Next Article in Journal
Innovation Strategy for Green Development and Carbon Neutralization in Guizhou—An Overview
Next Article in Special Issue
Isotopic Niche and Trophic Position of the Invasive Portunid Portunus segnis Forskål, (1775) in Elounda Bay (Crete Island, Eastern Mediterranean)
Previous Article in Journal
The Nonlinear Model of Intersectoral Linkages of Kazakhstan for Macroeconomic Decision-Making Processes in Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Previous Article in Special Issue
Get Rid of Marine Pollution: Bioremediation an Innovative, Attractive, and Successful Cleaning Strategy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/su142114376
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Comprehensive Review regarding the Profile of the Microplastic Pollution in the Coastal Area of the Black Sea

by
Alexandra Savuca
1,2,
Mircea Nicusor Nicoara
1,3,* and
Caterina Faggio
4,*
1
Doctoral School of Geosciences, Faculty of Geography and Geology, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Carol I Avenue, 20A, 700505 Iasi, Romania
2
Doctoral School of Biology, Faculty of Biology, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Carol I Avenue, 20A, 700505 Iasi, Romania
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Biology, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Carol I Avenue, 20A, 700505 Iasi, Romania
4
Department of Chemical, Biological, Pharmaceutical, and Environmental Sciences, University of Messina, Viale Ferdinando Stagno D’Alcontres 31, 98166 Messina, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14376; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114376
Submission received: 2 October 2022 / Revised: 24 October 2022 / Accepted: 29 October 2022 / Published: 2 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Life below Water: Marine Biology and Sustainable Ocean)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Lately, the interest in researching microplastics in the Black Sea has increased, highlighting areas of accumulation in which the amounts of microplastics are alarming, such as seafood consumed by the population. The Black Sea has special characteristics in terms of currents and wave dynamics that create opportunities for the accumulation of microplastics in hotspot points, such as in the context of large rivers discharge that contains large amounts of pollutants and new sources of contamination. This article offers a literature-based profile on plastic pollution in the Black Sea—pollution that originates in the discharge of large rivers, transportation, and other economic activities, even the COVID-19 pandemic—in order to highlight “microplastic hotspots” before the current political crisis that directly involves the Black Sea worsens.

1. Introduction

“Plastic” is a general name for a category of non-biodegradable petroleum-based materials. They are composed of two subcategories: thermoplastics, such as Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polypropylene (PP), Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and Polyethylene (PE); and thermosets such as epoxy resins, silicone, acrylic resins, and Polyurethane (PUR). These are an everyday presence in our life and environment. Lately, interest in researching these materials has grown considerably, both in production and environmental protection. Aquatic ecosystems, especially the marine ecosystems, are final destinations for various plastic materials. The transport and dispersion of plastic materials could be the result of natural factors, such as waves or wind. Plastic materials, degraded by physical and chemical processes, become micro- and nanoparticles. In the current situation, the Black Sea is becoming a strategic area as a battle front and shipping route. This certainly influences the quality of the marine environment, and its microplastic pollution could degenerate into a much more unpleasant situation. Therefore, it is important to have a picture of this pollution in the Black Sea area before the current political and military crisis to facilitate future efforts to understand the impact of this crisis.
Lately, a large number of scientific reports show the presence of plastic compounds with dimensions ranged between 100 nm and 5 mm (such as fibers, fragments, spherules), named microplastics (MPs) in different types of environments [1,2] worldwide [3]. For example, in terrestrial environments, such as soils in agriculture, a quantity of 0.34 ± 0.36 microplastic particles per kilogram of dry weight of soil was found on an agricultural farm in Germany [4]. Another study showed that microplastic particles in the soil column can easily migrate and enter groundwater along with other pollutants [5]. Freshwater ecosystems are also affected by microplastic pollution worldwide, regardless of whether we are talking about rivers with an average abundance of 46.63 particles m−3 in Hong Kong surface waters [6], wetlands where the most common types of MPs were polyethylene (PE) and polystyrene (PS) [7], or lakes where the common types of MPs were high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) [8]. These can all act both as receivers/sinks and as carriers of microplastics, which eventually reach the marine ecosystem [9]. Microplastics contamination can even penetrate remote regions, such as snow in the Alps and the Arctic, where most of the detected MPs are spherules with the smallest size range (11 µm) and a highly variable polymer composition [10]. Brahney et al. (2020) [11] showed that the average rates of wind and rainfall deposition were 132 particles m−3 day−1 in protected natural areas in the Western U.S. In comparison, over half of the Black Sea area is covered by protected areas Natura 2000: there are 40 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) under the Habitats Directive and 27 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive [12]. These areas host many protected species of animals and plants, many of them found only in areas exposed to the effects of microplastic pollution. Man-made cellulose fibers are a microplastic highly present in the digestive tract of various fish species. It can lead to harmful effects due to its ability to transfer harmful dyes or contaminants to aquatic fauna through direct ingestion or consumption of contaminated plankton [13,14].
Microplastic pollution is a complex problem, as it is widespread and the exact harmful effects of long and short exposure are not known, although it certainly has considerable consequences for biota, the environment, and public health.
Lately, some studies have evaluated the behavior-linked effects (feeding, speed, predator’s avoidance, and reproductive activity) that MPs have on some species [15]. In these scenarios, MPs reduced growth, energy reserves and nutrient quality in Sebastes schlegelii [16], while brief exposure to MPs from the polyethylene induced a deficiency of anti-predatory defensive response, locomotor changes, and anxiety-like behaviors in the tadpoles of Physalaemus cuvieri [17].
Several other studies were conducted on the potential impacts that microplastics can have in the marine environment [18]. Data show alterations in immunological responses [19,20] and antioxidant systems, neurotoxic effects, an onset of genotoxicity, changes in the gene expression profile in mussels [21], and even carcinogenesis [2].
The frequent presence of microplastics as pollutants in different types of environments has made human exposure, largely through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact, inevitable. Under different conditions of microplastics exposure, this may cause inflammatory lesions, correlated with the potential of their surfaces to interact with tissues, and an increased incidence of neurodegenerative diseases, immune disorders, and cancers in humans may also be relevant [22,23]. The studied toxicological effects on the four different taxa are shown in Figure 1.
Microplastics were often found in the Black Sea’s water column [22,23] or surface water [24,25,26,27,28]. Microplastics particles were also found in the beach sediment [29,30] and in deep-sea sediments [31], from where they could be taken up by biota. Several studies showed the presence of fibers and films in the individuals of Donax trunculus, Chamelea gallina, Anadara inaequivalvis, and Pitar rudis, and fragments were found in D. trunculus and C. gallina only [32]. Gedik and Eryaşar found an average abundance of MPs of 0.69 items per mussel, while 48% from the examined mussels had MPs [33].
This paper aims to review the microplastics quantities recorded in the Black Sea by riveran countries and to highlight “microplastic hotspots” according to sea hydrology and its currents. Moreover, the toxicity and harmful effects of MPs on aquatic biota are already known and will be summarized in this paper to identify certain species sensitive to these contaminants.
According to Black Sea hydrology, a major component of the general water circulation is the main current of the Black Sea (rim current), which moves in a cyclonic direction at the edge of the continental shelf and surrounds the entire basin. Inside, there are two other cyclonic circuits, one in each half of the basin. At its periphery, various medium-scale anticyclonic circuits are formed, some with a permanent character (Batumi area), and others that are semi-permanent (southwest of Sevastopol and eastern Kaliakra) or transient (steep western continental zone). The current’s speed is, on average, 15–30 cm s−1. In the area of the western continental shelf of the Black Sea, near the Danube mouth, there are two currents: one from north to south and another from south to north. The current from north to south flows directly into the coastal area (near the shore) on the entire depths, with speeds between 0.33–0.47 m s−1. The current from south to north flows in a compact mass up to a depth of 10 m, over a width of 40 nautical miles, and tends to push and maintain the north–south current along the coast. The current from south to north has the same speed of 0.47 m s−1 [34,35]. The highest salinity corresponds to a depth level of 200 m, a transition zone between the shelf and the continental slope [36]. In addition, although it is known that MP particles are transported from the surface to the seabed by vertical decantation because of their density, the spatial distribution, fate, and transport dynamics of MPs are now understood to be governed by the seabed and thermohaline currents [37].
Regarding the discharge of large rivers coming from the interior of riveran countries, the Black Sea has a positive balance of freshwater in its surface layer, in which inputs from freshwater sources, rivers, and rainfall exceed evaporation losses by 180 km3 per year. The Danube is the Black Sea’s principal source of freshwater, supplying it with an average of 209 km3 of freshwater per year. In this way, the Black Sea shelf receives major freshwater discharges from the large rivers of Europe [38], which makes it very prone to the accumulation of pollutants and especially to the accumulation of microplastics.
Recently, a study made by Görmüş raised a red flag regarding erosion on the Black Sea coast. It concluded that 23% of the Black Sea coastline has been eroded by more than 1 m year−1 and, in all six riveran countries, the Romanian shore was the most affected by erosion, with 60% of the shoreline affected [39].
A new awareness of the aquatic environment comes with the COVID-19 pandemic. Since it was detected in 2019 and the wearing of disposable masks became mandatory, a new source of pollution appeared. Early 2020 faced us with an unprecedented rise in the global production of face masks made from polymeric materials, such as polypropylene, polyurethane, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester [40]. Immediately, researchers became alarmed about the potentially harmful effects of this [41,42]. A face-protecting mask, as a solid waste, will be degraded by natural factors such as wind or waves and lead to microplastic pollution and increased environmental threats. Shen and colleagues demonstrated in a recent study that disposable masks act as an important potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment, especially with the increase in global consumption. Furthermore, with the increase in use times, the release of microplastics fibers has also increased [43]. A single-aged mask will release billions of microplastic fibers into the marine environment [44].
A better perspective on the production and waste generation of polymeric materials is afforded by PlasticsEurope statistics for 2020, which show that total global plastic production reached 368 million tons in 2019, 9 million tons more than in 2018. In Europe, plastic production decreased, with 3.9 million tons less in 2019 compared to 2018 [45]. Although data on the recycling rates of plastics show that Romania and Bulgaria recycle between 40 and 60% of plastic waste [46], the rest is placed in landfill with some parts reaching the riverbed or the sea, by accident or deliberately. In 2018, the average Romanian citizen generated 15 kg plastic waste, more than a Turkish citizen (8 kg year−1) and less than a Bulgarian citizen (37 kg year−1). In terms of plastic waste generation by countries that share the Black Sea coast, in first place is Turkey [46] and in last place is Ukraine with a quantity ten times smaller than other riveran countries [47]. Currently, one of the biggest worldwide problems is recycling, as not all plastics can be reused. Regarding this situation, researchers are looking forward to creating alternatives for the use of plastic waste to increase the recycling rate but also for economic purposes. A study shows the potential and benefits of PE pyrolysis oil in combination with Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles as a replacement for diesel, thus potentially alleviating the energy crisis we are in with materials that are already present in large quantities in landfills [48].

2. Materials and Methods Used for MPs Identification

Since we do not have a standardized method for identifying microplastics, but only recommendations, there are some methodological differences regarding the identification of these materials. Consequently, throughout this section, we will describe the methodologies used to identify microplastics in the Black Sea and the differences involved, also shown in Figure 2.
The presence of MPs was studied by trawling the water using nets with different opening areas: between 0.12 m2 [24,26] and 0.25–0.28 m2 for the surface water [27,28] and 2.5–2.7 m long and a 200–330 µm mesh size for the water column. In their 2016 study, Aytan et al. [25] used a net 2.6 m long with a 0.25 m2 opening area and 200 µm mesh size for the upper 20 cm of the water column. Additionally, different solutions were used for sample digestion, such as the mixture H2O2 and ZnCl2 [27], H2O2 [26], or the combination of KOH and H2O2 [28]. Microplastics particles were separated from samples using the gravity method [25] or were vacuum-filtered with glass fiber filters with 47 mm diameter and a pore size between 1.2 µm [27] and 2.7 µm [24,28]. A spectroscopical analysis was also conducted using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) [27,28,49] and spectrometric analysis with pyrolysis GC-MS [30].
Studies conducted on beach sediment samples had a similar methodology: firstly, density separation was conducted using a NaCl solution that was vacuum-filtered through 1 μm polycarbonate (PC) filters (47 mm diameter) and digested with H2O2 for 7 days [29], or directly transferred and digested with HCl [30]. In both studies, a stereomicroscope was used to visually identify and presort the particles. Spectroscopic analysis was conducted using FTIR spectroscopy in most studies [30,49], while [29] also using the GC-MS pyrolysis tests.
For the depth sediment samples collected at depths ranged from 22 to 2131 m, the study explored a non-invasive method consisting of filtration (using a Büchner glass funnel and glass filters with 0.49 μm pore size) of the supernatant from the mixture of sediment with saturated NaCl solution, followed by 2D imaging Fourier-transform infrared for the identification of natural and synthetic polymers [31].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microplastic Abundance in the Black Sea

One of the main sources of pollution in the Black Sea is the discharge of rivers, and the largest contribution is expected from the Danube River. Lechner’s study estimated that 4.2 t of plastic per day and a quantity of 1533 t per year reach the Black Sea via the Danube River [50].
There are differences in microplastics abundance between beach and depth sediment samples, even between water column and water surface samples, which probably reflect variations in the original source of microplastics, salinity, and local hydrodynamic conditions.
The highest microplastic concentrations in the sediment samples were found on the Black Sea coast and proximal shelf, indicating the fate of low-density particles in coastal sediments. A recent study showed an average abundance of 106.7 MPs kg−1 in all samples. The highest pollution occurred on the northwestern shelf, where the abundance of MPs in the depth sediments was 10 times higher [31]. Studies have also shown a large difference in the abundance of MPs between the beach sediment samples from Romania and those from Bulgaria; in Bulgaria the abundance was four times higher than in Romania and twice as high as in-depth samples (Figure 3B) [30,31]. According to two different studies regarding the sediments from the shore and from shallow depths in Turkey, a difference between the levels can be clearly seen. Thus, an average of 66.06 MPs kg−1 is present at the level of the upper shoreline, and an average of 211 MPs kg−1 is present at 10 m depth [49], while at a depth of 30 m this amount decreases to an average of 180 MPs kg−1 [51]. These data suggest that the spatial distribution of microplastics depends on the depth of the sampling area; however, a lower depth can become a place of accumulation for microplastics.
Significant statistical differences were also found in the water sample results; in this case, the highest concentrations of MPs were found in the water column in Turkey with an average of 24.475 ± 26.153 MPs m−3 [24]. The values for surface water were lower than for the water column and ranged from 0.62 MPs m−3 to 17.5 MPs m−3. The lowest quantity was found in Bulgaria with 0.62 MPs m−3 [26], followed by Romania with an average of 7 MPs m−3 [26], and then Turkey with an average of 7.21 MPs m−3 [24,27,49]. (Figure 3B).
After summarizing the results of the specialized studies (Table 1), two different maps were generated regarding the abundance of microplastic particles in different sampling points to obtain an overview of these pollutants in the Black Sea (Figure 4). By analyzing the abundance of microplastics in sediments (Figure 4A), it can be seen that they are present in higher quantities in the northern Black Sea, in the area of Ukraine, but also at the mouths of the Danube River in Romania. A higher abundance was found at Midia Cape and at Kaliakra Cape, and this may be related to the hydrodynamics of vertical currents that force the sedimentation of microplastic particles in these regions. It is worrying that in some areas of the deep sea, especially near Romania, large amounts of microplastics were found; a possible reason would be the sedimentation of particles in the Danube and their transport by deep currents into the open sea to create a “hotspot” for such pollutants. Referring to the abundance of MP in the water column (Figure 4B), higher concentrations were observed at the mouths of the Danube, along the Romanian coast, and especially near Midia Cape and Kaliakra Cape, Bulgaria. Worrying amounts of microplastics are also present along the Turkish shore, in addition to on the Romanian coast and at the two points of high accumulation already mentioned. This may be related to the discharge of the large nearby rivers (Danube River, Sakarya River, Kızılırmak River, Yeşilırmak River), commercial activities in the Black Sea such as navigation and fishing, and the hydrodynamics of the surface currents. Our data are very similar to the numerical modeling of the accumulation of floating debris in the Black Sea [52]. Moreover, the transport of microplastic particles is not very clearly understood and several factors can interfere here, such as the hydrodynamics of vertical and surface currents, salinity, wind, wave strength, or temperature.
The presence of microplastics in marine organisms in the Black Sea has been investigated by various studies in recent years. A study conducted between 2014 and 2015 examined MPs from zooplankton samples collected during two cruises along the southeast coast of the Black Sea. The average concentrations found were 1.2 ± 1.1 MPs m−3 in November 2014 and 0.6 ± 0.55 MPs m−3 in February 2015, and the microplastic morphotypes were mostly fibers (49.4%), films (30.6%), and fragments (20%) [25]. Recently, microplastic particles were detected in copepods from the southeastern Black Sea; the results for 2136 individuals of Acartia clausi and 2123 of Calanus euxinu showed that the microplastics’ frequency of occurrence was 0.002 MPs/Acartia (one MP for every 356 Acartia), respectively, and 0.004 MPs/Calanus (one MP for every 265 Calanus) [53].
Another study showed the presence of microplastics in five bivalve species (Donax trunculus, Chamelea gallina, Abra alba, Anadara inaequivalvis and Pitar rudis) in the southern Black Sea. Microplastics were found in all bivalve species except Abra alba. The average number of microplastics ranged between 1.69 and 4 MPs ind−1. Fibers were the most common type of microplastic in each bivalve species, followed by fragments and films in nine different colors, mostly black and blue [32]. More recently, Aytan et al. [54] conducted a 2022 study on seven commercial species of fish in the Black Sea; the results indicate that microplastics were found in all analyzed specimens, most of them being fibers with lengths between 0.2 and 1 mm. The largest quantities have been found in the species Sarda sarda, Engraulis encrasicolus, and Mullus barbatus; due to their high abundance and distribution in the Black Sea basin, these species could be suitable as bioindicators for the microplastic pollution in the Black Sea.
In 2018, a quantity of 1510 tons of mussels was produced in Turkey alone [55], which allowed us to calculate the daily consumption value of seafood (considering that only one portion is consumed per week) as being 22.8 g day−1. If a person consumes 22.8 g of mussels per day, according to the average of MP abundance of 0.69 MPs mussel−1, the annual exposure for an adult through consumption can be estimated as 1918 MP per year [33]. Another bivalve affected by microplastic accumulation was recently studied by Gedik [51] and had an average value of between 0.22 and 2.17 MPs ind.−1. In this way, Chamelea gallina is not far from Mediterranean mussels, as both species are being commercialized for human consumption.

3.2. Polymer Nature and the Shapes of Microplastics in the Black Sea

Various polymeric compositions were found in the Black Sea, both in the water and sediments samples (Figure 3A). The most present polymer type in the sediment samples was Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) followed by Polyethylene (PE) and styrene acrylonitrile copolymer (SAC). In the water samples, the most present polymer type was Polypropylene (PP), followed by Polyethylene (PE) and Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The reason for this reversal is very likely to be density, as polypropylene (PP) has a lower density (0.905 g cm−3) than polyethylene (PE) (0.965 g cm−3) [56], which favors floating in the water column or at the surface. These materials are also the most common types found as dominant floating polymers in marine environments, both globally and regionally [57,58,59].
Statistically speaking, in the Black Sea, there is some correlation between different types of polymers. The presence of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is strongly correlated with the presence of Polystyrene (PS), Polypropylene (PP) and Polyacrylonitrile (PAN), an organic polymer resin.
Various shapes of MPs were found (Figure 3C) in different sites and different types of samples from the Black Sea. Fibers were the most common shape found, followed by fragments and films. Statistical analysis showed a higher correlation between the presence of fragments and the presence of spherules in the samples. A positive correlation was also observed between fragments and films, as well as between fibers and films, and foams and pellets, respectively.

4. Conclusions

A literature-based profile on plastic pollution in the Black Sea—pollution originating in the discharge of large rivers, transportation, and other economic activities, including the COVID-19 pandemic—was achieved. We summarized the methodologies that have been applied to investigate the presence of microplastics in beach sediments, deep sediments, water columns, and sea surface water, as well as the results from the literature. At present, there is a large amount of polymeric material in the Black Sea in water, sediments, and marine organisms, which triggers an alarm signal for the protection of the environment and human health. As such, research on this topic needs to be improved, with a focus on the transport, degradation, and impact of these pollutants. Furthermore, more studies are needed regarding the spatial distribution of microplastics in sediments from a latitudinal point of view and in the water column from a point of view of depth. Therefore, the identification of a preferred place for microplastics accumulation would be possible, taking into account several specific factors for the Black Sea, such as currents or salinity distribution. This will then help to identify species that may be endangered by this pollutant, with the possibility of finding bioindicators for its accumulation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft preparation, Writing—review and editing A.S.; Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing—review and editing M.N.N.; Writing—review and editing, C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Strungaru, S.A.; Jijie, R.; Nicoara, M.; Plavan, G.; Faggio, C. Micro- (nano) plastics in freshwater ecosystems: Abundance, toxicological impact and quantification methodology. Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 110, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alimba, C.; Faggio, C. Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends in environmental pollution and mechanisms of toxicological profile. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 68, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schirinzi, G.F.; Pedà, C.; Battaglia, P.; Laface, F.; Galli, M.; Baini, M.; Consoli, P.; Scotti, G.; Esposito, V.; Faggio, C.; et al. A new digestion approach for the extraction of microplastics from gastrointestinal tracts (GITs) of the common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) from the western Mediterranean Sea. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 397, 122794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Piehl, S.; Leibner, A.; Löder, M.G.J.; Dris, R.; Bogner, C.; Laforsch, C. Identification and quantification of macro- and microplastics on an agricultural farmland. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Ren, Z.; Gui, X.; Xu, X.; Zhao, L.; Qiu, H.; Cao, X. Microplastics in the soil-groundwater environment: Aging, migration, and co-transport of contaminants—A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cheung, P.K.; Hung, P.L.; Fok, L. River Microplastic Contamination and Dynamics upon a Rainfall Event in Hong Kong, China. Environ. Process. 2018, 6, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Qian, J.; Tang, S.; Wang, P.; Lu, B.; Li, K.; Jin, W.; He, X. From source to sink: Review and prospects of microplastics in wetland ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 758, 143633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gopinath, K.; Seshachalam, S.; Neelavannan, K.; Anburaj, V.; Rachel, M.; Ravi, S.; Bharath, M.; Achyuthan, H. Quantification of microplastic in Red Hills Lake of Chennai city, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 33297–33306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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]
  10. Bergmann, M.; Mützel, S.; Primpke, S.; Tekman, M.B.; Trachsel, J.; Gerdts, G. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brahney, J.; Hallerud, M.; Heim, E.; Hahnenberger, M.; Sukumaran, S. Plastic rain in protected areas of the United States. Science 2020, 368, 1257–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. European Commission. Natura 2000 in the Black Sea Region; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  13. Macieira, R.M.; Oliveira, L.A.S.; Cardozo-Ferreira, G.C.; Pimentel, C.R.; Andrades, R.; Gasparini, J.L.; Sarti, F.; Chelazzi, D.; Cincinelli, A.; Gomes, L.C.; et al. Microplastic and artificial cellulose microfibers ingestion by reef fishes in the Guarapari Islands, southwestern Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Savoca, S.; Capillo, G.; Mancuso, M.; Faggio, C.; Panarello, G.; Crupi, R.; Bonsignore, M.; D’Urso, L.; Compagnini, G.; Neri, F.; et al. Detection of artificial cellulose microfibers in Boops boops from the northern coasts of Sicily (Central Mediterranean). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 691, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prokić, M.D.; Gavrilović, B.R.; Radovanović, T.B.; Gavrić, J.P.; Petrović, T.G.; Despotović, S.G.; Faggio, C. Studying microplastics: Lessons from animal model organisms and experimental approaches. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 414, 125476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yin, L.; Chen, B.; Xia, B.; Shi, X.; Qu, K. Polystyrene microplastics alter the behavior, energy reserve and nutritional composition of marine jacopever (Sebastes schlegelii). J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 360, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Araújo, A.; Malafaia, G. Can short exposure to polyethylene microplastics change tadpoles’ behavior? A study conducted with neotropical tadpole species belonging to order anura (Physalaemus cuvieri). J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 391, 122214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guzzetti, E.; Sureda, A.; Tejada, S.; Faggio, C. Microplastic in marine organism: Environmental and toxicological effects. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2018, 64, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Burgos Aceves, M.A.; Abo-Al-Ela, H.G.; Faggio, C. Impact of phthalates and bisphenols plasticizers on haemocyte immune function of aquatic invertebrates: A review on physiological, biochemical, and genomic aspects. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Burgos Aceves, M.A.; Abo-Al-Ela, H.G.; Faggio, C. Physiological and metabolic approach of plastic additives effects: Immune cells responses. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 404 Pt A, 124114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Avio, C.G.; Gorbi, S.; Milan, M.; Benedetti, M.; Fattorini, D.; d’Errico, G.; Pauletto, M.; Bargelloni, L.; Regoli, F. Pollutants bioavailability and toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 198, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, L.; Luo, T.; Zhao, Y.; Cai, C.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. Interaction between microplastics and microorganism as well as gut microbiota: A consideration on environmental animal and human health. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 667, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Prata, J.C.; da Costa, J.P.; Lopes, I.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Oztekin, A.; Bat, L. Microlitter Pollution in Sea Water: A Preliminary Study from Sinop Sarikum Coast of the Southern Black Sea. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2017, 17, 1431–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aytan, Ü.; Valente, A.; Senturk, Y.; Usta, R.; Sahin, F.B.E.; Mazlum, R.E.; Agirbas, E. First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea waters. Mar. Environ. Res. 2016, 119, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Berov, D.; Klayn, S. Microplastics and floating litter pollution in Bulgarian Black Sea coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 156, 111225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eryaşar, A.R.; Gedik, K.; Şahin, A.; Öztürk, R.; Yılmaz, F. Characteristics and temporal trends of microplastics in the coastal area in the Southern Black Sea over the past decade. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 112993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pojar, I.; Kochleus, C.; Dierkes, G.; Ehlers, S.M.; Reifferscheid, G.; Stock, F. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of plastic particles in surface waters of the Western Black Sea. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268 Pt A, 115724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pojar, I.; Stănică, A.; Stock, F.; Kochleus, C.; Schultz, M.; Bradley, C. Sedimentary microplastic concentrations from the Romanian Danube River to the Black Sea. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Savuca, A.; Strungaru, S.A.; Nicoara, M.; Plavan, G. A study regarding the pollution of sediments from Romanian Black sea coast with microplastic fibers. An. Științ. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iași S Biol. Anim. 2017, 63, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cincinelli, A.; Scopetani, C.; Chelazzi, D.; Martellini, T.; Pogojeva, M.; Slobodnik, J. Microplastics in the Black Sea sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 760, 143898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Entürk, Y.; Esensoy, F.B.; Öztekin, A.; Aytan, Ü. Microplastics in bivalves in the southern Black Sea. In Marine Litter in the Black Sea; Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A., Eds.; Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV): Istanbul, Turkey, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gedik, K.; Eryaşar, A.R. Microplastic pollution profile of Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) collected along the Turkish coasts. Chemosphere 2020, 260, 127570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bakan, G.; Büyükgüngör, H. The Black Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 41, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Staneva, J.V.; Dietrich, D.E.; Stanev, E.V.; Bowman, M.J. Rim current and coastal eddy mechanisms in an eddy-resolving Black Sea general circulation model. J. Mar. Syst. 2001, 31, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Boguslavsky, S.G.; Zhorov, V.A.; Ivashchenko, I.K. Formation of the vertical salinity profile in the Black Sea. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 1994, 5, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kane, I.A.; Clare, M.A.; Miramontes, E.; Wogelius, R.; Rothwell, J.J.; Garreau, P.; Pohl, F. Seafloor microplastic hotspots controlled by deep-sea circulation. Science 2020, 368, 1140–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shapiro, G.I. Black Sea Circulation. In Book Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, 3rd ed.; Cochran, J.K., Bokuniewicz, H.J., Yager, P.L., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 303–317. ISBN 9780128130827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Görmüş, T.; Ayat, B.; Aydoğan, B.; Tătui, F. Basin scale spatiotemporal analysis of shoreline change in the Black Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2021, 252, 107247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Potluri, P.; Needham, P. Technical textiles for protection. In Textiles for Protection; Woodhead: Sawston, UK, 2005; pp. 151–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aragaw, T.A. Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 159, 111517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fadare, O.O.; Okoffo, E.D. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 140279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shen, M.; Zeng, Z.; Song, B.; Yi, H.; Hu, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, G.; Xiao, R. Neglected microplastics pollution in global COVID-19: Disposable surgical masks. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Saliu, F.; Veronelli, M.; Raguso, C.; Barana, D.; Galli, P.; Lasagni, M. The release process of microfibers: From surgical face masks into the marine environment. Environ. Adv. 2021, 4, 100042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. PlasticsEurope. Plastics-the Facts 2020 An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data; PlasticsEurope: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union. Energy, Transport and Environment Statistics: 2020, p. 188. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Waste_statistics#Total_waste_generation (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  47. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. 2018. Available online: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  48. Yusuf, A.A.; Ampah, J.D.; Soudagar, M.E.M.; Veza, I.; Kingsley, U.; Afrane, S.; Jin, C.; Liu, H.; Elfasakhany, A.; Buyondo, K.A. Effects of hybrid nanoparticle additives in n-butanol/waste plastic oil/diesel blends on combustion, particulate and gaseous emissions from diesel engine evaluated with entropy-weighted PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS: Environmental and health risks of plastic waste. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 264, 115758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Terzi, Y.; Gedik, K.; Eryaşar, A.R.; Öztürk, R.; Şahin, A.; Yılmaz, F. Microplastic contamination and characteristics spatially vary in the southern Black Sea beach sediment and sea surface water. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 174, 113228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Lechner, A.; Keckeis, H.; Lumesberger-Loisl, F.; Zens, B.; Krusch, R.; Tritthart, M.; Glas, M.; Schludermann, E. The Danube so colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 188, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Gedik, K.; Gozler, A.M. Hallmarking microplastics of sediments and Chamelea gallina inhabiting Southwestern Black Sea: A hypothetical look at consumption risks. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 174, 113252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lebreton, L.-M.; Greer, S.; Borrero, J. Numerical modelling of floating debris in the world’s oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Aytan, Ü.; Esensoy, F.B.; Yasemen, Ş.; Ertuğrul, A.; Andre, V. Presence of microplastics in zooplankton and planktivorous fish in the southeastern Black Sea. In Marine Litter in the Black Sea; Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A., Eds.; Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV): Istanbul, Turkey, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  54. Aytan, U.; Esensoy, F.B.; Senturk, Y.; Arifoglu, E.; Karaoglu, K.; Ceylan, Y.; Valente, A. Plastic Occurrence in Commercial Fish Species of the Black Sea. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 22, TRJFAS20504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Turkish Statistical Institute, ATurkey. TURKSTAT. 2019. Available online: www.tuik.gov.tr (accessed on 5 November 2021).
  56. Wani, A.; Singh, P.; Langowski, H.-C. Food Technologies: Packaging. In Encyclopedia of Food Safety; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cózar, A.; Echevarría, F.; González-Gordillo, J.I.; Irigoien, X.; Úbeda, B.; Hernández-León, S.; Palma, Á.T.; Navarro, S.; García-De-Lomas, J.; Ruiz, A.; et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 10239–10244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Reisser, J.; Shaw, J.; Wilcox, C.; Hardesty, B.D.; Proietti, M.; Thums, M.; Pattiaratchi, C. Marine Plastic Pollution in Waters around Australia: Characteristics, Concentrations, and Pathways. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. de Haan, W.P.; Sanchez-Vidal, A.; Canals, M. Floating microplastics and aggregate formation in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 523–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 14376 g001 550
Figure 1. The studied toxicological effects on the 4 different taxa.
Figure 1. The studied toxicological effects on the 4 different taxa.
Sustainability 14 14376 g001
Sustainability 14 14376 g002 550
Figure 2. Methodologies used to identify microplastics in the Black Sea and the differences involved.
Figure 2. Methodologies used to identify microplastics in the Black Sea and the differences involved.
Sustainability 14 14376 g002
Sustainability 14 14376 g003 550
Figure 3. The percentage of the different polymers found in different sites and sample types (A) (SD = Sediment Sample, WS = Water Sample); The average of MPs items in different sites and sample types (B) [SD = Sediment Sample (MPs kg−1), WS = Surface Water Sample (MPs m−3), WC = Water Column Sample (MPs m−3)], with p < 0.05 (Anova test), and different shapes (C) of MPs items in different sites and sample types (SD = Sediment Sample, WS = Water Sample), with p < 0.05 (Anova test).
Figure 3. The percentage of the different polymers found in different sites and sample types (A) (SD = Sediment Sample, WS = Water Sample); The average of MPs items in different sites and sample types (B) [SD = Sediment Sample (MPs kg−1), WS = Surface Water Sample (MPs m−3), WC = Water Column Sample (MPs m−3)], with p < 0.05 (Anova test), and different shapes (C) of MPs items in different sites and sample types (SD = Sediment Sample, WS = Water Sample), with p < 0.05 (Anova test).
Sustainability 14 14376 g003
Sustainability 14 14376 g004 550
Figure 4. Sampling sites and the microplastic abundance in sediment samples (MPs kg1) (A) and in water samples (MPs m−3) (B).
Figure 4. Sampling sites and the microplastic abundance in sediment samples (MPs kg1) (A) and in water samples (MPs m−3) (B).
Sustainability 14 14376 g004
Table
Table 1. Densities and characterization of the microplastics in riveran countries.
Table 1. Densities and characterization of the microplastics in riveran countries.
Water samplesQuantity
(MP m−3)		 Digestion/Polymer Identification MethodRef.
Sea SurfaceTurkey0.54 H2O2 + ZnCl2/FTIR[27]
Bulgaria0.62 H2O2/FTIR[26]
Turkey2.4 -[24]
Romania7 KOH + H2O2/GS-MC + ATR-FTIR[28]
Turkey18.68 -/FTIR[49]
Sea DepthTurkey25.4 -[24]
Turkey9.1 Gravity method[25]
Plastic type (%)PEPETPSPAPPPVCPANOthers
Turkey44.925.38.726.385.765.240.2383.432H2O2 + ZnCl2/FTIR[27]
Turkey13.4654.91.256.2511.060.295.16.85-/FTIR[49]
Romania 9.1375.8 12.1 KOH+ H2O2/GS-MC + ATR-FTIR[28]
Shape Type (%)FragmentsFibersFilmsFoamsPelletsSpherulesOthers
Turkey56.319.813.69.580.76 H2O2 + ZnCl2/FTIR[27]
Turkey2049.430.6 Gravity method[25]
Turkey9.74302.9453.3 5 -[24]
Turkey34.855.279.73 0.2 -/FTIR[49]
Romania11.1074.6012.60 0.10 KOH+ H2O2/GS-MC + ATR-FTIR[28]
Bulgaria49.40 42.188.14 H2O2/FTIR[26]
ColorsBlackWhiteBlueGreenRedYellowOthers
Turkey6.3238.9215.166.079.111.8623.16 -[24]
Romania46.624.616643 KOH+ H2O2/GS-MC + ATR-FTIR[28]
Sediment samplesQuantity (MP kg−1)
Bulgaria244.75 H2O2/µFTIR[29]
Romania49.5 HCl/-[30]
Turkey66.06 H2O2/FTIR[49]
Deep Sea106.7 -/FTIR[31]
Plastic type (%)PEPETPSPPPVCPANPMMASACOthers
Bulgaria 311826 134 8H2O2/µFTIR[29]
Turkey6.7334.865.812.45 39.1411H2O2/FTIR[49]
Deep Sea44.5 32 4.7 13.3 -/FTIR[31]
Shape Type (%)FragmentsFibersFilmsFoamsPelletsSpherules
Bulgaria2060 515 H2O2/µFTIR[29]
Romania 100 HCl/-[30]
Turkey46.7541.2310.06 1.95 H2O2/FTIR[49]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Savuca, A.; Nicoara, M.N.; Faggio, C. Comprehensive Review regarding the Profile of the Microplastic Pollution in the Coastal Area of the Black Sea. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114376

AMA Style

Savuca A, Nicoara MN, Faggio C. Comprehensive Review regarding the Profile of the Microplastic Pollution in the Coastal Area of the Black Sea. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114376

Chicago/Turabian Style

Savuca, Alexandra, Mircea Nicusor Nicoara, and Caterina Faggio. 2022. "Comprehensive Review regarding the Profile of the Microplastic Pollution in the Coastal Area of the Black Sea" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114376

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