of microplastics is essential for environmental sustainability, strategies, and technologies, such as implementing advanced waste-to-energy conversion methods, enhancing waste collection and sorting systems, and promoting biodegradable polymers, offering tangible solutions [8,56]. Ocean cleanup technologies, wastewater treatment upgrades, and plastic-free packaging materials help prevent the release of microplastics into ecosystems [57]. Public awareness, coupled with education, is key in reducing plastic waste generation. Policy and regulation play a pivotal role in controlling plastic production and use. Embracing circular economy principles for product design and materials can minimize plastic waste [58]. Continued research and monitoring are essential to comprehensively understand and mitigate microplastic sources and impacts, ultimately contributing to sustainable development.

5. Conclusions

This is the first study on MP presence along the beaches of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. The abundance and distribution of microplastics in the sediments of three beaches in Puerto Vallarta (Boca de Tomates, Oro, and Los Muertos) was comprehensively evaluated using the quartering method. The identification of physical characteristics, such as size, shape, color, and morphology of the surface, made it possible to classify the MPs and identify them based on their chemical compositions using infrared spectroscopy techniques. It is concluded that the beaches of Puerto Vallarta present a significant number of MPs of the fiber and fragment type and correspond to polyester and polyethylene, respectively, in size between <1 mm and 1 µm. Also, found fragments and foams with sizes between <5 mm and 1 mm corresponded to polyethylene and polystyrene, respectively. The presences of these MPs were related to human tourist activities, as they were found in greater abundance on the most touristy beach, such as Los Muertos beach, and due to the proximity of beaches with river mouths. Future research directions to manage microplastic waste and prevent its additional generation and environmental pollution to achieve sustainable development should be focused on improving public policies, plastic use agreements, consumer awareness, implementation of good practices in the management and recycling of plastic waste, and improving technologies for the mitigation of plastics already present in the environment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su152115259/s1, Table S1: Dataset of quantification and classification of microplastics in Puerto Vallarta sandy beaches; Table S2: Location of the sampling points on the three beaches of Puerto Vallarta.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P.-M., L.A.P.-P. and B.S.-R.; methodology, I.A.M.-E.; formal analysis, C.P.-M., L.A.P.-P. and B.S.-R.; investigation, I.A.M.-E. and J.D.R.O.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A.M.-E.; writing—review and editing, B.S.-R. and J.D.R.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Fredy Hernán Villota González, Leandro Hermida Castellanos, and Virgilio Zúñiga Grajeda for their technical support in the field trips and sample collection. Thanks to Nora M. Ramos-Caro for her support with the ArcGIS software and to the undergraduate social service students Paulina Itzel Diaz Flores and Fernando Isaac Ramirez Torres in particular for laboratory support. Thanks to Orlando Hernández Cristóbal, head of the ENES Microscopy Laboratory, Morelia Unit, for the image SEM.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Plastics—The Facts 2020 an Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2020/ (accessed on 9 September 2023).
  2. Van Sebille, E.; Wilcox, C.; Lebreton, L.; Maximenko, N.; Hardesty, B.D.; Van Franeker, J.A.; Eriksen, M.; Siegel, D.; Galgani, F.; Law, K.L. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 124006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lebreton, L.C.M.; Van Der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Agarski, B.; Budak, I.; Micunovic, M.I.; Vukelic, D. Life cycle assessment of injection moulding tools and multicomponent plastic cap production. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 413, 137450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zeb, A.; Liu, W.; Ali, N.; Shi, R.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Yin, C.; Liu, J.; Yu, M.; et al. Microplastic pollution in terrestrial ecosystems: Global implications and sustainable solutions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 461, 132636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gallo, F.; Fossi, C.; Weber, R.; Santillo, D.; Sousa, J.; Ingram, I.; Nadal, A.; Romano, D. Marine litter plastics and microplastics and their toxic chemicals components: The need for urgent preventive measures. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nikolaev, A.A. The Physical Characterization and Terminal Velocities of Aluminium, Iron and Plastic Bottle Caps in a Water Environment. Recycling 2022, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, K.; Hamidian, A.H.; Tubić, A.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, J.K.; Wu, C.; Lam, P.K. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 274, 116554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Flores-Ocampo, I.Z.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Abundance and composition of microplastics in Tampico beach sediments, Tamaulipas State, southern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 191, 114891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yusuf, A.A.; Ampah, J.D.; Veza, I.; Atabani, A.E.; Hoang, A.T.; Nippae, A.; Powoe, M.T.; Afrane, S.; Yusuf, D.A.; Yahuza, I. Investigating the influence of plastic waste oils and acetone blends on diesel engine combustion, pollutants, morphological and size particles: Dehalogenation and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 291, 117312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Koelmans, A.A.; Nor, N.H.M.; Hermsen, E.; Kooi, M.; Mintenig, S.M.; De France, J. Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review and assessment of data quality. Water Res. 2019, 155, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Amelia, T.S.M.; Khalik, W.M.A.W.M.; Ong, M.C.; Shao, Y.T.; Pan, H.J.; Bhubalan, K. Marine microplastics as vectors of major ocean pollutants and its hazards to the marine ecosystem and humans. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci. 2021, 8, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Godoy, V.; Blázquez, G.; Calero, M.; Quesada, L.; Martín-Lara, M.A. The potential of microplastics as carriers of metals. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255, 113363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Retama, I.; Jonathan, M.; Shruti, V.; Velumani, S.; Sarkar, S.; Roy, P.D.; Rodríguez-Espinosa, P. Microplastics in tourist beaches of Huatulco Bay, Pacific coast of southern Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hantoro, I.; Löhr, A.J.; Van Belleghem, F.G.A.J.; Widianarko, B.; Ragas, A.M.J. Microplastics in coastal areas and seafood: Implications for food safety. Food Addit. Contam.—Part A Chem. Anal. Control. Expo. Risk Assess. 2019, 36, 674–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Acuerdo Mediante el Cual se Expide la Politica Nacional de Mares y Costas de Mexico. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5545511&fecha=30/11/2018#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 9 September 2023).
  19. Álvarez-Lopeztello, J.; Robles, C.; del Castillo, R.F. Microplastic pollution in neotropical rainforest, savanna, pine plantations, and pasture soils in lowland areas of Oaxaca, Mexico: Preliminary results. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sánchez-Hernández, L.J.; Ramírez-Romero, P.; Rodríguez-González, F.; Ramos-Sánchez, V.H.; Montes, R.A.M.; Rubio, H.R.-P.; Sujitha, S.; Jonathan, M. Seasonal evidences of microplastics in environmental matrices of a tourist dominated urban estuary in Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. Chemosphere 2021, 277, 130261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Madhavaraju, J.; Marca-Castillo, M.E.; Machain-Castillo, M.L.; Márquez-García, A.Z. Geochemistry of marine sediments adjacent to the Los Tuxtlas Volcanic Complex, Gulf of Mexico: Constraints on weathering and provenance. Appl. Geochem. 2022, 141, 105321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Piñon-Colin, T.d.J.; Rodriguez-Jimenez, R.; Pastrana-Corral, M.A.; Rogel-Hernandez, E.; Wakida, F.T. Microplastics on sandy beaches of the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 131, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ramírez-Álvarez, N.; Mendoza, L.M.R.; Macías-Zamora, J.V.; Oregel-Vázquez, L.; Alvarez-Aguilar, A.; Hernández-Guzmán, F.A.; Sánchez-Osorio, J.L.; Moore, C.J.; Silva-Jiménez, H.; Navarro-Olache, L.F. Microplastics: Sources and Distribution in Surface Waters and Sediments of Todos Santos Bay, Mexico. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Peralta Pelaez, L.A.; Montes, C.P.; Castellanos, L.H.; Quero, O.D.J.H.; Hernández-Álvarez, C.; Estrella, I.A.M.; Rangel, B.S. Microplásticos en playas de la zona de influencia del Parque Nacional Sistema Arrecifal Veracruzano (PNSAV), México. Hidrobiológica 2023, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cardenas, E. Demographic and urban impacts of tourism policies in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2018, 15. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pelamatti, T.; Fonseca-Ponce, I.A.; Rios-Mendoza, L.M.; Stewart, J.D.; Marín-Enríquez, E.; Marmolejo-Rodriguez, A.J.; Hoyos-Padilla, E.M.; Galván-Magaña, F.; González-Armas, R. Seasonal variation in the abundance of marine plastic debris in Banderas Bay, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 145, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Medio Físico. Available online: https://www.puertovallarta.gob.mx/vistas/ciudad/medio-fisico.php#pagina_titulo (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  28. Cruz-Romero, B.; Delgado-Quintana, J.A.; Téllez-López, J.; Carrillo González, F.M. Análisis socioeconómico de la cuenca del rio Cuale, Jalisco, México: Una contribución para la declaración del área natural protegida reserva de la biosfera el cuale. Rev. OIDLES 2013, 7. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cruz Romero, B.; Gaspari, F.J.; Rodríguez Vagaría, A.M.; Carrillo González, F.M.; Téllez López, J. Análisis morfométrico de la cuenca hidrográfica del río Cuale, Jalisco, México. Investig. Y Cienc. De La Univ. Autónoma De Aguascalientes 2015, 23, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Masura, J.; Baker, J.; Foster, G.; Arthur, C. Laboratory methods for the analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: Recommendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS-ORR 2015, 48. [Google Scholar]
  31. Crawford, C.B.; Quinn, B. Microplastic Pollutants; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  32. Torrez-Pérez, K.A.; Cervantes, O.; Reyes-Gomez, J. Quantification and Classification of Microplastics (Mps) in Urban, Suburban, Rural and Natural Beaches of Colima and Jalisco. México. Revista Costas 2020, 3, 207–230. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lozoya, J.P.; De Mello, F.T.; Carrizo, D.; Weinstein, F.; Olivera, Y.; Cedrés, F.; Pereira, M.; Fossati, M. Plastics and microplastics on recreational beaches in Punta del Este (Uruguay): Unseen critical residents? Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 931–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Prata, J.C.; da Costa, J.P.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Methods for sampling and detection of microplastics in water and sediment: A critical review. TrAC—Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 110, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Book Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Sources, Fates, Impacts and Microbial Degradation, 3rd ed.; MDPI AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2008; pp. 154–196.
  36. Gondikas, A.; Mattsson, K.; Hassellöv, M. Methods for the detection and characterization of boat paint microplastics in the marine environment. Front. Environ. Chem. 2023, 4, 1090704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dehghani, S.; Moore, F.; Akhbarizadeh, R. Microplastic pollution in deposited urban dust, Tehran metropolis, Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 20360–20371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shi, Q.; Tang, J.; Liu, R.; Wang, L. Toxicity in vitro reveals potential impacts of microplastics and nanoplastics on human health: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 52, 3863–3895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V.F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Osuna-Laveaga, D.R.; Ojeda-Castillo, V.; Flores-Payán, V.; Gutiérrez-Becerra, A.; Moreno-Medrano, E.D. Micro- and nanoplastics current status: Legislation, gaps, limitations and socio-economic prospects for future. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1241939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, F.-F.; Liu, G.-Z.; Zhu, Z.-L.; Wang, S.-C.; Zhao, F.-F. Interactions between microplastics and phthalate esters as affected by microplastics characteristics and solution chemistry. Chemosphere 2019, 214, 688–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, J.; Ran, W.; Teng, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, H.; Yin, X.; Cao, R.; Wang, Q. Microplastic pollution in sediments from the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 640–641, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cecen, V.; Seki, Y.; Sarikanat, M.; Tavman, I.H. FTIR and SEM analysis of polyester- and epoxy-based composites manufactured by VARTM process. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2008, 108, 2163–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Smith, B. The Infrared Spectra of Polymers II: Polyethylene. Spectroscopy 2021, 36, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gorassini, A.; Adami, G.; Calvini, P.; Giacomello, A. ATR-FTIR characterization of old pressure sensitive adhesive tapes in historic papers. J. Cult. Herit. 2016, 21, 775–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Smith, B. The Infrared Spectra of Polymers III: Hydrocarbon Polymers. Spectroscopy 2021, 36, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Strungaru, S.A.; Jijie, R.; Nicoara, M.; Plavan, G.; Faggio, C. Micro- (nano) plastics in freshwater ecosystems: Abundance, toxicological impact and quantification methodology. TrAC—Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 110, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alvarez-Zeferino, J.C.; Ojeda-Benítez, S.; Cruz-Salas, A.A.; Martínez-Salvador, C.; Vázquez-Morillas, A. Microplastics in Mexican beaches. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gao, Z.; Wontor, K.; Cizdziel, J.V.; Lu, H. Distribution and characteristics of microplastics in beach sand near the outlet of a major reservoir in north Mississippi, USA. Microplastics Nanoplastics 2022, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Forsythe, C. The Quantification of Microplastics in Intertidal Sediments in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2016; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  51. Karthik, R.; Robin, R.; Purvaja, R.; Ganguly, D.; Anandavelu, I.; Raghuraman, R.; Hariharan, G.; Ramakrishna, A.; Ramesh, R. Microplastics along the beaches of southeast coast of India. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 1388–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wolff, S.; Kerpen, J.; Prediger, J.; Barkmann, L.; Müller, L. Determination of the microplastics emission in the effluent of a municipal waste water treatment plant using Raman microspectroscopy. Water Res. X 2019, 2, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Olivares, A. Habitar las regiones urbanas turísticas. Seis formas de domesticar el espacio en la Región Puerto Vallarta—Bahía de Banderas en México. Ciudad. Y Entorno 2014, 9, 525–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Programa Playas Limpias, Agua y Ambiente Seguros (Proplayas). Available online: https://www.gob.mx/conagua/acciones-y-programas/programa-playas-limpias-agua-y-ambiente-seguros-proplayas#:~:text=Seguros%20(Proplayas).-,El%20Programa%20Playas%20Limpias%20tiene%20como%20objetivo%20proteger%20la%20salud,los%20sectores%20privado%2C%20social%20y (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  55. Liu, M.; Lu, S.; Song, Y.; Lei, L.; Hu, J.; Lv, W.; Zhou, W.; Cao, C.; Shi, H.; Yang, X.; et al. Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumagai, S.; Nakatani, J.; Saito, Y.; Fukushima, Y.; Yoshioka, T. Latest Trends and Challenges in Feedstock Recycling of Polyolefinic Plastics. J. Jpn. Pet. Inst. 2020, 63, 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gonzalez Jimenez, M.A.; Rakotonirina, A.D.; Sainte-Rose, B.; Cox, D.J. On the Digital Twin of the Ocean Cleanup Systems—Part I: Calibration of the Drag Coefficients of a Netted Screen in OrcaFlex Using CFD and Full-Scale Experiments. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Babaremu, K.O.; Okoya, S.; Hughes, E.; Tijani, B.; Teidi, D.; Akpan, A.; Igwe, J.; Karera, S.; Oyinlola, M.; Akinlabi, E. Sustainable plastic waste management in a circular economy. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 15 15259 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area in beaches of Puerto Vallarta on the Pacific coast of Mexico.
Figure 1. Location of the study area in beaches of Puerto Vallarta on the Pacific coast of Mexico.
Sustainability 15 15259 g001
Sustainability 15 15259 g002
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the distribution of sampling points in red, highlighting with a dotted line along the beach transect, and the beach length.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the distribution of sampling points in red, highlighting with a dotted line along the beach transect, and the beach length.
Sustainability 15 15259 g002
Sustainability 15 15259 g003
Figure 3. Size distribution of particles plastic in the sample beaches per square meter.
Figure 3. Size distribution of particles plastic in the sample beaches per square meter.
Sustainability 15 15259 g003
Sustainability 15 15259 g004
Figure 4. Percentage abundance of microplastics bases on color (n = 1173).
Figure 4. Percentage abundance of microplastics bases on color (n = 1173).
Sustainability 15 15259 g004
Sustainability 15 15259 g005
Figure 5. Distribution by shape of microplastics with size between <5 mm and 1 mm.
Figure 5. Distribution by shape of microplastics with size between <5 mm and 1 mm.
Sustainability 15 15259 g005
Sustainability 15 15259 g006aSustainability 15 15259 g006b
Figure 6. Images of microplastics with sizes between <5 mm and 1 mm: (a) Fragments, (b) Foams, (c) Films, (d) Fibers, and (e) Pellets.
Figure 6. Images of microplastics with sizes between <5 mm and 1 mm: (a) Fragments, (b) Foams, (c) Films, (d) Fibers, and (e) Pellets.
Sustainability 15 15259 g006aSustainability 15 15259 g006b
Sustainability 15 15259 g007
Figure 7. Distribution by shape of microplastics whit size between <1 mm and 1 µm.
Figure 7. Distribution by shape of microplastics whit size between <1 mm and 1 µm.
Sustainability 15 15259 g007
Sustainability 15 15259 g008
Figure 8. Images of microplastics with sizes between <1 mm and 1 µm: (a) Microfiber, (b) Microfragment, (c) Microfilm, and (d) Microfoam.
Figure 8. Images of microplastics with sizes between <1 mm and 1 µm: (a) Microfiber, (b) Microfragment, (c) Microfilm, and (d) Microfoam.
Sustainability 15 15259 g008
Sustainability 15 15259 g009aSustainability 15 15259 g009b
Figure 9. Infrared spectra corresponding to: (a) Fragments, (b) Fibers, (c) Films, and (d) Foams.
Figure 9. Infrared spectra corresponding to: (a) Fragments, (b) Fibers, (c) Films, and (d) Foams.
Sustainability 15 15259 g009aSustainability 15 15259 g009b
Table 1. Concentration of microplastics in costal sediments in different location in Mexico and some countries.
Table 1. Concentration of microplastics in costal sediments in different location in Mexico and some countries.
Location, CountryNumber of Sample SitesAbundant by Shape
(1–5 mm)		ConcentrationReference
Puerto Vallarta Beach, Mexico4841–24% fragments,
34–26% films,
30–24% foams,
18–1% pellets		50–1230 particles/m2
20–49.2 particles/kg		Present study
Mexico, marine zone3356% fragments,
15% foam,
11% fibers,
10% films,
8% pellets and others.		31.7–545.8 particles/m2[48]
Baja California, Mexico7191% fibers,
5% films,
3% pellets,
1% granules		135 ± 92 particles/kg[22]
Colima and Jalisco1053% fragments, 40% fibers,
1% films,
6% granules.		2553.4 ± 1895.8 particles/kg[32]
Tamaulipas State, southern Gulf of Mexico20100% fibers13,392 particles/kg[10]
Estuary in Gulf of Mexico 71% fibers,
29% fragments 		121 ± 115 particles/kg[20]
Oaxaca, Mexico11Fibers and fragments1530 and 1490 particles/kg[19]
Todos Santos Bay, Mexico1119–70% fragments,
18–28% fibers		85–2494 particles/m2[23]
Banderas Bay, Mexico5741% films,
40% fragments,
11% line,
8% fibers		69 particles/m2[26]
Huatulco Bay, Mexico35Fibers200–6900 particles/kg[16]
Veracruz Reef System, Mexico 92.35% fragments, 4.12% fibers,
1.76% pellets,
1.76% films		4.5 particles/m2[24]
Mississippi, USA1561% fibers,
25% fragments,
8% beads,
6% films.		590 ± 360 particles/kg[49]
Canada1589% fibers,
8% fragments,
2% pellets		268 particles/kg[50]
India2547–50% fragments,
24–27% fibers,
10–19% foams		48.9 to 4747.6 mg/m2[51]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mejía-Estrella, I.A.; Peña-Montes, C.; Peralta-Peláez, L.A.; Del Real Olvera, J.; Sulbarán-Rangel, B. Microplastics in Sandy Beaches of Puerto Vallarta in the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115259

AMA Style

Mejía-Estrella IA, Peña-Montes C, Peralta-Peláez LA, Del Real Olvera J, Sulbarán-Rangel B. Microplastics in Sandy Beaches of Puerto Vallarta in the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Sustainability. 2023; 15(21):15259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115259

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mejía-Estrella, Ixchel Alejandra, Carolina Peña-Montes, Luis Alberto Peralta-Peláez, Jorge Del Real Olvera, and Belkis Sulbarán-Rangel. 2023. "Microplastics in Sandy Beaches of Puerto Vallarta in the Pacific Coast of Mexico" Sustainability 15, no. 21: 15259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115259

APA Style

Mejía-Estrella, I. A., Peña-Montes, C., Peralta-Peláez, L. A., Del Real Olvera, J., & Sulbarán-Rangel, B. (2023). Microplastics in Sandy Beaches of Puerto Vallarta in the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Sustainability, 15(21), 15259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115259

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop