Next Article in Journal
Evolution of a Potentially Dangerous Glacial Lake on the Kanchenjunga Glacier, Nepal, Predictive Flood Models, and Prospective Community Response
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial–Temporal Evolution of Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Based on DEA Approach and Spatial Autocorrelation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 10
10.3390/w17101455
water-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

A Bibliometric Review of Environmental Pollution Research in Major Global Gulfs

by
Daoyuan Jiang
1,2,3,
Qiao Yang
1,
Yang Fang
4,
Xiaoling Zhang
1,* and
Jing Song
2,3,*
1
Marine Science and Technology College, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316022, China
2
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
3
Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Urban Environmental Processes and Pollution Control, CAS Haixi Industrial Technology Innovation Center in Beilun, Ningbo 315830, China
4
Mineral Resources Institute of Fuyang District, Hangzhou 311499, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(10), 1455; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101455
Submission received: 10 April 2025 / Revised: 3 May 2025 / Accepted: 7 May 2025 / Published: 12 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Oceans and Coastal Zones)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Major global gulfs are essential for economic development but remain highly vulnerable to environmental pollutants. Despite progress in gulf environmental research, the extent of research investment in gulf environments across different regions worldwide remains unclear, which hinders the development of a unified global framework for bay environmental management. We aim to fill this gap by integrating GIS and Python-based methods to identify the ten largest gulfs globally and conducting a statistical analysis of research publications from 2000 to 2024 for these gulfs, based on the Web of Science core database. We find that the publication numbers show a correlation with the size of the gulf. However, the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of St. Lawrence show higher publication volumes, likely influenced by economic activities and major environmental incidents. In contrast, regions such as Hudson Bay and the Gulf of Carpentaria receive relatively less research attention. This suggests that scientific output in gulf regions may be attributed to economic activities and significant environmental events. Water quality research predominates, while sediment studies, particularly in high-latitude gulf areas (such as Hudson Bay), account for the lowest proportion, possibly due to sampling costs and challenges. Traditional pollutants, especially heavy metals (HMs) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), are the primary focus of research. The investigation of emerging contaminants reveals significant regional disparities, emphasizing the necessity for further research and enhanced regulatory frameworks. This study provides scientific evidence for the unified governance of gulf environments.

1. Introduction

A gulf is a distinct indentation of the coastline extending into the land, typically forming a closed or semi-enclosed water body [1]. As transitional zones between terrestrial and marine environments, gulfs are essential in sustaining ecological equilibrium and supporting critical sectors of the marine economy, including fisheries, tourism, and maritime trade [2,3,4]. Some coastal cities located along gulfs have rapidly developed into globally significant economic hubs due to their strategic geographical locations, such as Gulf of Mexico [5]. The major global gulfs, while providing significant support for local economic development, also exhibit strong ecological vulnerability, primarily characterized by their high sensitivity to environmental impacts. This vulnerability arises from the semi-enclosed geographic features and unique hydrodynamic conditions of the gulf areas, which facilitate the accumulation of pollutants and lead to long-term toxic effects. For example, the Gulf of Mexico experiences seasonal hypoxic “dead zones” caused by excessive nutrient input from the Mississippi River [6]. In addition, global climate change may exceed the ecological carrying capacities of certain gulf systems, leading to biodiversity loss, such as mangrove degradation in the Bay of Bengal [7] and the loss of marine biological resources in the Gulf of Guinea [8]. Additionally, anthropogenic activities have further exacerbated ecological disturbances in gulf areas. A notable example is the “Deepwater Horizon” oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which caused significant degradation of local biological communities and marine ecosystems [9].
Global gulf environments are subject to varying degrees of pollution due to human activities and environmental changes. In Asia, high concentrations of microplastics have been detected along the Persian Gulf coastline, reaching up to 3252 ± 2766 particles/m2 [10]. In the Bay of Bengal, the concentrations of HMs in surface seawater frequently exceed international marine water quality standards [11]. In the benthic environment of the Gulf of Guinea, both Cd and Pb pose significant ecological risks, with a 21% probability of toxicity [12]. In the Gulf of Hudson, high concentrations of POPs have been found in the bodies of polar bears and seals [13]. In the Baltic Sea, biological surveys have shown that many legacy pollutants, which have long been banned, continue to affect wildlife species [14]. Along the coast of Guanabara Bay in South America, extreme levels of fecal sterols (9.8 to 200 μg/L) and Escherichia coli density (105 to 1012 MPN/100 mL) have been detected [15]. Some of these pollutants, such as HMs and POPs, accumulate in the tissues of organisms to toxic levels, disrupting cellular metabolism, impairing enzyme function, and leading to cell apoptosis, tissue damage, and organ dysfunction [16,17]. Emerging contaminants, such as microplastics and pharmaceuticals, may disrupt endocrine functions, posing risks to the reproduction, development, and immune systems of both humans and animals [18,19,20,21].
Although environmental issues in major global gulfs have received some attention, research investment in gulfs across different parts of the world remains unclear. To understand the current research status of major global gulfs and the investment in environmental research on various issues, this study conducts a comprehensive analysis of the research output from 2000 to 2024 for the top ten largest gulfs globally, based on the Web of Science database. The analysis evaluates the overall publication volume in gulf regions, the volume of environmental research publications, and the investment in research on traditional and emerging contaminants. We aim to understand the current research investment in the environment of major global gulfs, in order to provide scientific evidence for the development of a unified global governance framework for gulf environments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Gulf Information Determination

This study utilized a combination of GIS and Python methods to identify the top ten largest bays in the world by area. Based on the gulf boundary criteria stipulated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [22], the start and end points of each gulf were determined according to the standards established by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). Utilizing the coordinate data of the start and end points obtained from the GeoNames database, vector spatial boundaries of each gulf were established. The process involves the following steps: (1) Delineating the Boundaries of the Gulfs: The graphical digitization function under the graphical tools of Surfer 23 software was used to delineate gulf boundaries on a global coastline base map. The coastline data was sourced from the Natural Earth global coastline product (Coastline version 4.1.0) with a resolution of 1:10m. The gulf boundary data was saved in .bln format. (2) Data Conversion and Area Calculation: The .bln files were converted to .xls format, and the polygonal areas were calculated using the proj module of Python 3 (WGS84 projection). (3) Area Measurement: The geometry_area_perimeter method from the Geod package was employed to calculate the area of each gulf (km2). (4) Ranking: The ten largest gulfs by area were identified and ranked accordingly (Figure 1). Detailed information for each gulf is provided in Table S1.

2.2. Retrieval Strategy

2.2.1. Overall Research

The publication data for this study was obtained from the Web of Science™ Core Collection (an internationally recognized authoritative and comprehensive academic information resource database) [23]. To systematically evaluate the current research status concerning the world’s ten largest gulfs by area, statistical analysis was conducted on the total number of publications related to these major global gulfs from 2000 to 2024. To ensure the completeness of the gulf region searches, a dual retrieval strategy was employed. We first conducted searches using internationally recognized standard names for each gulf. Then, we expanded the searches to include historical names, commonly used aliases, and related coastal zone names. For example, in the case of the Gulf of Bengal, the composite search string constructed was: Topic = (“Gulf of Bengal” OR “East Indian Gulf” OR “Ganges Gulf” OR “East Indian Coast” OR “Bangladesh coast” OR “Coromandel Coast” OR “Odisha Coast” OR “Rakhine Coast” OR “Sundarbans Coast” OR “Andaman Coast” OR “Nicobar Coast” OR “Southwest coast of Myanmar” OR “Sri Lanka Coast”) AND Timespan = (2000–2024). The relevant names and associated coastal zones for each target gulf are detailed in Table 1.

2.2.2. Environmental Investigations and Environmental Media

To investigate the research characteristics of environmental studies in target gulfs, we conducted a systematic analysis of thematic literature related to environmental investigations from 2000 to 2024. Based on the overall research trends, we first collected and statistically analyzed the publication volumes associated with environmental investigation themes, employing keywords such as “Environmental”, “Pollution”, “Contamination”, “Monitoring”, “Assessment”, and “Ecosystem”. Subsequently, we categorized the studies according to different environmental media, including water quality, sediments, integrated studies of water and sediments, and other environmental media. For water quality research, the keywords used included “Water pollution”, “Water contamination”, “Water quality”, “Aquatic ecosystem”, “Water toxicity”, and “Hydrochemical analysis”. Regarding sediment studies, we employed keywords such as “Sediment pollution”, “Sediment contamination”, “Sediment quality”, and “Sediment toxicity”. For example, to investigate sediment-related research, we constructed a comprehensive search formula: Topic = (“Environmental” OR “Pollut*” OR “Contaminat*” OR “Monitoring” OR “Assessment”) AND Topic = (“Sediment pollut*” OR “Sediment contaminat*” OR “Sediment quality” OR “Sediment toxicity”) AND Timespan = (2000–2024). This approach enabled a systematic comparison of research trends across different environmental media within each target gulf, providing valuable insights into the focus and evolution of environmental investigation studies in these regions.

2.2.3. Types of Pollutants

To investigate researchers’ focus on various types of pollutants in environmental studies of major gulfs, we first identified common pollutant types and constructed a classification list comprising traditional pollutants and emerging contaminants, along with their primary subcategories (Table 2). The categories of traditional pollutants in this study considered HMs, POPs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nutrients, radioactive elements, and pathogenic microorganisms. Emerging contaminants encompass pesticides, personal care products (PCPs), pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors (EDCs), perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), microplastics, and flame retardants [24,25,26,27,28]. Next, we employed a thematic keyword retrieval strategy to categorize and statistically analyze publication volumes related to different types of pollutants in gulf environmental studies. For instance, in the case of HMs, the constructed search formula was: Topic = (“Heavy Metal*” OR Lead OR Pb OR Cadmium OR Cd OR Mercury OR Hg OR Arsenic OR As OR Chromium OR Cr OR Copper OR Cu OR Zinc OR Zn) AND Timespan = (2000–2024). Finally, we compared the total publication volumes concerning studies on traditional pollutants and emerging contaminants within gulf environmental investigations.

3. Results

3.1. Research Publications of Major Global Gulfs

To assess the level of attention given to major global gulfs in different areas, this study performs a statistical analysis of the overall publication volume for the top ten largest major global gulfs from 2000 to 2024. As shown in Figure 2a, Gulf of Mexico had the highest publication count, totaling 20,081 articles, significantly surpassing other gulfs and accounting for 49.2% of the total sample. The Bay of Bengal (7130 articles) and the Gulf of Guinea (6638 articles) ranked second and third, respectively, with substantial publication volumes. Other notable gulfs included Hudson Bay (1907 articles), Gulf of Alaska (1690 articles), Gulf of St. Lawrence (1083 articles), Gulf of Thailand (970 articles), Gulf of Aden (722 articles), and Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria (289 articles), and Great Australian Bight (289 articles). To further explore regional emphasis on environmental investigations, publications specifically related to environmental research themes in the top ten largest gulfs were analyzed. As illustrated in Figure 2a, the Gulf of Mexico again led with 9796 publications, representing 53.4% of the total environmental investigation literature. The Gulf of Guinea (2789 articles) and the Bay of Bengal (2516 articles) followed with relatively high publication volumes. Subsequently, Hudson Bay (968 articles), Gulf of Alaska (824 articles), Gulf of St. Lawrence (534 articles), Gulf of Thailand (451 articles), Gulf of Aden (199 articles), Gulf of Carpentaria (132 articles), and Great Australian Bight (120 articles) exhibited lower publication frequencies. Notably, Hudson Bay had the largest proportion of environmental investigation publications relative to total publications (50.8%), followed closely by the Gulf of St. Lawrence (49.3%), Gulf of Mexico (48.8%), Gulf of Alaska (48.8%), Gulf of Thailand (46.5%), Gulf of Carpentaria (45.7%), Gulf of Guinea (42.0%), Great Australian Bight (41.5%), Bay of Bengal (35.3%), and Gulf of Aden (27.6%).
To compare the research investment in different environmental media within the environmental investigations of various gulfs, we conducted a categorized statistical analysis of publication volumes based on media type. The environmental investigations of the gulfs include four distinct categories: water quality, sediment, both water and sediment, and other media. As depicted in Figure 2b, water quality emerged as the predominant focus of gulf environmental research overall. Specifically, the Great Australian Bight had the highest percentage of water quality publications at 54.2% (65 articles), followed by the Gulf of Mexico at 47.1% (4618 articles), Bay of Bengal at 45.7% (1150 articles), Gulf of Thailand at 44.6% (201 articles), Hudson Bay at 41.1% (398 articles), Gulf of Alaska at 40.9% (337 articles), Gulf of St. Lawrence at 39.1% (209 articles), Gulf of Carpentaria at 35.6% (47 articles), Gulf of Aden at 35.2% (70 articles), and Gulf of Guinea at 27.3% (761 articles). In contrast, sediment research accounted for the largest proportion in the Great Australian Bight (25.0%, 30 articles), followed by Gulf of Thailand (24.8%, 112 articles), Gulf of Mexico (21.9%, 2150 articles), Bay of Bengal (21.0%, 528 articles), Gulf of Carpentaria (19.7%, 26 articles), Gulf of Guinea (16.2%, 451 articles), Gulf of Aden (14.6%, 29 articles), Hudson Bay (12.9%, 125 articles), Gulf of St. Lawrence (9.6%, 51 articles), and Gulf of Alaska (7.5%, 62 articles). Combined studies of both water and sediments were relatively prominent in the Gulf of Thailand (12.9%, 58 articles), Gulf of Mexico (12.6%, 1239 articles), Bay of Bengal (12.0%, 302 articles), and Great Australian Bight (11.7%, 14 articles), while other gulfs exhibited lower percentages below 10%.

3.2. Publications in Different Types of Pollutants

To comprehensively assess the variations in research focus on different pollutant types within environmental studies across major global gulfs, publication volumes were statistically analyzed based on a constructed classification list of pollutants. Results comparing traditional versus emerging contaminants in the major global gulfs are presented in Figure 3a. The findings indicate that traditional pollutant research publications comprised over 90% of the total research volume in all studied gulfs except the Gulf of Thailand. Emerging contaminant studies accounted for the largest proportion in the Gulf of Thailand (11%), while other gulfs exhibited proportions ranging from 2% to 6%. Detailed analysis of traditional pollutants revealed strong consistency in research emphasis across all gulfs, as shown in Figure 3b. HMs emerged as the predominant pollutant category, constituting over 56% of environmental research publications for all gulfs, with the Gulf of Aden recording the largest proportion at 71% (137 articles). POPs were the second most studied, representing between 16.9% and 36.2% of the total research publications across the gulfs. Publications related to other traditional pollutants accounted for less than 13%.
Regarding emerging contaminants, substantial variations in research investment were observed across gulfs, as shown in Figure 3c. Microplastic research held the largest proportion within emerging contaminant studies in the Bay of Bengal and Gulf of Thailand, accounting for 49.4% (83 articles) and 71.7% (38 articles), respectively. Conversely, research on pesticides dominated in the Gulf of Mexico (36.1%, 99 articles), Gulf of Guinea (50.4%, 61 articles), and Gulf of St. Lawrence (45.5%, 10 articles). Hudson Bay prioritized flame retardants, representing 32.8% (21 articles) of publications. Notably, research on emerging contaminants in the Gulf of Alaska, Gulf of Carpentaria, Gulf of Aden, and the Great Australian Bight was limited, with fewer than 10 articles per pollutant type.

4. Discussion

The results of publication volume statistics indicate a correlation between scientific output in major global gulfs and gulf area, with publication volume tending to increase with larger gulf size, as shown in Figure S1. However, not all gulfs follow this trend. The Gulf of Mexico (total publications: 20,081; environmental research publications: 9796) and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (total: 1083; environmental: 534) exhibit significantly higher research output. This can be attributed to the concentration of population and economic activities in these areas, which are closely tied to oil and gas extraction, fisheries, shipping, and tourism [5,29]. Additionally, high-profile environmental events, such as the “Deepwater Horizon” oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico [30], as well as government protection policies, such as Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) North Atlantic right whale conservation plan [31], have continued to draw both academic and public attention. In contrast, Hudson Bay (total publications: 1907; environmental: 968) and the Gulf of Carpentaria (total: 289; environmental: 132) show markedly lower levels of research output, likely due to their remote locations, low population densities, and limited economic and research investment. Notably, despite Hudson Bay’s relatively low total publication volume, its environmental research accounts for the largest proportion of total publications (50.8%), highlighting the critical importance of polar ecosystems in global climate change studies [32]. To more effectively fulfill the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity [33], targeted research investment in polar gulf ecosystems such as Hudson Bay should be prioritized, particularly in areas related to climate change, biodiversity, and ecological vulnerability. For instance, research on the impacts of warming temperatures on ice cover and species migration patterns in Hudson Bay is crucial. Efforts should also be made to modernize polar research infrastructure and strengthen transnational scientific collaboration platforms, such as the Arctic Council, thereby enhancing the precision and efficacy of ecological protection and governance in these fragile regions. Additionally, the Bay of Bengal (35.3%) and the Gulf of Aden (27.6%) exhibit notably low proportions of environmental research. These regions are currently experiencing intense environmental pressures from marine plastic pollution, oil spills, and rapid coastal urbanization [34,35]. This discrepancy highlights a concerning gap between the severity of environmental problems and the level of scientific attention and investment they receive. To improve the environmental conditions of gulf areas under high pollution pressure, it is essential to increase funding and research support for source identification and coastal pollution prevention technologies. For instance, advanced technologies for detecting and mitigating nutrient pollution or oil spills should be prioritized. By strengthening integrated environmental monitoring, remediation, and resource management capacity, such as the use of real-time pollution tracking systems and ecosystem-based management strategies, these regions can move toward a more sustainable balance between economic development and environmental protection.
Among all the studied gulfs, water quality research accounts for the largest proportion of publications (27.3–54.2%), indicating that water quality issues are the primary focus of current global research on gulf environments, as shown in Figure 2b. In contrast, sediment research is underrepresented in high-latitude gulfs such as Hudson Bay (12.9%), the Gulf of St. Lawrence (9.6%), and the Gulf of Alaska (7.5%), which may be attributed to the unique climatic and environmental conditions of these regions. These areas, mostly located in polar or subpolar zones, often have surface sediments covered by sea ice or permafrost year-round or seasonally [36,37]. The extreme natural environment increases the technical challenges and economic costs of sediment sampling, limiting the scope of related research [38]. Additionally, the Gulf of Alaska’s remote location, frequent storm surges, and complex ocean currents further complicate long-term and stable sediment monitoring in the region [39]. Currently, there is no fully established sediment pollution monitoring system in the North Pacific region [40], and the combination of multiple factors has contributed to the notably low proportion of sediment research in this area. However, with the intensification of global climate change, the rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice has significantly enhanced the strategic and economic competitiveness of Arctic shipping routes [41]. This rise in shipping activity elevates the risk of ship accidents and oil spills, which could have severe ecological impacts on the sediment environments of high-latitude gulfs [42]. In response to the growing environmental risks of Arctic shipping routes, future efforts should focus on enhancing sediment sampling technologies and monitoring systems in high-latitude regions such as the Gulf of Alaska and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Establishing long-term stable monitoring stations adapted to extreme climatic conditions, improving sediment pollution early warning systems, and conducting environmental risk assessments will be critical for early identification and rapid response to environmental risks. Additionally, regions such as the Gulf of Thailand (12.9%), the Gulf of Mexico (12.6%), the Bay of Bengal (12.0%), and the Great Australian Bight (11.7%) show higher proportions of combined research on both water quality and sediments. This may reflect a more comprehensive approach to environmental research in these areas, with a tendency to consider the overall conditions of both water and sediment, rather than focusing on individual components. These findings highlight the importance of integrated environmental research in ensuring comprehensive ecosystem management.
The statistical results comparing research on traditional versus emerging contaminants reveal that, with the exception of the Gulf of Thailand where research on traditional pollutants accounts for 89%, the proportion of research on traditional pollutants in gulf regions consistently exceeds 90%, as shown in Figure 3a. This indicates that global research on gulf environments is still primarily focused on traditional pollutants, with HMs and POPs being the most prominent in all categories, as shown in Figure 3b. The primary reason for this emphasis is that HMs, such as Hg, Pb, and Cd, and POPs, such as PCBs and HCBs, are persistent, highly toxic, and exhibit significant bioaccumulation characteristics. These pollutants can accumulate through the food chain, posing long-term threats to both ecological security and human health [43,44]. Against the backdrop of increasing human disturbances such as industrial emissions, agricultural activities, and waste disposal, the environmental load of these pollutants in gulf regions continues to rise [45]. International agreements such as the Stockholm Convention and the Minamata Convention have also imposed strict controls on HMs and POPs, prompting countries to prioritize them in national environmental monitoring and remediation efforts [46,47]. As a result, the volume of research on environmental and health risk assessments has increased significantly, and research methodologies and analytical techniques have advanced accordingly [48,49,50]. Efficient adsorption and removal of these pollutants have also become a significant area in environmental science [51,52], further enhancing the focus on traditional pollutants, especially HMs and POPs. However, research on other traditional pollutants, such as NRPs, RASs, and PMs, remains relatively limited. Nevertheless, this should not be taken to suggest that the risks associated with these pollutants can be overlooked. Despite their smaller research proportion, these pollutants could still present potential threats to marine ecosystems and human health, and there is still a lack of sufficient regulation and research investment [53]. Given the lack of sufficient research attention on some traditional pollutants, such as RASs and PMs, it is necessary to accelerate the development of monitoring and assessment methods, strengthen risk evaluation and remediation technology research on the combined effects of multiple pollutants, and promote the shift of policy control from focusing on single pollutants to comprehensive multi-pollutant management.
Research on different types of emerging contaminants in various major global gulfs exhibits significant regional disparities, as shown in Figure 3b, reflecting the close relationship between pollution types, local socio-economic activities, environmental policies, and resource allocation. For example, microplastic research accounts for 49.4% in the Bay of Bengal and 71.7% in the Gulf of Thailand. The textile industry is one of the main industries in many South Asian and Southeast Asian countries, where synthetic textiles release large quantities of microplastics, such as synthetic fibers [54], during production and washing processes. This has contributed to these regions becoming hotspots for global microplastic pollution, driving the development of research on pollution assessment, ecological risk evaluation, and remediation technologies [55]. In North America, the Gulf of Mexico (36.1%) and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (45.5%), as well as the Gulf of Guinea in Africa (50.4%), have focused predominantly on pesticide-related pollution. This is closely linked to the extensive use of pesticides in countries like the United States and Canada, with runoff entering the gulf regions through rivers [56,57]. Although international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have established international standards for pesticide management through the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management [58], to effectively curb the excessive pesticide pollution in regions such as the Gulf of Guinea [59,60], it is essential to strengthen pesticide market regulation, establish pesticide residue monitoring systems, and improve regional cooperative regulatory mechanisms, aligning local pesticide management standards with international norms. Research in the Hudson Bay region is predominantly focused on flame retardants (32.8%), which can be attributed to the effective operation of the Arctic pollutant monitoring network under the Stockholm Convention. Through biological monitoring of top predators such as polar bears and ringed seals, emerging Arctic chemicals of concern (CEACs), such as PBDEs and PBBs, have been identified in the Hudson Bay region [61,62]. In contrast, research on emerging contaminants is noticeably lacking in regions such as the Gulf of Alaska, Gulf of Carpentaria, the Gulf of Aden, and the Great Australian Bight, with fewer than 10 publications on the subject from each of these areas. However, the absence of research does not imply low pollutant levels; on the contrary, such research gaps may lead to more severe environmental risks due to long-term lack of effective monitoring. We recommend increasing funding and fostering international research collaboration in regions such as the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Alaska, and establishing long-term monitoring programs for emerging contaminants. For example, the Great Australian Bight sediments and oysters contain high levels of microplastics [63]. These areas are likely to be significantly impacted by shipping and fisheries activities, leading to the accumulation of emerging contaminants such as microplastics [35,39], which could cause severe environmental pollution.
In response to the increasingly severe environmental pollution in major global gulfs, the international community has implemented a series of proactive measures. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, established a collaborative governance framework for the gulf coastal states in areas such as marine environmental protection, biodiversity management, and scientific research on pollutants. Additionally, the Basel Convention and the Stockholm Convention created global regulatory frameworks for plastics and POPs in the marine environment [64,65]. Although the implementation of these regulations has partially alleviated regional gulf pollution issues [66]. However, existing research primarily focuses on specific gulfs or individual environmental factors, such as the local migration of pollutants or the toxicity effects on particular species. There is a lack of comprehensive studies on the overall environmental risks of global gulf systems [67]. Additionally, the research findings from different regions have yet to be integrated and standardized [68], which impedes the development of a global framework for gulf environmental management. Furthermore, there is an absence of consolidated assessments of gulf research outcomes from various regions, hindering the development of a global environmental management framework for gulf areas. Therefore, future research needs to establish a unified global environmental risk assessment framework and strengthen cross-border and cross-disciplinary data sharing and cooperation. By utilizing advanced remote sensing technologies and data models [69,70,71], researchers should precisely monitor the diffusion, accumulation, and potential ecological impacts of pollutants within gulf systems, particularly focusing on risk assessments for emerging contaminants such as microplastics and pesticides. Concurrently, a comprehensive evaluation of global gulf research outcomes is necessary to provide a reliable basis for the formulation of international regulatory measures, emergency response mechanisms, and long-term management strategies through scientific methodologies.

5. Conclusions

This study integrates GIS and Python methods to identify the top ten largest gulfs globally and creates a pollutant classification list, distinguishing between traditional and emerging pollutants. Using the Web of Science core database, we conducted a statistical analysis of publication volumes related to these gulfs, covering overall publication volume, environmental research, studies across different environmental media, and research on both traditional and emerging pollutants. The main findings are as follows:
(1)
Scientific output in bay regions correlates with bay size; however, the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of St. Lawrence exhibit significantly higher publication volumes, likely influenced by economic activity and major environmental events. In contrast, the Bay of Bengal and the Gulf of Aden, despite facing severe pollution, show insufficient research investment, necessitating increased research efforts in these areas.
(2)
Water quality research accounts for the largest proportion of publications (27.3–54.2%), whereas sediment research is relatively sparse, particularly in high-latitude bays such as Hudson Bay (12.9%) and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (9.6%). This may be attributed to the constraints imposed by extreme climatic conditions, leading to weaker research focus.
(3)
Research on traditional pollutants, especially HMs and POPs, continues to dominate bay environmental studies.
(4)
Research on emerging pollutants shows significant regional variation, the Bay of Bengal and the Gulf of Thailand focus on microplastics; the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the Gulf of Guinea have the highest concentration of pesticide-related research; Hudson Bay is more focused on the bioaccumulation effects of flame retardants; while regions such as the Gulf of Alaska and the Gulf of Aden show insufficient research investment (publication numbers < 10). We recommend increasing funding and fostering international collaboration in these regions.
(5)
The international community has already undertaken a series of proactive measures to promote gulf environmental governance. However, continued emphasis on strengthening international cooperation, data sharing, and leveraging advanced technologies to improve research efficiency is essential for future progress.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w17101455/s1, Figure S1: Correlation between gulf area and research numbers; Table S1: Gulf Information.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S. and X.Z.; Methodology, D.J.; Software, D.J. and Y.F.; Validation, Q.Y.; Formal analysis, Q.Y. and X.Z.; Investigation, Q.Y. and Y.F.; Resources, J.S.; Data curation, D.J.; Writing—the original draft, D.J.; Writing—review and editing, J.S. and X.Z.; Visualization, D.J.; Supervision, Y.F.; X.Z. and J.S.; Project administration, J.S. and X.Z. Funding acquisition, J.S. and X.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (2024J013), the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang (LY23D060005), the Basic Research Project of Zhejiang Provincial University (2024J006), and the Specific Project from the Municipal Science and Technology Bureau of Zhoushan (2022C41018). The APC was funded by the Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (2024J013).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rosenne, S. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Isr. Law Rev. 1995, 29, 491–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Verschuur, J.; Koks, E.; Hall, J. Ports’ criticality in international trade and global supply-chains. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gorman, D.; Beale, D.J.; Crosswell, J.; Stephenson, S.A.; Shah, R.M.; Hillyer, K.E.; Steven, A.D. Multiple-biomarkers show the importance of blue carbon to commercially important fishery species. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 881, 163162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ramírez-Mendoza, Z.; Sosa-Nishizaki, O.; Pardo, M.A.; Herzka, S.Z.; Wells, R.D.; Rooker, J.R.; Falterman, B.J.; Dreyfus-León, M.J. Mesoscale activity drives the habitat suitability of yellowfin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 8256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Adams, C.M.; Hernandez, E.; Cato, J.C. The economic significance of the Gulf of Mexico related to population, income, employment, minerals, fisheries and shipping. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2004, 47, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rabalais, N.N.; Turner, R.E. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: Past, present, and future. Limnol. Oceanogr. Bull. 2019, 28, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Payo, A.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Hazra, S.; Hazra, S.; Ghosh, T.; Ghosh, S.; Brown, S.; Nicholls, R.J.; Bricheno, L.; Wolf, J. Projected changes in area of the Sundarban mangrove forest in Bangladesh due to SLR by 2100. Clim. Change 2016, 139, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ukwe, C.; Ibe, C. A regional collaborative approach in transboundary pollution management in the guinea current region of western Africa. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mccrea-Strub, A.; Kleisner, K.; Sumaila, U.R.; Swartz, W.; Watson, R.; Zeller, D.; Pauly, D. Potential impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries 2011, 36, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nabizadeh, R.; Sajadi, M.; Rastkari, N.; Yaghmaeian, K. Microplastic pollution on the Persian Gulf shoreline: A case study of Bandar Abbas city, Hormozgan Province, Iran. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 145, 536–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khan, M.; Hasan, M.R.; Khan, M.; Aktar, S.; Fatema, K. Distribution of heavy metals in surface sediments of the Bay of Bengal Coast. J. Toxicol. 2017, 2017, 9235764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Benson, N.U.; Adedapo, A.E.; Fred-Ahmadu, O.H.; Williams, A.B.; Udosen, E.D.; Ayejuyo, O.O.; Olajire, A.A. New ecological risk indices for evaluating heavy metals contamination in aquatic sediment: A case study of the Gulf of Guinea. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2018, 18, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brown, T.M.; Macdonald, R.W.; Muir, D.C.; Letcher, R.J. The distribution and trends of persistent organic pollutants and mercury in marine mammals from Canada’s Eastern Arctic. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 500–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sonne, C.; Siebert, U.; Gonnsen, K.; Desforges, J.-P.; Eulaers, I.; Persson, S.; Roos, A.; Bäcklin, B.-M.; Kauhala, K.; Olsen, M.T. Health effects from contaminant exposure in Baltic Sea birds and marine mammals: A review. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de Assis Costa, L.A.; Pessoa, D.M.M.; da Silva Carreira, R. Chemical and biological indicators of sewage river input to an urban tropical estuary (Guanabara Bay, Brazil). Environ. Int. 2018, 90, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carolin, C.F.; Kumar, P.S.; Saravanan, A.; Joshiba, G.J.; Naushad, M. Efficient techniques for the removal of toxic heavy metals from aquatic environment: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2782–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vasseghian, Y.; Hosseinzadeh, S.; Khataee, A.; Dragoi, E.N. The concentration of persistent organic pollutants in water resources: A global systematic review, meta-analysis and probabilistic risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 796, 149000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Khan, S.; Naushad, M.; Govarthanan, M.; Iqbal, J.; Alfadul, S.M. Emerging contaminants of high concern for the environment: Current trends and future research. Environ. Res. 2022, 207, 112609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. González-González, R.B.; Sharma, P.; Singh, S.P.; Américo-Pinheiro, J.H.P.; Parra-Saldívar, R.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M. Persistence, environmental hazards, and mitigation of pharmaceutically active residual contaminants from water matrices. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 821, 153329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahn, C.; Jeung, E.-B. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and disease endpoints. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 5342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ríos-Bonilla, K.M.; Aga, D.S.; Lee, J.; König, M.; Qin, W.; Cristobal, J.R.; Atilla-Gokcumen, G.E.; Escher, B.I. Neurotoxic effects of mixtures of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at environmental and human blood concentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 16774–16784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Nordquist, M. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Volume VII: A Commentary; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pan, B.; Zhang, F.; Zhu, X.; Huang, L.; Wu, Y.; Tang, J.Q.; Feng, N.X. Global trends and hotspots evolution in soil microplastic pollution research: A bibliometric analysis based on the Web of Science. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 161, 111974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yao, B.; Zhou, Y. Occurrence, bioaccumulation, fate, and risk assessment of emerging pollutants in aquatic environments: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 923, 171388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mishra, R.K.; Mentha, S.S.; Misra, Y.; Dwivedi, N. Emerging pollutants of severe environmental concern in water and wastewater: A comprehensive review on current developments and future research. Water-Energ. Nexus 2023, 6, 74795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, X.; Sathishkumar, K.; Zhang, H.; Saxena, K.K.; Zhang, F.; Naraginiti, S.; Rajendiran, R.; Aruliah, R.; Guo, X. Frontiers in environmental cleanup: Recent advances in remediation of emerging pollutants from soil and water. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2024, 16, 100461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, F.; Xiang, L.; Leung, K.S.; Elsner, M.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Pan, B.; Sun, H.; An, T.; Ying, G.; et al. Emerging contaminants: A one health perspective. Innovation 2024, 5, 100612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, Z.; Gan, Y.; Luo, J.; Luo, X.; Ding, C.; Cui, Y. Current Status of Emerging Contaminant Models and Their Applications Concerning the Aquatic Environment: A Review. Water 2025, 17, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Afzali, S.F.; Bourdages, H.; Laporte, M.; Mérot, C.; Normandeau, E.; Audet, C.; Bernatchez, L. Comparing environmental metabarcoding and trawling survey of demersal fish communities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Environ. DNA 2021, 3, 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Crone, T.J.; Tolstoy, M. Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Science 2010, 330, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Meyer-Gutbrod, E.L.; Greene, C.H.; Davies, K.T. Marine species range shifts necessitate advanced policy planning: The case of the North Atlantic right whale. Oceanography 2018, 31, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schuur, E.A.; Abbott, B.W.; Commane, R.; Ernakovich, J.; Euskirchen, E.; Hugelius, G.; Grosse, G.; Jones, M.; Koven, C.; Leshyk, V.; et al. Permafrost and climate change: Carbon cycle feedbacks from the warming Arctic. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2022, 47, 343–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Frankham, R. Evaluation of proposed genetic goals and targets for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conserv. Genet. 2022, 23, 865–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kumar, R.; Sinha, R.; Rakib, M.R.; Padha, S.; Ivy, N.; Bhattacharya, S.; Dhar, A.; Sharma, P. Microplastics pollution load in Sundarban delta of Bay of Bengal. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2022, 7, 100099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ameen, F.; Al-Homaidan, A.A.; Almahasheer, H.; Dawoud, T.; Alwakeel, S.; AlMaarofi, S. Biomonitoring coastal pollution on the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden using macroalgae: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 175, 113156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gignac, C.; Bernier, M.; Chokmani, K. IcePAC–a probabilistic tool to study sea ice spatio-temporal dynamics: Application to the Hudson Bay area. Cryosphere 2019, 13, 451–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Harig, C.; Simons, F.J. Ice mass loss in Greenland, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Canadian Archipelago: Seasonal cycles and decadal trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016, 43, 3150–3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Picard, J.C.; Munoz, G.; Duy, S.V.; Sauvé, S. Longitudinal and vertical variations of waterborne emerging contaminants in the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf during winter conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Deshpande, A.D.; Freeman, D.; Lascelles, N.; Drayton, D. Pyrolysis GC-MS Characterization of Plastic Debris from the Northern Gulf of Alaska Shorelines. ACS Es&t Water 2023, 3, 1364–1373. [Google Scholar]
  40. Brown, T.M.; Takada, H. Indicators of marine pollution in the North Pacific Ocean. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2017, 73, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Theocharis, D.; Pettit, S.; Rodrigues, V.S.; Haider, J. Arctic shipping: A systematic literature review of comparative studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 69, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stern, G.A.; Macdonald, C.R.; Carvalho, P.C.; Wolfe, T.; Ferraz, F. Baseline levels and characterization of hydrocarbons in surface marine sediments along the transportation corridor in Hudson Bay: A multivariate analysis of n-alkanes, PAHs and biomarkers. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 855, 158718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Corsolini, S.; Sarà, G. The trophic transfer of persistent pollutants (HCB, DDTs, PCBs) within polar marine food webs. Chemosphere 2017, 177, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mishra, S.; Bharagava, R.N.; More, N.; Yadav, A.; Zainith, S.; Mani, S.; Chowdhary, P. Heavy metal contamination: An alarming threat to environment and human health. In Environmental Biotechnology: For Sustainable Future; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 103–125. [Google Scholar]
  45. Youssef, M.; El-Sorogy, A.; Al Kahtany, K.; Al Otiaby, N. Environmental assessment of coastal surface sediments at Tarut Island, Arabian Gulf (Saudi Arabia). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 96, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lallas, P.L. The Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. Am. J. Int. Law 2001, 95, 692–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Selin, H. Global environmental law and treaty-making on hazardous substances: The Minamata Convention and mercury abatement. Glob. Environ. Politics 2014, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ying, S.; Liu, Z.; Hu, Y.; Peng, R.; Zhu, X.; Dong, S.; Yan, D.; Huang, Y. Location-dependent occurrence and distribution of metal-based nanoparticles in bay environments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 476, 134972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cui, K.; Wang, S.; Pei, Y.; Zhou, B. Occurrence and distribution of antibiotic pollution and antibiotic resistance genes in seagrass meadow sediments based on metagenomics. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 935, 173438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Proshad, R.; Rahim, M.A.; Rahman, M.; Asif, M.R.; Dey, H.C.; Al, M.A.; Islam, M.; Idris, A.M. Utilizing machine learning to evaluate heavy metal pollution in the world’s largest mangrove forest. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 951, 175746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Marghade, D.; Shelare, S.; Prakash, C.; Soudagar, M.E.M.; Khan, T.Y.; Kalam, M.A. Innovations in metal-organic frameworks (MOFs): Pioneering adsorption approaches for persistent organic pollutant (POP) removal. Environ. Res. 2024, 258, 119404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rostami, M.S.; Khodaei, M.M. Recent advances in chitosan-based nanocomposites for adsorption and removal of heavy metal ions. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 270, 132386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kuwayama, Y.; Olmstead, S.M.; Wietelman, D.C.; Zheng, J. Trends in nutrient-related pollution as a source of potential water quality damages: A case study of Texas, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 137962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Falco, F.; Gullo, M.P.; Gentile, G.; Di Pace, E.; Cocca, M.; Gelabert, L.; Brouta-Agnésa, M.; Rovira, A.; Escudero, R.; Villalba, R.; et al. Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 916–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nakano, H.; Alfonso, M.B.; Jandang, S.; Phinchan, N.; Chavanich, S.; Viyakarn, V.; Isobe, A. Influence of monsoon seasonality and tidal cycle on microplastics presence and distribution in the Upper Gulf of Thailand. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 920, 170787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sharma, A.; Kumar, V.; Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Sidhu, G.P.; Handa, N.; Kohli, S.K.; Yadav, P.; Bali, A.S.; Parihar, R.D.; et al. Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Carvalho, F.P. Pesticides, environment, and food safety. Food Energy Sec. 2017, 6, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lykogianni, M.; Bempelou, E.; Karamaouna, F.; Aliferis, K.A. Do pesticides promote or hinder sustainability in agriculture? The challenge of sustainable use of pesticides in modern agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mazlan, N.; Ahmed, M.; Muharam, F.M.; Alam, M.A. Status of persistent organic pesticide residues in water and food and their effects on environment and farmers: A comprehensive review in Nigeria. Semin. Ciên. Agr. 2017, 38, 2221–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Haine, T.W.; Curry, B.; Gerdes, R.; Hansen, E.; Karcher, M.; Lee, C.; Rudels, B.; Spreen, G.; de Steur, L.; Stewart, K.D.; et al. Arctic freshwater export: Status, mechanisms, and prospects. Glob. Planet. Change 2015, 125, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sonne, C.; Dietz, R.; Jenssen, B.M.; Lam, S.S.; Letcher, R.J. Emerging contaminants and biological effects in Arctic wildlife. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Houde, M.; Wang, X.; Ferguson, S.H.; Gagnon, P.; Brown, T.M.; Tanabe, S.; Kunito, T.; Kwan, M.; Muir, D.C. Spatial and temporal trends of alternative flame retardants and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in ringed seals (Phoca hispida) across the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 223, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jahan, S.; Strezov, V.; Weldekidan, H.; Kumar, R.; Kan, T.; Sarkodie, S.A.; He, J.; Dastjerdi, B.; Wilson, S.P. Interrelationship of microplastic pollution in sediments and oysters in a seaport environment of the eastern coast of Australia. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 695, 133924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raubenheimer, K.; Mcilgorm, A. Can the Basel and Stockholm Conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xu, W.; Wang, X.; Cai, Z. Analytical chemistry of the persistent organic pollutants identified in the Stockholm Convention: A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2013, 790, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Grizzetti, B.; Vigiak, O.; Udias, A.; Aloe, A.; Zanni, M.; Bouraoui, F.; Pistocchi, A.; Dorati, C.; Friedland, R.; de Roo, A.; et al. How EU policies could reduce nutrient pollution in European inland and coastal waters. Glob. Environ. Change 2021, 69, 102281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, Y.Q.; Lykaki, M.; Markiewicz, M.; Alrajoula, M.T.; Kraas, C.; Stolte, S. Environmental contamination by microplastics originating from textiles: Emission, transport, fate and toxicity. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 430, 128453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Uddin, S.; Fowler, S.W.; Saeed, T.; Naji, A.; Al-Jandal, N. Standardized protocols for microplastics determinations in environmental amples from the Gulf and marginal seas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 158, 111374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ma, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y. Ecological risk assessment of a coastal area using multi-source remote sensing images and in-situ sample data. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Karmakar, J.; Mondal, I.; Hossain, S.A.; Jose, F.; Pichuka, S.; Ghosh, D.; De, T.K.; Lu, Q.O.; Elkhrachy, I.; Nguyen, N.M. Analyzing spatio-temporal variability of aquatic productive components in Northern Bay of Bengal using advanced machine learning models. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2024, 251, 107074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Niu, Z. Modelling based study on the occurrence characteristics and influencing factors of the typical antibiotics in Bohai Bay. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 906, 167853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 01455 g001
Figure 1. The Ten Largest Gulfs in the World by Surface Area.
Figure 1. The Ten Largest Gulfs in the World by Surface Area.
Water 17 01455 g001
Water 17 01455 g002
Figure 2. Research numbers of publications in the gulf. (a) Characteristics of research numbers in the gulf region. (b) Percentage of research numbers in different media in the gulf region.
Figure 2. Research numbers of publications in the gulf. (a) Characteristics of research numbers in the gulf region. (b) Percentage of research numbers in different media in the gulf region.
Water 17 01455 g002
Water 17 01455 g003
Figure 3. Percentage of research numbers on different types of pollutants. (a) Percentage of research numbers on traditional and emerging contaminants. (b) Percentage of research numbers on different types of traditional pollutants. (c) Percentage of studies on different types of emerging contaminants.
Figure 3. Percentage of research numbers on different types of pollutants. (a) Percentage of research numbers on traditional and emerging contaminants. (b) Percentage of research numbers on different types of traditional pollutants. (c) Percentage of studies on different types of emerging contaminants.
Water 17 01455 g003
Table 1. Gulf Information.
Table 1. Gulf Information.
RankName of the GulfGulf AliasName of Coastal ZoneCountryArea (km2)
1Bay of BengalEast Indian BayEast Indian Coast, Bangladesh coast, Coromandel Coast, Odisha Coast, Rakhine Coast, Sundarbans Coast, Andaman and Nicobar Coast, Southwest Coast of Myanmar, Sri Lanka CoastSri Lanka, India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Indonesia2,267,997.98
2Gulf of Mexico Louisiana Wetlands, Texas Coast, West Florida Coast, Mexican Gulf Coast, Veracruz Coast, Cuban North CoastUnited States, Mexico, Cuba1,566,726.05
3Hudson Bay Northern Ontario Coast, Northwestern Coast of QuébecCanada820,284.67
4Gulf of GuineaWest Africa GulfNiger Delta, Ivory Coast, Slave Coast, West Africa CoastLiberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome, Principe730,152.63
5Gulf of Alaska Southern Coast of Alaska United States355,017.32
6Gulf of Carpentaria North Queensland Coast, Eastern Northern Territory Coast, Carpentaria Plains CoastAustralia328,054.45
7Gulf of ThailandSiam GulfEastern Coast of Thailand, Western Coast of Vietnam, Cambodian CoastThailand, Cambodia, Vietnam294,806.36
8Gulf of AdenPirate CorridorSouthern Coast of Yemeni, Northern Coast of Somali, Djibouti CoastYemen, Djibouti, Somalia278,502.95
9Great Australian Bight Nullarbor Coast, Eyre Peninsula Coast, South Australian CoastAustralia273,641.06
10Gulf of Saint Lawrence
(Gulf of St. Lawrence)		 Western Newfoundland Coast, Eastern New Brunswick Coast, Québec West Coast, Magdalen Islands Coast, Prince Edward Island Coast, St. Lawrence EstuaryCanada250,642.38
Table 2. Classification of Contaminants.
Table 2. Classification of Contaminants.
Type of PollutantCategory
Traditional PollutantsHeavy Metals (HMs) a
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) b
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) c
Nutrient-Related Pollutants (NRPs) d
Radioactive Substances (RASs) e
Pathogenic microorganisms (PMs) f
Emerging ContaminantsPesticides g
Personal Care Products (PCPs) h
Pharmaceutically Active Compounds (PhACs) i
Endocrine Disruptors (EDCs) j
Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) k
Microplastics l
Flame Retardants (FRs) m
Note: a = Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), Cadmium (Cd), Arsenic (As), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn). b = Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), Dioxins, Furans. c = Benzo[a]pyrene (Bap), Naphthalene (Nap), Anthracene (Aat), Phenanthrene (Phe), Fluoranthene (Flu), Pyrene (Pyr). d = Nitrogen, Nitrate (NO3−), Nitrite (NO2−), Ammonia, (NH3/NH4+), Phosphorus, Phosphate (PO43−). e = Uranium (U), Plutonium (Pu), Thorium (Th), Cesium-137 (137Cs), Iodine-131 (131I). f = Escherichia coli (E. coli), Salmonella species (Salmonella spp.), Shigella species (Shigella spp.), Campylobacter species (Campylobacter spp.), Vibrio cholerae (V. cholerae). g = Antibiotics, Insecticides, Fungicides, Herbicides, Bactericides, DDT. h = Sunscreen Agents, Synthetic Musks, Diethyltoluamide, Galaxolide, Tonalide. i = Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Antidepressant, Antibiotics, Hormones, Lipid. j = Bisphenol, Triclosan, Xenohormone, Phthalates. k = Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA), Perfluorohexane Sulfonate (PFHxS), Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA). l = Microbeads, Microfibers, Nanoparticles. m = Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), Polybrominated Biphenyl (PBB), Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), Chlorinated Paraffins (CPs).
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

Jiang, D.; Yang, Q.; Fang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Song, J. A Bibliometric Review of Environmental Pollution Research in Major Global Gulfs. Water 2025, 17, 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101455

AMA Style

Jiang D, Yang Q, Fang Y, Zhang X, Song J. A Bibliometric Review of Environmental Pollution Research in Major Global Gulfs. Water. 2025; 17(10):1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101455

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Daoyuan, Qiao Yang, Yang Fang, Xiaoling Zhang, and Jing Song. 2025. "A Bibliometric Review of Environmental Pollution Research in Major Global Gulfs" Water 17, no. 10: 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101455

APA Style

Jiang, D., Yang, Q., Fang, Y., Zhang, X., & Song, J. (2025). A Bibliometric Review of Environmental Pollution Research in Major Global Gulfs. Water, 17(10), 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17101455

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