Next Article in Journal
Petrogenesis and Tectonic Significance of Early Cretaceous Granites in the Huolin Gol Area, Southern Great Xing’an Range, NE China: Geochronological, Geochemical, and Hf Isotopic Evidence
Next Article in Special Issue
The Provenance and Tectonic Settings of the Kolyma–Omolon Margin During the Closure of the South Anyui Ocean
Previous Article in Journal
Petrogenesis and Geological Significance of the Late Triassic A-Type and S-Type Syn-Collisional Granites in the Baoshan Terrane, SW China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Provenance of Middle-Upper Permian Sandstones in Lintan and Jiangligou Areas, West Qinling, China: Insights from Geochemistry, Detrital Zircon Chronology, and Hf Isotopes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/min15121277
minerals-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

Geochemical and Geochronological Constraints on the Provenance and Heavy Metal Contamination of Beach Sediments Along the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico

by
Itzamna Zaknite Flores-Ocampo
1,†,
John Selvamony Armstrong-Altrin
2,*,
Gloria Daniela Fernández-Guevara
3,
Jayagopal Madhavaraju
4,
Inna Valeria Acevedo-Granados
3,
Barbara Yaneth Pérez-Alvarado
3,
Sandra Elizabeth Ibarra-Rueda
1,
Mayte Flores-Cortés
3 and
Isis Allanah Guadalupe-Díaz
1
1
Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, Ciudad de México C.P. 04510, Mexico
2
Unidad de Procesos Oceánicos y Costeros, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, Ciudad de Mexico C.P. 04510, Mexico
3
Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, Ciudad de Mexico C.P. 04510, Mexico
4
Estación Regional del Noroeste, Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Hermosillo C.P. 83000, Sonora, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: Instituto de Ciencias de la Atmósfera y Cambio Climático, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, Ciudad de México C.P. 04510, Mexico.
Minerals 2025, 15(12), 1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121277
Submission received: 23 October 2025 / Revised: 26 November 2025 / Accepted: 27 November 2025 / Published: 3 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tectonic Setting and Provenance of Sedimentary Rocks)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study investigates the textural characteristics, mineral composition, and U–Pb ages of detrital zircon grains from the Playa Norte (PN) and Playa Tamiahua (PT) beach sediments along the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). The objective is to trace the sediment origin and to identify the possible environmental impacts in the coastal ecosystem. This work represents the first integrated provenance and geochemical analysis performed in these beaches, contributing to a broader regional sedimentological and geochronological database for the GoM. The results reveal distinct compositional and provenance signatures: PN sediments are rich in quartz (57.7% avg.), feldspars (15.7% avg.), and carbonate minerals (8.6% avg.), with zircon populations dominated by Proterozoic ages (~820–2200 Ma) and minor anthropogenic enrichment. In contrast, PT exhibits higher contents of quartz (78.6% avg.), andesine (9.6% avg.), and anorthite (8.5% avg.), with zircons mainly of Oligocene age (~32 Ma) and minimal contamination. Comparison with potential source regions indicates that PN sediments were derived primarily from the Sierra Madre Oriental, while PT sediments were originated from the Mesa Central and Eastern Mexican Alkaline Provinces. Overall, the findings demonstrate that, beyond littoral mixing and sediment recycling, the composition of GoM coastal sediments reflects the region’s complex tectono-sedimentary evolution and variable natural versus anthropogenic influences. PN is enriched in arsenic content, which is associated with agricultural activities and oil industries, while PT exhibits low values with no evidence of contamination. Meanwhile, Cr in PN suggests an anthropogenic input, which is linked to oil exploration activities in the GoM.

1. Introduction

Zircons (ZrSiO4) are extremely resistant minerals that can survive multiple cycles of transport, erosion, and deposition [1,2]. Despite potential overprints, zircon is considered a reliable proxy mineral to trace the ancient source of terranes as they retain valuable isotopic information [3]. Moreover, zircon is a common rock-forming mineral in the continental crust. Its U-Pb isotopic signatures are used for identifying sediment provenance [4,5,6].
Geochemical composition of sediments also provides insights into their provenance, weathering history, tectonic setting, and magmatic conditions of constituent grains, and can help discriminate anthropogenic and natural sources [7,8]. Similarly, textural characteristics of sediments are reliable indicators of the energy conditions and processes encountered during their transport and deposition [9,10,11].
By integrating detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology with sediment geochemistry, it is feasible to identify the source rocks as well as to differentiate felsic and mafic contributions, sediment recycling, and maturity [12,13,14]. In addition, environmental geochemical indices like enrichment factor [EF] [15], Geo-accumulation Index [Igeo] [16], and Adverse Effects Index [AEI] [17] are also applied in this study to evaluate the origin and degree of metal contamination in sediments.
Numerous researchers have analyzed the composition of sediments along the Mexican coast; hence, a significant geochemical database of coastal sediments is available [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Nonetheless, studies that combine both geochemistry and U-Pb geochronology are scarce for the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) as well as for the Mexican Pacific coast [24,25,26,27,28,29].
To fulfill this gap, sediment samples from the Playa Norte and Playa Tamiahua beaches in the GoM are investigated. We integrated the sediment textural characteristics, major and trace element compositions, U-Pb geochronology, and chemistry of detrital zircons to track the sediment transport pathways and to determine the potential source regions supplying sediments to the beach areas. The findings of this study will help to increase knowledge of active sediment transport mechanisms in the GoM and simultaneously contribute to expanding the available geochronological database.

2. Study Area

Two beaches on the GoM coast are chosen in this study (Figure 1). Playa Tamiahua (PT) is in the northern part of the Veracruz State (21°17′11.13″ N–97°25′32.37″ W) and Playa Norte (PN) is in the Ciudad del Carmen, south of the Campeche State (18°39′03.23″ N–91°51′00.37″ W) (Figure 1, Table 1).
The beaches studied in this article are of scientific interest, as they represent contrasting coastal systems of the GoM, where natural and anthropogenic processes converge, influencing the composition and origin of the sediments.
Playa Tamiahua is located next to the mouth of the Tamiahua Lagoon, a lagoon with strong fluvial and marine connections. It is near the town of Tamiahua, which has a low population density and little industrial or tourist activity (Figure 2).
Playa Norte, on the other hand, is located near the mouth of the Terminos Lagoon, in the Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, an area with a high population density, intense tourist activity, and industry (mainly oil) (Figure 3).
This context allows us to evaluate how urbanization and human activities modify the chemical composition of the sediments, revealing possible enrichments with metals such as chromium and copper.
Taken together, the study combining both beaches allows for a comparison of a little-disturbed natural environment (PT) with another highly influenced by human activities (PN), providing valuable information on the origin of sediments, coastal pollution, and transport processes in the GoM.
PT in the northern region of the Veracruz State is bound to the north by the Panuco River, Tamaulipas State, to the south by the Tuxpan River, and to the west by the Tamalin and Cerro Azul [32,33]. Throughout the year, the temperature in PT ranges from 17 °C to 32 °C. The rainy season is marked by high humidity and minimal wind activity, while the dry season features warm temperatures and windy conditions. The warmest period spans between May and October, with a mean daily temperature of 31 °C, whereas the coolest season extends from December to February, averaging 21 °C [31,34,35,36,37].
Geologically, the region around Tamiahua is primarily composed of quartz-rich sand derived from two distinct geological provinces: The Sierra Madre Oriental (formed under marine conditions) and the Faja de Oro, and both are characterized by sedimentary rock deposits, predominantly sandstone, shale, and conglomerates. The area also contains felsic-to-intermediate plutonic igneous rocks, as well as volcanic rocks of the Neogene to Quaternary period [32]. According to Carranza-Edwards et al. [33], the northern Veracruz region is dominated by the volcanic massif of Los Tuxtlas. In the shallow water coastal vicinity of the beach, the presence of dead coral reefs is notable, as they significantly supply the calcareous sediments to the coastal region [38]. These geological conditions directly shape the interlinked dynamics of the adjacent Tamiahua Lagoon in the western part of the beach. The lagoon connects to the Panuco River through a network of distributary channels. The surrounding coastal plain functions as a drainage basin for various rivers. During the rainy season, these fluvial systems deliver considerable quantities of fine-grained sediments, particularly silty-clay fractions, largely derived from the weathering of Tertiary rocks within the coastal plain [39,40].
PN beach, located in the southwestern region of the Peninsula de Yucatan, is bounded to the south by Terminos Lagoon, to the east by Boca Puerto Real, and to the west by the locality of Zacatal town [41]. Annual temperature varies from 21 °C to 32 °C, reaching 33 °C during the warm season (April–August) and dropping to approximately 22 °C during the cooler months [36,42].
Geologically, the area comprises an alternation of rocky shorelines with high concentrations of organic matter, carbonates, and quartz. These sediments originate from both alluvial sources and coastal sand barriers, while the adjacent area is composed of fluvial sediments [43]. The Quaternary sediments are classified into three main categories: lacustrine, palustrine, and littoral [44]. Littoral sediments consist of calcareous material; fine-grained sands deposited during the “nortes” windy season and coarse-grained sand with gravels composed of mollusk shells [45]. This coastal material forms a natural barrier that transitions into the sandy substrates of the lacustrine and palustrine habitats, which provide essential conditions for mangrove ecosystems [41].
Hydrologically, the PN coast is shaped by the influence of the Terminos Lagoon. The Grijalva–Usumacinta River system discharges into the lagoon via multiple distributaries, including Palizada and Chumpan rivers, which are contributing to a dynamic and abundant fluvial network [45].

3. Methodology

A total of 40 sediment samples were collected, 20 samples from PN and 20 from PT. For each sample, a mass of ~2 kg was collected at the foreshore zone, maintaining a 50 m distance between samples. Samples were processed at the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología (ICML), UNAM, and were dried in the Riosa H-62 oven, Ríos Rocha, S.A., Mexico City, Mexico, for 24 h at 60 °C. The dried samples were stored in resealable bags to prevent humidity and facilitate the following analyses.

3.1. Granulometry

A total of 35 g of homogenized sediments was taken from each individual sample. To separate the sediment particles by size, an automatic sieve shaker (Tyler model RX-29, W.S. Tyler, Mentor, OH, USA) was programmed for 30 min, coupled with a column of sieves with ASTM mesh sizes of 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 35, 60, 80, 100, 120, 170, and 200. Afterward, the sediment mass fractions were weighed to obtain data for statistical analysis following the method proposed by Folk and Ward [46], which includes mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. The entire analytical procedure was conducted at the Sedimentology Laboratory, ICMyL, UNAM.

3.2. X-Ray Diffraction (XRD)

Ten samples (five per beach) were selected for XRD analysis, and approximately 5 g of sediments were pretreated with 10% HCl to remove carbonates. Then, the sediment samples were rinsed with deionized water, dried, and pulverized with a mortar and pestle until a size of less than 75 µm (0.075 mm) was obtained. Samples were measured using an EMPYREAN X-ray diffractometer, Malvern Panalytical, Almelo, The Netherlands, connected with an iron filter with a fine-focus cobalt (Co) tube and a PIXcel 3D detector. A double-loading aluminum holder was used for PT samples, while for the PN, a zero-background sample holder was used. The measurement was taken at intervals of 2θ angular range varied from 5° to 70°, using a step scan of 0.003° (2θ) with an interval of 40 s.
The software HighScore (PANalytical) Malvern Panalytical, Almelo, The Netherlands, along with the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD), was used for mineral identification. Quantification was executed using the RIR method, which was implemented on version 4.5 of the HighScore Software. These analyses were performed at the Institute of Geology, UNAM, Mexico City.

3.3. Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-Ray Microanalysis (SEM-EDS)

SEM-EDS analysis was conducted to obtain information about the grain morphology and elemental composition of minerals in the beach sediments. Five samples from each beach were selected. Ten grams of the samples were analyzed by SEM-EDS, located at the Institute of Geophysics, UNAM. Each sample was adhered to a glass slide using double-sided adhesive tape, subsequently coated with graphite spray, and placed on the sample holder. Samples were examined through a JEOL JXA-8900R SEM, Akishima, Tokyo, Japan. Major elements (reported as oxides) were analyzed qualitatively and semi-quantitatively in both the bulk sediment samples and individual grains to determine their composition.

3.4. Geochemistry

Major, trace, and rare earth elements were analyzed for 10 selected sediment samples from each beach (number of samples n = 20; 50 m interval between samples). For each sample, 40 g of dried sediment was treated with a 1:10 HCl solution to remove carbonates. The samples were pulverized using a FRITSCH mill, GmbH, Idar-Oberstein, Germany, until achieving a particle size of less than 200 µm.
For the major element analysis, 5 g of dried pulverized sediments were analyzed through X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) using a SIEMENS SRS 3000, SIEMENS, Karlsruhe, Germany at the LANGEM, Institute of Geology, UNAM. Trace and REE were measured by an ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies, Tokyo, Japan, at ACTLABS, Canada. Before the analysis, each sample was digested with aqua regia (HNO3–HCl) in a microwave at 60 °C to be able to extract the elements, then the samples were processed to be filtered and diluted. High-purity certified standards (i.e., OREAS 15d, OREAS 923, OREAS 520, OREAS 907, and OREAS 621) were used for calibration.
The equations utilized to calculate the environmental indices like EF, Igeo, and AEI are listed in Table 2.

3.5. Geochronology

Two samples were selected for zircon dating. The samples with the highest content of fine-grained sediments were selected from both beaches, i.e., one sample from Playa Norte (PN) and another from Playa Tamiahua (PT). Zircon grains were manually separated by selecting 100 grains from each sample and analyzed under the stereo microscope, VELAB Scientific, Ciudad de México, Mexico (total number of grains n = 200). Zircon grains were attached to an epoxy resin and polished with sandpaper to expose their cores.
U-Pb geochronology of zircon grains was performed by the Laser Ablation System at LEI, which consists of a Resonetics Laser Ablation workstation, connected with an LPX excimer laser and a two-volume S-155 ablation cell [47]. This setup was coupled to a Thermo iCAP quadrupole ICP-MS, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Bremen, Germany. A homogenizer signal was used immediately after the ablation cell to ensure a stable signal. A total volume of 350 mL of He was used as the carrier gas, integrated with 4.5 mL of N2. During the analyses, a repetition rate of 5 Hz was applied, with a constant on-target fluence of 6 J/cm2. This fluence was monitored at both the beginning and end of each analytical session by means of an external energy monitor. A consistent analytical spot size of 23 μm was used. Trace element concentrations in zircon were measured instantaneously with the U-Pb geochronology analyses, using NIST 610 as the primary reference standard. U-Pb geochronology dating was carried out at the Institute of Geosciences, UNAM.
Data were normalized with the chondrite values by following Taylor and McLennan [48]. The Concordia diagrams were generated using IsoplotR 6.8 version [49]. The probability density plots and histogram graphs were generated using the DensityPlotter software 8.5 version [50].

4. Results

4.1. Granulometry

Textural parameters are important to understand the mechanisms during sediment transport and the depositional conditions of a particular environment. The mean grain size (Mz) values are 2.78 φ for PN and 2.82 φ for PT, indicating that both beaches fall within the fine-grained sand category [46] (Table 3). The standard deviation (σ) value for PN is 0.58 φ, indicating moderately well-sorted sediments. In contrast, for PT it is 0.37 φ, indicating well-sorted sediments. Skewness (Sk) represents asymmetry of the grain size distribution, indicating an excess of fine particles in sediments. PN has an average Sk value of −0.27, while PT has −0.20. These negative values indicate that both beaches are skewed towards coarse-grained size [46]. Lastly, kurtosis (KG) is a parameter that represents the peakedness of the grain size distribution in the sample. PN has a KG value of 1.15, while PT has a value of 1.51. These results indicate that both PN and PT exhibit a leptokurtic distribution.

4.2. Mineralogy

4.2.1. SEM-EDS

Predominantly, the sediment components are silicates, which are represented by angular grains rich in Si and grains rich in Ca and P contents. In PT, grains rich in Si, Na, and K are identified, revealing the presence of quartz and K-feldspars (Figure 4a,b). Some grains are rich in Zr, Ti, Fe, and V contents, which are associated with the presence of zircon (Figure 4c), ilmenite (Figure 4d), and magnetite (Figure 4e). PN reveals a diverse mineralogical composition, i.e., quartz (Figure 5a), calcite (Figure 5b), magnetite (Figure 5c), K-feldspar (Figure 5d), and ilmenite (Figure 5e).

4.2.2. XRD

XRD analysis was conducted to identify the crystalline phases in the beach sediments (Table 4). PN exhibits a mineralogical variation between zones, i.e., areas with abundant carbonate minerals (PN1, PN5, PN7, and P15) and areas with abundant quartz (Table 4; PN1, PN5, PN7, PN11, and PN15). Similarly, crystalline phases such as feldspars like orthoclase (PN1, PN5, PN7, and PN11), andesine (PN1, PN5, PN7, PN11, and PN15), and phyllosilicates (mica; PN1, PN7, PN11, and PN15) are detected. For PT, quartz is predominant in sediments. Minerals such as actinolite and orthoclase are consistently detected in all samples, representing a certain degree of homogeneity in their composition with respect to different sampling points (Table 4). The XRD patterns for the PN and PT sediments are included in the Supplementary Files, Figures S1 and S2, respectively.

4.3. Geochemistry

4.3.1. Major Element Concentrations

The major element contents of PN and PT are reported in Table 5. In both locations, SiO2 is the dominant component, indicative of a high quartz content. In PN, SiO2 concentration ranges from 66 to 87 wt.%, while in PT it is slightly higher (88–89 wt.%).
The distribution of other oxides in PN is provided in decreasing order: CaO (0.34–11.94 wt.%), Al2O3 (4.36–6.61 wt.%), K2O (1.53–2.08 wt.%), and Na2O (1.05–1.54 wt.%), reflecting a mineral assemblage dominated by quartz, carbonate, feldspar, and possibly mica contents. In PT, the abundance in descending order is Al2O3 (3.84–5.91 wt.%), K2O (1.14–1.77 wt.%), Na2O (0.84–1.33 wt.%), and the other elements are less than 1%.

4.3.2. Trace Element Concentrations

Trace element concentrations in PN and PT sediments are listed in Table 6. A consistent trace element pattern is observed when normalized against upper continental crust values (UCC; 41) (Figure 6). For PN, there is a significant abundance of trace element contents when compared to PT sediments. On the other hand, PN samples exhibit trace element concentrations lower than the UCC average values, with a depletion in Sc, V, Co, Ni, Rb, Y, Zr, Nb, Hf, Th, and U, and an enrichment in Cr (61.5–407 ppm), Cu (29.5–208 ppm), Sr (117–621 ppm), and Ba (243–1151 ppm) contents. In comparison, PT samples exhibit general depletion with concentrations below the UCC average values (Figure 6).

4.3.3. Rare Earth Element Concentrations

The ∑REE content of PN (25.5–84.5 ppm; Table 7) is significantly higher compared to the PT sediments (12.24–18.35 ppm). The REE patterns (Figure 7) display a minor enrichment in LREEs at both beaches, with LacN/SmCN ratios of 2.96 ± 0.35 (n = 10) for PN and 4.21 ± 0.83 (n = 10) for PT (CN refers to chondrite-normalized values). For the HREEs, a low degree of enrichment is observed, with GdCN/YbCN ratios of 2.03 ± 0.36 (n = 10) in PN and 2.39 ± 0.52 (n = 10) in PT. Both beaches exhibit a negative europium anomaly (Eu/Eu* = 0.88 ± 0.37 and 0.55 ± 0.02 for PN and PT, respectively; n = 10).

4.4. Zircon U-Pb Ages

4.4.1. U-Pb Ages

U-Pb ages were determined for 100 zircon grains from each beach (number of grains = 200). The degree of discordance indicates a chronological difference between the ages obtained using the U-Pb and Pb-Pb methods, which is expressed as {1 − (206Pb/238U age)/(207Pb/206Pb age)} × 100 (%) [52]. Gong et al. [53] suggested excluding zircons with >30% discordance to reduce the uncertainty of the corrected age. Based on this criterion, due to high discordance, 18 zircons from PN and 21 from PT were excluded. Thus, the U-Pb geochronology analysis was performed on 82 zircon grains (n = 82) from PN and 79 zircon grains (n = 79) from PT. The detailed distribution of U-Pb ratios and the corresponding ages are listed in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 for PN and PT, respectively. Concordia diagrams and histograms are shown in Figure 8.
The detrital zircons from PN sediments are mostly dominated by Proterozoic grains (n = 35; 554–1552 Ma), followed by Paleozoic (n = 20; 252–481 Ma), Mesozoic (n = 16; 84.7–250.7 Ma), and Cenozoic (n = 11; 10.54–51.1 Ma). Prominent age peaks are identified at 15.36 ± 0.16 Ma (27%), 279.3 ± 0.9 Ma (37%), and 1029 ± 2.4 Ma (36%). In PT, the most abundant zircon U-Pb age is Mesozoic (n = 31; 66.9–240.4 Ma), followed by Cenozoic (n = 30; 2.41–54.6 Ma), Proterozoic (n = 13; 976–1798 Ma), and Paleozoic (n = 5; 283.9–524.5 Ma). A significant age peak is identified at 32.1 ± 0.17 Ma (51%), along with two minor peaks at 126.5 ± 0.46 Ma (32%) and 907.5 ± 4.2 Ma (17%).

4.4.2. Trace Element Concentrations in Zircon Grains

Zircons can incorporate Ti, Y, Nb, Hf, Pb, Th, and U into their structure, which are considered as possible indicators of the nature of parental rocks [54,55]. The concentration of trace (Nb, Hf, Th, and U) and REEs of zircons for PN and PT are reported in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4, respectively. Similarly, the REE concentrations of zircon at both beaches are normalized with chondrite values and are plotted in Figure 9. Zircons are grouped according to their age, i.e., Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Proterozoic for PN (Figure 9A, B, C, and D, respectively) and PT (Figure 9E, F, G, and H, respectively). The observed variations in REE patterns between the PN and PT beaches were found to be statistically significant, confirming their geochemical similarity.
The ΣREE content in the PN zircons varies between ~8093 and 19,438 ppm. The REE patterns of PN reveal an enrichment in heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) and a depletion in light rare earth elements (LREEs). This REE pattern is characteristic of zircons of igneous origin [56]. Previous studies have established a Th/U ratio criterion to infer the provenance of zircon grains, and values of >0.3 suggest igneous origin, while <0.1 suggest metamorphic origin [57,58,59] (Figure 10). The mean Th/U ratio value in the analyzed zircons is 0.6, which suggests that most zircons from PN are igneous. Additionally, the REE patterns exhibit a negative Eu anomaly (Eu/Eu* = ~0.002–0.7), which indicates reductive conditions during zircon crystallization from the magma [56,60,61]. On the other hand, the positive cerium anomaly (Ce/Ce* = ~1.14–896,818) is typical for unaltered igneous zircons [51].
As observed in Figure 9, ΣREE contents in PT zircons range from 6194 to 14,584 ppm, which are lower than in PN. Similarly, REE patterns of PN also exhibit an enrichment of HREE in comparison to LREE, indicating an igneous origin. The negative Eu (Eu/Eu* = ~0.007–0.92) and positive Ce anomalies (Ce/Ce* = ~1.02–760) observed are typical for unaltered igneous zircons. Likewise, the average Th/U ratio (0.68) supports the interpretation of an igneous origin.

5. Discussion

5.1. Granulometry

The mean grain size (Mz) of sediments in both beach areas corresponds to fine-grained sand. These values suggest deposition under low-energy conditions, indicative of a low hydrodynamic regime in both coastal environments. Based on the standard deviation (σ) values, the PN and PT sediments are defined as moderately well-sorted and well-sorted categories [46]. According to Carranza-Edwards et al. [62], well to very-well sorted sediments reflect sustained interactions between beach dynamics and marine water currents, which facilitate the homogenization of sediment grain sizes. Additionally, eolian transport contributes significantly to sediment sorting, and prolonged transport time further enhances the development of well-sorted fine-grained sands [35,63,64]. Furthermore, coarse-skewed distribution in both beaches may be attributed to the presence of shell fragments in sediments. For PN, the incorporation of mollusk remains is probably delivered from the nearby Terminos Lagoon and shoreface sources.
Regarding kurtosis (KG), sediments from PN exhibit a leptokurtic distribution (1.15 φ), whereas those from PT are classified as extremely leptokurtic (1.51 φ). These leptokurtic patterns denote a pronounced concentration of particles around the mean grain size, reflecting sedimentary processes that tend to remove particles that deviate from the dominant grain size [65]. This feature is common in environments where sediment transport and deposition are efficient and selective, likely associated with river discharges into these coastal areas [46,66,67].

5.2. SEM-EDS

PN samples exhibit an abundance of silicate grains, as well as high concentrations of Cr and Fe, potentially associated with metallic oxides, suggesting the presence of iron-rich minerals (Figure 5c). Furthermore, the combination of Na, K, Al, and Si (Figure 5d) indicates the presence of feldspar, mostly from igneous origin, reflecting a continental input through fluvial or aeolian transport [68,69]. Figure 5e shows the coexistence of Ti, Cr, and Fe, suggesting an association with heavy minerals such as ilmenite and rutile, or it could also be associated with contaminants resistant to weathering [70]. Results confirm the heterogeneous nature of sediments in PN, which is influenced by weathering processes and biological activity.
For PT, the grains show a high abundance of Si, Ca, and Cl (Figure 4c), possibly associated with quartz grains and silicate particles recovered in biogenic fragments or saline deposits [71]. The combination of Na, K, Al, and Si observed in Figure 4d indicates the presence of sodic and potassium feldspars, characterized by igneous continental materials, modified through marine processes such as saline incrustations [72,73]. Figure 4e exhibits a grain with elevated values of F, Ti, Ca, and Fe, potentially associated with fluorapatite or with materials of industrial use, which strengthens the hypothesis of interactions between natural and external inputs. Overall, these characteristics indicate that sediments in PT exhibit a heterogeneous mineralogical composition with characteristics of minerals from igneous and continental origins.

5.3. XRD

The presence of volcanic–metamorphic minerals in PN, such as andesine (present in all samples), actinolite (observed in PN11 and PN15), and clinochlore [PN15], may suggest a sedimentary reworking from nearby basins or the exposure of fractured igneous basement rocks (Table 4) [74]. Minerals like kaolinite (PN11) and chlorite are representative of conditions of tropical chemical weathering [75]. Aragonite in samples suggests a biogenic input possibly derived from shell fragments or secondary precipitation processes [76].
In contrast, PT exhibits an abundance of quartz, indicating an advanced sedimentary maturity and elevated reworking (recycling), a common characteristic of the compositionally matured sediments [77]. The presence of calcic feldspars (samples T4, T8, and T17) probably derived from minerals like andesine and anorthite suggests a recent igneous input, as these minerals show only little evidence of weathering (Table 4). Lastly, the occurrence of actinolite in various samples can be attributed to the metamorphic contribution from altered igneous rocks or to sediments transported through coastal currents [78].

5.4. Provenance Implication from Bulk Sediment Geochemistry

5.4.1. Major Elements

One of the most widely used geochemical ratios for inferring source rock type is Al2O3/TiO2 [79,80]. Values ranging from 19 to 28 typically suggest a felsic provenance, whereas ratios below 14 indicate a mafic origin [81]. The average Al2O3/TiO2 ratio is 26.8 for PN and 22.6 for PT, suggesting a felsic source. Several authors have utilized the diagram proposed by Roser and Korsch [82] to infer provenance, i.e., quartzose, felsic, intermediate, and mafic [28,83,84,85]: This provenance discrimination diagram (Figure 11) reveals a felsic origin for PN and a quartzose sedimentary origin for PT. This discrepancy may be attributed to the higher SiO2 content in PT (SiO2 = 88.2 ± 0.45) than in PN (SiO2 = 79.5 ± 6.86) sediments, which could indicate sedimentary reworking.
The chemical index of alteration (CIA) is widely used to find out the degree of chemical weathering. Hence, in this study, the CIA [Al2O3/(Al2O3 + Na2O + K2O + CaO*) × 100] (The CaO* indicates that only calcium from silicate minerals is considered, excluding calcium from carbonates, phosphates, and sulfates, in order to avoid overestimating the degree of chemical weathering) is calculated to assess the degree of sediment weathering in both beach areas, following the approach proposed by [51]. In PN, the obtained values range from 25 to 60 (43 ± 11), corresponding to a low-to-moderate degree of chemical alteration, indicating sediments dominated by primary minerals [86] such as calcic and sodic feldspars. In contrast, in PT, the CIA values range from 59 to 60 (60 ± 0.43), a range that suggests moderate chemical weathering, which is typical of environments with more stable or prolonged weathering [87]. Overall, the results indicate significant differences in weathering intensity between the two zones, possibly associated with variations in environmental condition, carbonate content, source lithology, or the degree of sedimentary reworking.
Altogether, the geochemical patterns reinforce the contrast in provenance and sedimentation regimes between the two beach areas. PN appears to receive inputs from a more geologically diverse source area, possibly including volcanic or carbonate terrains, whereas PT is influenced by more uniform siliciclastic sources. These contrasting characteristics reveal that the beach sediment composition depends on the weathering dynamics, sorting mechanisms, and coastal transport processes that exist in the southwestern GoM.

5.4.2. Trace Element Concentrations

Sediments generally preserve their elemental composition; it can be modified by factors such as the type of incorporated particles during their transport, grain size, and weathering processes [88,89]. Trace elements are, therefore, indicators for the identification of origin, possible contaminants, and alteration processes.
For PN, enrichment is observed for Cr, Cu, Sr, and Ba. Although these elements reside in several minerals identified in X-ray diffraction analysis, other researchers [88,90,91] documented that high concentrations for Cr, Cu, and Zn in marine sediments are associated with industrial origin, pesticides, and wastewaters. Sr and Ba in coastal sediments primarily reside in plagioclase and potassium feldspars, respectively [92,93]. Ba is generally associated with multiple phases in marine sediments, including carbonates and other detrital materials [94].
For PT sediments, trace element concentrations are below UCC baseline value, suggesting that the provenance of sediments is directly related to parent rock, with no significant anthropogenic input.

5.4.3. Rare Earth Elements

Numerous studies reported that chondrite-normalized REE patterns and the differences in the europium and cerium anomalies can provide useful information regarding the parent rocks, as these patterns commonly preserve the geochemical characteristics of the original material [5,95,96,97]. The REE patterns of the PN and PT sediments show LREE enrichment, a negative Eu anomaly, and a flat HREE distribution, indicating that the sediments are consistent with having mostly originated from felsic igneous rocks.

5.5. Zircon U-Pb Ages and Potential Source Terranes

To identify the potential source areas of PN and PT beach sediments, the U-Pb age data are compared with the reported data from southern Mexico (Figure 1). At PN, the oldest zircon population corresponds to the Proterozoic (Neoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic). Weber et al. [98,99] analyzed zircons in the Santa Rosa Formation, Chiapas, which correlates to the Santa Rosa group in Guatemala and Belize. Zircon grains dated from the Santa Rosa Formation mostly belong to the Silurian (~420 Ma), and other populations belong to the Proterozoic (~820–2200 Ma).
Moreover, Weber et al. [99] reported ages between 216 Ma and 286 Ma, correlated to the Permian granitoid intrusions and metasedimentary rocks of the Chiapas Massif. The Chiapas Massif and the Santa Rosa Group are the possible sources for sediments that contain zircon populations corresponding to the Proterozoic (~554–1552 Ma) and the Permian–Triassic boundary (~216–286 Ma) [13,99,100,101]. It is inferred that transport of sediments from these source terranes to the PN beach may have delivered via the Grijalva–Usumacinta River system.
The youngest zircon population in PN ranges between 10.55 Ma and 27.05 Ma. For these zircons, the probable source is the Tuxtla Volcanic Field (TVF) on the southern GoM coast, Veracruz State, where the age of zircon populations was reported from ~0.23 to 32.9 Ma (Figure 1) [25,101,102].
PT is mostly characterized by an abundance of younger zircons than older grains. The most abundant age group is Oligocene (32.12 Ma). The possible source is the Mesa Central Province, as there are various studies documenting ages between ~ 30 and 47 Ma, dated from granitic and rhyolitic rocks (Figure 1) [103,104]. Additionally, studies conducted in Miramar, north of the Tamaulipas State, reported the dominance of zircon ages between 27 and 46 Ma, which suggests a sediment provenance from the Eastern Mexican Alkaline Province [105]. Ferrari et al. [106] registered Cenozoic zircons in the Cerro Azul area, Veracruz, which is located west of PT. The reported ages from the Cerro Azul vary from ~5 to 233 Ma, corresponding to the volcanic rocks from the eastern part of the Sierra Madre Oriental.
Considering the Mesozoic era, PT sediments are mainly characterized by Cretaceous zircons ~126.53 Ma. A possible source for these zircons is the Zacatecas Formation, where a maximum depositional age of ~ 81 Ma has been reported [28]. Similarly, Juarez-Arriaga et al. [107] documented U-Pb ages of ~66–145 Ma in the turbiditic sequences of the San Felipe and Caracol formations in the Mesa Central Province.
Finally, in PT, the oldest zircon population corresponds to the Proterozoic (~907.5). A series of studies by other researchers in the Ciudad Victoria and Huizachal valley in the Tamaulipas State revealed zircon ages from 1018 to 1300 Ma, which correspond to the Grenvillian Gondwana terrane (Novillo Gneiss) [108,109,110,111]. Additionally, Paleozoic grains ranging from 300 Ma to 450 Ma are derived from rock accretions associated with Peri-Gondwana. Permian–Triassic grains, corresponding to ages varying from 200 to 300 Ma, are related to plutonic rock sources from the western Pangean arc, and the Jurassic grains ranging from 199 Ma to 164 Ma are inferred to be sourced from the Nazas Arc [111].
On the other hand, the integrated analysis of the reported U-P ages from the GoM coastal sediments and the geochronological results obtained in this study suggests a significant variation in ages among different beaches (Figure 12). This reflects that other than sedimentary recycling processes and sediment mixing due to littoral currents, the coastal sediment composition is dependent on the complex tectono-sedimentary history of the GoM basin.

5.6. Heavy Metal and Metalloid Contamination

Three environmental contamination indices are applied to detect the level of heavy metal and metalloid contamination in the PN and PT sediments. The selected indices are EF [15], Igeo [16], and AEI [17]. These indices are selected because they can provide information regarding the possible origin and interaction of contaminants in the beach environment.
The Igeo is used to identify the presence of metals and metalloids in sediments and to determine the amount of contamination from anthropogenic sources. The Igeo is calculated by calculating the logarithm of the ratio of the mean concentration of the element in the sample divided by the average concentration in the Earth’s crust, including a correction factor to account for natural variations in sediment sources (Table 8). According to the classification proposed by Müller [16], the calculated Igeo values of PN demonstrate representative values for four elements. The concentration values for Cr (0.81 ppm), Cu (0.26 ppm), and Cs (0.80 ppm) classify them as uncontaminated to moderately contaminated. This indicates that there is no environmental risk; however, there is a slight enrichment above the natural background value. Arsenic (As) reveals a 2.17 ppm concentration, which is classified as moderately contaminated, indicating a greater degree of alteration possibly due to agricultural activities where pesticides rich in As are commonly used near the study area.
Nevertheless, the values obtained for the PT sediments did not reveal a significant degree of enrichment, since the values obtained were less than zero, indicating concentrations below the reference background used.
EF is calculated by the ratio between the concentration of the element of interest in the sample and the abundance of a reference element [15]. Aluminum is used as a reference element for normalization as it is relatively immobile, abundant, and represents the clay fraction of the sediment [112]. This index allows us to identify the enrichment of trace metals in sediments due to anthropogenic input (EF > 2) [113]. PN sediments reveal an enrichment in certain elements like As, Cr, Cs, Cu, Ba, Pb, and Sr. On the other hand, PT sediments indicate an enrichment exclusively in As, while the concentrations of other elements remained within deficient to minimally enriched levels (Table 9). However, the average As content of 2.94 ppm places it within the category of moderate enrichment. Meanwhile, the average As content in PN is 23.41 ppm, reflecting a very high level of enrichment. This indicates a possible anthropogenic source, which could come from pesticide leachates rich in As in the nearby agricultural areas (Figure 2) [114,115].
The average concentrations of Cs (8.43 ppm), Cr (9.18 ppm), and Cu (9.55 ppm) in PN suggest a significant enrichment of these metals due to anthropogenic sources. Cesium is present in trace concentrations within micaceous minerals; however, the significantly elevated concentrations indicate it is primarily linked to industrial processes in which this element has been used either directly or as a byproduct [116,117]. Cr is commonly used in metallurgy, as well as in the manufacture of paints, ceramics, textiles, fungicides, and refining processes [118]. Cu, meanwhile, may originate from activities such as mining, pesticide production, pyrometallurgy, and the microelectronics industry [119]. On the other hand, considering the natural source, minerals can also increase the Cr and Cu contents in sediments. However, Cr content in the studied sediments (9.18 ppm) is lower than in the average late Proterozoic mafic rock like basalt (Cr = 50 ppm) [120]. Conversely, the concentration of Ba indicates a moderate enrichment with 3.28 ppm, which may come from rubber production, lubricating oil additives, fuel synthesis, fertilizers, or sewage sludges [113]. Finally, in PN, Pb and Sr exhibit the lowest enrichment levels (2.04 and 2.85 ppm, respectively), suggesting, predominantly, a natural origin.
In general, the values obtained from the enrichment factor suggest a combination of natural and anthropogenic sources. However, an enrichment of As, Cr, Cu, and Cs indicates a greater contribution from human activities (refer to Table 2 for reference values). To evaluate the potential toxic effects on benthic biota produced by the concentrations of metals and metalloids in sediments, an AEI is calculated [17]. This index is calculated by dividing the measured concentration of the element by its corresponding reference value (Table 10). The results obtained for PN indicate that the concentrations for As, Pb, and Zn are low and do not represent a significant toxicological risk. On the other hand, Ni (0.55 mg/kg) and Cu (0.41 mg/kg) exhibit a value of AEI = ~ 1.0, which suggests a moderate risk of adverse effects on biota with reduced potential toxicity. In contrast, the concentration of Cr (1.62 mg/kg) indicates a high potential toxicity and likely a possibility for an adverse effect on benthic organisms in the beach areas. In contrast, the concentration of Cr (1.62 mg/kg) indicates a high potential toxicity and likely a possibility for an adverse effect on benthic organisms in the beach areas. The observed Cr enrichment is associated with urban industrial processes that can release Cr through hydrocarbon combustion, metallurgy, pigments, or industrial waste. These processes are consistent with the types of activities carried out in the urban area located near the PN study area (Figure 2) [118,121,122,123]. The AEI values for all elements obtained for the PT sediments are very low, and hence, there is no evidence of toxicity or significant risk of adverse effects on the biota on this beach.

6. Conclusions

The granulometric analysis of PN and PT sediments indicates a low-energy condition with well-sorted sediments, reflecting the interactions between beach dynamics and marine currents that facilitate the homogenization of sediment grain size. The PN and PT sediments are predominantly composed of quartz; however, the concentration of trace elements in PN is higher than in PT. These compositional differences reflect the variations in sediment sources and depositional environments. The major element concentrations, Al2O3/TiO2 ratios, and the enrichment of LREE against HREE indicate that PN sediments are of felsic provenance and PT a quartzose sedimentary provenance. The latter could be due to higher reworking of sediments at PT compared to PN.
The detrital zircon populations from PN and PT exhibit distinct age spectra, reflecting differences in sediment provenance and transport agents along the southern GoM coast. At PN, the dominance of Proterozoic and Paleozoic zircons, together with a smaller but significant Neogene population, suggests multiple sediment sources, including the Chiapas Massif, the Santa Rosa Group, and the Tuxtla Volcanic Field, with sediment likely transported to the beach via the Grijalva–Usumacinta River system. In contrast, PT is characterized by a higher abundance of younger Oligocene zircons, consistent with input from the Mesa Central and the Eastern Mexican Alkaline Provinces. The presence of Cretaceous and Proterozoic zircons indicates complex sediment mixing and recycling, with sources ranging from the Sierra Madre Oriental to Grenvillian terranes of the Gondwanan affinity.
The contamination indices (Igeo, EF, and AEI) reveal contrasting contamination levels between PT and PN. PT sediments show minimal contamination and no significant ecological risk, while PN sediments exhibit moderate-to-high enrichment of metals and metalloids, including As, Cr, Cu, and Cs. This enrichment indicates a strong anthropogenic influence and a potential risk of adverse effects on the benthic biota for Cr. These findings suggest localized anthropogenic inputs potentially associated with industrial, agricultural, and metallurgical activities near the beach areas. Given the potential ecological risk, it is important to implement monitoring programs and strict regulations on the wastewater discharges into the coastal ecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min15121277/s1, Table S1: U-Pb ages of detrital zircons in the Playa Norte beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico; Table S2: U-Pb ages of detrital zircons in the Playa Tamiahua beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico; Table S3: Trace (Nb, Hf, Th, and U) and rare earth element data (in ppm) for the detrital zircon grains in the Playa Norte beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico; Table S4: Trace (Nb, Hf, Th, and U) and rare earth elements data (in ppm) for the detrital zircon grains in the Playa Tamiahua beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico. Figure S1: X-ray Diffractograms showing the mineralogical composition of PN beach sediments. Figure S2: X-ray Diffractograms showing the mineralogical composition of PT beach sediments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft, I.Z.F.-O.; writing—review and editing, investigation, funding acquisition, project administration, J.S.A.-A.; methodology, and review and editing, G.D.F.-G.; review, J.M.; investigation of the study area, review and editing, I.V.A.-G.; investigation, review, and editing, B.Y.P.-A.; methodology, review, and editing, S.E.I.-R.; granulometry analysis, M.F.-C.; editing, I.A.G.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported financially by the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT) Project IN104824 and the Institutional Project 616.

Data Availability Statement

All data discussed in this study are included in the manuscript and the Supplementary File. All data discussed in this study are included in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Itzamna Zaknite F. Ocampo acknowledges the Postgraduate Program of Earth Sciences and the postdoctoral program of Elisa Acuña, DGAPA, UNAM, for the scholarships (CVU: 956044). Special thanks to the laboratory technicians Ricardo M. Domínguez, Eduardo Alfredo, and Arturo R. Arvizu from the ICML. Gratitude is also extended to Carlos L. López and Laura Elena Gómez for SEM-EDS and SEM, respectively. Appreciation to José Teodoro Treviño for the identification of minerals at LUGIS, Institute of Geophysics. Luigi Augusto Solari is thanked for U-Pb zircon dating. Lastly, thanks to Teresa Pi Puig for mineral identification by XRD.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence this work.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript.
XRDX-Ray Diffraction
SEM-EDSScanning Electron Microscopy–Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy
PNPlaya Norte
PTPlaya Tamiahua
DGAPADirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico
PAPIITPrograma de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica
ICMyLInstituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología
UNAMUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México
LUGISLaboratorio Universitario de Geoquímica Isotópica
LANGEMLaboratorio Nacional de Geoquímica y Mineralogía
ACTLABSActivation Laboratories Limited
SGMServicio Geológico Mexicano
CDMXMexico City

References

  1. Andersen, T.; van Niekerk, H.; Elburg, M. Detrital zircon in an active sedimentary recycling system: Challenging the ‘source-to-sink’ approach to zircon-based provenance analysis. Sedimentology 2022, 69, 2436–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liou, P.; Guo, J.; Mitchell, R.N.; Spencer, C.J.; Li, X.; Zhai, M.; Evans, N.J.; Li, Y.; McDonald, B.J.; Jin, M. Zircons underestimate mantle depletion of early Earth. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2022, 317, 538–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shi, G.; Wauschkuhn, B.; Ratschbacher, L.; Shen, C.; Fu, H.; Frölich, S. Zircon-based proxies for source-rock prediction in provenance analysis: A case study using Upper Devonian sandstones, northern South China Block. Sediment. Geol. 2023, 447, 106366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Scherer, E.; Whitehouse, M.; Munker, C. Zircon as a Monitor of Crustal Growth. Elements 2007, 3, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology and geochemistry of the Riachuelos and Palma Sola beach sediments, Veracruz State, Gulf of Mexico: A new insight on palaeoenvironment. J. Palaeogeogr. 2020, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gao, Y.; Jiang, L.; Chen, W.; Dong, H.; Jiang, F.; Zhao, W.; Feng, Y.; Cao, L.; Liu, X. Tectonic evolution of the Proto-Paleo-Tethys in the West Kunlun orogenic belt: Constraints from U-Pb geochronology of detrital zircons. Gondwana Res. 2025, 141, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sonfack, A.N.; Ngueutchoua, G.; Ngagoum Kontchipe, Y.S.; Sopie, F.T.; Nkouathio, D.G.; Wouatong, A.S.L.; Tchatchueng, R.; Kenfack Nguemo, G.R.; Njanko, T. Mineralogical and geochemical signatures of surface stream sediments from Dibamba River basin, SW Cameroon: Implications for provenance, weathering, and tectonic setting. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2021, 181, 104251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tawfik, H.A.; Salah, M.K.; Maejima, W.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Abdel-Hameed, A.-M.T.; Ghandour, M.M.E. Petrography and geochemistry of the Lower Miocene Moghra sandstones, Qattara Depression, northwestern Desert, Egypt. Geol. J. 2018, 53, 1938–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chi, G.; Liu, B.; Hu, K.; Yang, J.; He, B. Geochemical composition of sediments in the Liao River Estuary and implications for provenance and weathering. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2021, 45, 101833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kong, J.; Xu, Z.; Cheng, R.; Wang, L. Provenance of Lower Jurassic sediments in the South China continental margin: Evidence from U-Pb ages of detrital zircons. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2021, 569, 110341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Akkoca, D.B.; Yıldırım, I.; Al-Juboury, A.I. Parent material, weathering and heavy metal contamination in the surface soils from basin infill sediments in Elazığ Industrial Area, Eastern Turkey. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2024, 212, 105185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Linde, G.M.; Trexler, J.H., Jr.; Cashman, P.H.; Gehrels, G.; Dickinson, W.R. Detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotope geochemistry of the Roberts Mountains allochthon: New insights into the early Paleozoic tectonics of western North America. Geosphere 2016, 12, 1016–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tapia-Fernandez, H.J.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Selvaraj, K. Geochemistry and U–Pb geochronology of detrital zircons in the Brujas beach sands, Campeche, Southwestern Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 346–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. U-Pb ages of zircon grains in the Playa Azul Beach Sediments, Guerrero State, Mexican Pacific. J. Geol. Soc. India 2024, 100, 1373–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zoller, W.H.; Gladney, E.S.; Duce, R.A. Atmosphere concentrations and sources of trace metals at the South Pole. Science 1974, 183, 199–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Müller, G. Index of geoaccumulation in Sediments of the Rhine River. Geol. J. 1969, 2, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
  17. Long, E.R.; Macdonald, D.D.; Smith, S.L.; Calder, F.D. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Nagarajan, R.; Balaram, V.; Natalhy-Pineda, O. Petrography and geochemistry of sands from the Chachalacas and Veracruz beach areas, western Gulf of Mexico, Mexico: Constraints on provenance and tectonic setting. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2015, 64, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Lee, Y.I.; Kasper-Zubillaga, J.J.; Trejo-Ramírez, E. Mineralogy and geochemistry of sands along the Manzanillo and El Carrizal beach areas, southern Mexico: Implications for palaeoweathering, provenance, and tectonic setting. Geol. J. 2017, 52, 559–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Botello, A.V.; Villanueva, S.F.; Soto, L.A. Geochemistry of surface sediments from the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for provenance and heavy metal contamination. Geol. Quarter. 2019, 63, 522–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Machain-Castillo, M.L.; Gío-Argáez, F.R. Foraminiferal assemblages, 14C ages, and compositional variations in two sediment cores in the western Gulf of Mexico. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2018, 88, 480–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ayala-Pérez, M.P.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Machain-Castillo, M.L. Heavy metal contamination and provenance of sediments recovered at the Grijalva River delta, southern Gulf of Mexico. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 130, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shukla, M.; Verma, S.K.; Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Hernández-Martínez, V.P.; Mishra, S.; Malviya, V.P.; Hernández-Mendoza, H. Geochemistry and mineralogy of beach sediments in the northern Gulf of Mexico, Tamaulipas State, Mexico: Implication for provenance. J. Plaeogeogr. 2024, 13, 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tapia-Fernández, H.J. Sedimentología, Petrografía y Geoquímica de Sedimentos del Litoral sur del Golfo de México: Implicaciones Sobre el Ambiente de Depósito y Procedencia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2017; 209p. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Sediment chemistry and detrital zircon record in the Bosque and Paseo del Mar coastal areas from the southwestern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2019, 110, 650–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Hermenegildo-Ruiz, N.Y.; Madhavaraju, J. Microtexture and U–Pb geochronology of detrital zircon grains in the Chachalacas beach, Veracruz State, Gulf of Mexico. Geol. J. 2021, 56, 2418–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Madhavaraju, J. Geochemistry and U–Pb geochronology of detrital zircons in the beach sands of the southwestern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for sediment provenance and tectonic setting. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2024, 147, 105014. [Google Scholar]
  28. Shukla, M.; Verma, S.K.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Ramos-Vazquez, M.A.; Mishra, S.; Oliveira, E.P.; Malviya, V.P. Identification of source terranes of beach sediments from the NW Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean: Constraints from geochemistry and U–Pb detrital zircon geochronology. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2025, 158, 105496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Provenance of sediments from Barra del Tordo and Tesoro beaches, Tamaulipas State, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. J. Palaeogeogr. 2021, 10, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Servicio Geológico Mexicano (SGM) GeoInfoMex: El Banco de datos del, S.G.M. Available online: https://www.sgm.gob.mx/GeoInfoMexGobMx/ (accessed on 12 July 2025).
  31. Salas de León, D.A.; Monreal-Gómez, M.A.; Díaz-Flores, M.A.; Salas-Monreal, D.; Velasco-Mendoza, H.; Riverón-Enzástiga, M.L.; Ortiz-Zamora, G. Role of near-bottom currents in the distribution of sediments within the Southern Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico. J. Coast. Res. 2008, 24, 1487–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. INEGI. Prontuario de Información Geográfica Municipal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos; INEGI: Tamiahua, Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave, Mexico, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  33. Carranza-Edwards, A.; Rosales-Hoz, L.; Caso Chávez, M.; Morales de la Garza, E. Environmental geology of the coastal zone. Encyclo. Earth Sci. Ser. 2005, 14, 535–541. [Google Scholar]
  34. Flores-Ocampo, I.Z.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Abundance and composition of microplastics in Tampico beach sediments, Tamaulipas State, southern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 191, 114891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tapia-Fernández, H.J. Análisis Composicional de Sedimentos Recientes en las Playas de Tamiahua y Tuxpan, Golfo de México: Implicación Sobre su Procedencia. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  36. NASA Goddard Earth Sciences (GES DISC). 2D Chemistry Weather Maps. NASA FLUID. 2025. Available online: https://fluid.nccs.nasa.gov/wxmaps/chem2d/ (accessed on 5 June 2025).
  37. Pérez-Alvarado, B.Y.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Microplastics in the Barra Norte and Mocambo beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2025, 20, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Secretaría de la Convención Ramsar. Ficha Informativa del Sitio Ramsar No. MX1596. Ramsar Sites Information Service. 2005. Available online: https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/RISrep/MX1596RIS.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  39. Ocaña-Luna, A.; Sánchez-Ramírez, M. Estructura de la comunidad fitoplanctónica en la laguna de Tamiahua, Veracruz, México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2016, 87, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  40. Calva, B.L.G.; Torres Alvarado, R. Distribución de carbohidratos, Carbono Y Nitrogeno orgánico en sedimentos de tres lagunas costeras del Golfo de México. Hidrológica 2000, 10, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  41. SEDESOL. Programa Director Urbano del Centro de Población. Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche. Consultado el 22 de Junio del 2025. 2012. Available online: http://www.carmen.gob.mx/transparencia/web/Ayuntamiento/2012/ob23/Secretaria_Ayunta/juridico/CD--PLAN_MUNICIPAL_DE_DESARROLLO_2009-2012.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2025).
  42. Cedar Lake Ventures. Cedar Lake Ventures. Average Weather in Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico Year-Round. Weather Spark, 2025. Available online: https://weatherspark.com/y/11319/Average-Weather-in-Ciudad-del-Carmen-Mexico-Year-Round (accessed on 22 June 2025).
  43. Magallanes-Ordóñez, V.R.; Marmolejo-Rodríguez, A.J.; Rodríguez-Figueroa, G.M.; Sánchez-González, A.; Aguíñiga-García, S.; Arreguín-Sánchez, F.; Zetina-Rejón, M.; Tripp-Valdez, A.; Romo-Ríos, J.A. Characterization of lithogenic and biogenic zones and natural enrichment of nickel in sediments of the Terminos Lagoon, Campeche, Mexico. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2015, 156, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. INEGI Prontuario de Información Geográfica Municipal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Carmen, Campeche. Consultado el 22 de Junio de 2025. 2009. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/app/mexicocifras/datos_geograficos/Zonas%20Interestatales_/CY001.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2025).
  45. SEMAR. Isla del Carmen, Campeche. Datos Generales del Puerto. 2015, pp. 1–19. Available online: https://digaohm.semar.gob.mx/cuestionarios/cnarioCddelcarmen.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  46. Folk, R.L.; Ward, W.C. Brazos river bar: A study in the significance of grain size parameters. J. Sediment. Res. 1957, 27, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Solari, L.A.; Gómez-Tuena, A.; Bernal, J.P.; Pérez-Arvizu, O.; Tanner, M. U-Pb zircon geochronology by an integrated LAICPMS microanalytical workstation: Achievements in precision and accuracy. Geostand. Geoanalytical Res. 2010, 34, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Taylor, S.R.; McLennan, S.M. The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1985; 349p. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vermeesch, P. IsoplotR: A free and open toolbox for geochronology. Geosci. Front. 2018, 9, 1479–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vermeesch, P. On the visualization of detrital age distributions. Chem. Geol. 2012, 312–313, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nesbitt, H.W.; Young, G.M. Early Proterozoic climates and plate motions inferred from major element chemistry of lutites. Nature 1982, 299, 715–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Biao, S.; Nutman, A.P.; Dunyi, L.; Jiashan, W. 3800 to 2500 Ma crustal evolution in the Anshan area of Liaoning Province, northeastern China. Precambrian Res. 1996, 78, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gong, H.; Nie, J.; Wang, Z.; Peng, W.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, Y. A comparison of zircon U-Pb age results of the Red Clay sequence on the central Chinese Loess Plateau. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wilde, S.A.; Valley, J.W.; Peck, W.H.; Graham, C.M. Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the earth 4.4 Gyr ago. Nature 2001, 409, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cheng, F.; Hong, H.; Bae, C.J.; Li, Z.; Algeo, T.J.; Huang, S.; Cheng, L.; Fang, Q. Geochemical and detrital zircon U-Pb geochronological constraints on provenance of the Xiaomei red earth sediments (Bose Basin, Guangxi Province, southern China). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2018, 510, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hoskin, P.W.O.; Ireland, T.R. Rare earth element chemistry of zircon and its use as a provenance indicator. Geology 2000, 28, 627–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yakymchuk, C.; Kirkland, C.L.; Clark, C. Th/U ratios in metamorphic zircon. J. Metamorph. Geol. 2018, 36, 715–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rubatto, D. Zircon trace element geochemistry: Partitioning with garnet and the link between U-Pb ages and metamorphism. Chem. Geol. 2002, 184, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hoskin, P.W.O.; Schaltegger, U. The composition of zircon, and igneous and metamorphic petrogenesis. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 53, 27–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zavala-León, A.C. Geoquímica y Datación de Zircones Detríticos de Playa “Atasta” del Suroeste del Golfo de México, México: Implicaciones de Procedencia. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Hidalgo, Mexico, 2018; 96p. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ramos-Vázquez, M.A. Sediment provenance inferred by U–Pb ages of zircon grains in the Puerto Chiapas beach, Mexican Pacific. Arab. J. Geosci. 2023, 16, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Carranza-Edwards, A.; Kasper Zubillaga, J.J.; Rosales-Hoz, L.; Morales de la Garza, E.A.; Lozano-Santacruz, R. Beach sand composition and provenance in a sector of the southwestern Mexican Pacific. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geol. 2009, 26, 433–447. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kasper-Zubillaga, J.J. Roundness in quartz grains from inland and coastal dune sands, Altar desert, Sonora, Mexico. Bol. Soc. Geol. Mex. 2009, 61, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mandol, S.; Bhuyan, M.S.; Islam, M.N.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Al-Imran, M.; Islam, T.; Senapathi, V.; Ranganathan, P.C.; Sekar, S.; Biswas, R.N.; et al. Granulometric and geomorphological characteristics of Rezu Khal canal, Bangladesh: Inferences for sustainable ecosystem and management. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Madhavaraju, J.; Lee, Y.I.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Hussain, S.M. Microtextures on detrital quartz grains of Upper Maastrichtian-Danian rocks of the Cauvery Basin, Southeastern India: Implications for provenance and depositional environments. Geosci. J. 2006, 10, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kasper-Zubillaga, J.J.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Carranza-Edwards, A.; Morton-Bermea, O.; Lozano-Santa-Cruz, R. Control in beach and dune sands of the Gulf of Mexico and the role of nearby rivers. Int. J. Geosci. 2013, 4, 1157–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rosales-Hoz, L.; Carranza-Edwards, A.; Martínez-Serrano, R.; Alatorre, M.A.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Textural and geochemical characteristics of marine sediments in the SW Gulf of Mexico: Implications for source and seasonal change. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cox, R.; Lowe, D.R. A conceptual review of regional-scale controls on the composition of clastic sediment and the co-evolution of continental blocks and their sedimentary cover. J. Sediment. Res. 1995, 65, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  69. Philpotts, A.R.; Ague, J.J. Principles of Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ren, J.; Zheng, L.; Su, Y.; Meng, P.; Zhou, Q.; Zeng, H.; Yu, H. Competitive adsorption of Cd (II), Pb (II) and Cu (II) ions from acid mine drainage with zero-valent iron/phosphoric titanium dioxide: XPS qualitative analyses and DFT quantitative calculations. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 445, 136778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ward, C.R. Analysis, origin and significance of mineral matter in coal: An updated review. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2016, 165, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Eugster, H.P. Geochemistry of evaporitic lacustrine deposits. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1980, 8, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Last, W.M.; Ginn, F.M. Saline systems of the Great Plains of western Canada: An overview of the limnogeology and paleolimnology. Saline Syst. 2005, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hashimoto, M. Reactions producing actinolite in basic metamorphic rocks. Lithos 1972, 5, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Worden, R.H.; Griffiths, J.; Wooldridge, L.J.; Utley, J.E.P.; Lawan, A.Y.; Muhammed, D.D.; Armitage, P.J. Chlorite in sandstones. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 204, 103105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Palmer, T.J.; Wilson, M.A. Calcite precipitation and dissolution of biogenic aragonite in shallow Ordovician calcite seas. Lethaia 2004, 37, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Basu, A. Reading provenance from detrital quartz. In Provenance of Arenites; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 231–247. [Google Scholar]
  78. Powell, W.G.; Carmichael, D.M.; Hodgson, C.J. Conditions and timing of metamorphism in the southern Abitibi greenstone belt, Quebec. Can. J. Earth Sci. 1995, 32, 787–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kassahun, M.; Zemene, D.; Haileslassie, T.; Meshesha, D. Provenance and paleotectonic setting of the Triassic to lower Jurassic Adigrat sandstone around Yejube, Blue Nile Basin, Central Ethiopia. Arab. J. Geosci. 2025, 18, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Peng, Q.; Du, B.; Peng, J.; Liu, Z.; Danzeng, P. Geochemical characteristics of the upper Triassic Bagong formation mudstones in the eastern North Qiangtang depression and their constraints on the provenance, palaeoclimate and palaeoenvironment. Front. Earth Sci. 2025, 13, 1596376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Girty, G.H.; Ridge, D.L.; Knaack, C.; Johnson, D.; Al-Riyami, R.K. Provenance and depositional setting of Paleozoic chert and argillite, Sierra Nevada, California. J. Sediment. Res. 1996, 66, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Roser, B.P.; Korsch, R.J. Provenance signatures of sandstone–mudstone suites determined using discrimination function analysis of major-element data. Chem. Geol. 1988, 67, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bela, V.A.; Bessa, A.Z.E.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Kamani, F.A.; Nya, E.D.B.; Ngueutchoua, G. Provenance of clastic sediments: A case study from Cameroon, Central Africa. Solid Earth Sci. 2023, 8, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sopie, F.T.; Ngueutchoua, G.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Njanko, T.; Sonfack, A.N.; Sonfack, A.N.; Ngagoum, Y.S.K.; Fossa, D.; Tembu, L.T. Provenance, weathering, and tectonic setting of the Yoyo, Kribi, and Campo beach sediments in the southern Gulf of Guinea, SW Cameroon. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2023, 132, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ramos-Vázquez, M.A.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Fernández-Guevara, G.D.; Madhavaraju, J.; Verma, S.K.; James, R.A. Provenance of sediments and environmental risk assessment of heavy metals in the “Mis Amores” beach, Veracruz, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. J. Indian Assoc. Sedimentol. 2024, 41, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yahya, M.A.; Wanas, H.A.; Alqahtani, F.A.; Masrouhi, A.; Abdulfarraj, M.R. Paleo-weathering and paleoclimate of the Miocene syn-rift sandstones in the Midyan Basin, NW Saudi Arabia: Petrographic and geochemical constraints. Geosyst. Geoenviron. 2026, 5, 100451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fedo, C.M.; Nesbitt, H.W.; Young, G.M. Unraveling the effects of potassium metasomatism in sedimentary rocks and paleosols, with implications for paleoweathering conditions and provenance. Geology 1995, 23, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rodríguez Figueroa, G.M. Heavy Metal Contamination Levels in the Coastal Zone of Santa Rosalía: Sediments and Macroalgae. Ph.D. Thesis, National Polytechnic Institute Interdisciplinary Center for Marine Sciences, La Paz, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  89. Akkoca, D.B.; Eriş, K.K.; Çağatay, M.N.; Biltekin, D. The mineralogical and geochemical composition of Holocene sediments from Lake Hazar, Elazığ, Eastern Turkey: Implications for weathering, paleoclimate, redox conditions, provenance, and tectonic setting. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 2019, 28, 760–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tsanga, A.D.; Ekoa Bessa, A.Z.; Ngueutchoua, G.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Microtexture, mineralogy, and geochemistry of sediments in the Campo beach area, south Cameroon. J. Sediment. Environ. 2025, 10, 325–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Botello, A.V.; Von Osten, J.R.; ABenítez, J.; Gold-Boucht, G. Golfo de México. Contaminación e Impacto Ambiental: Diagnóstico y Tendencias; UAC, UNAM-ICML, CINVESTAV-Unidad Mérida: Campeche, México, 2014; 1174p. [Google Scholar]
  92. Habib Galindo, A.D. Análisis Sedimentológico, Petrográfico y Geoquímico en Playas de la Riviera Maya. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  93. Zaid, S.M.; El-Badry, O.A.; Akarish, A.M.; Mohamed, M.A. Provenance, weathering, and paleoenvironment of the Upper Cretaceous Duwi black shales, Aswan Governorate, Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Liyouck, P.R.; Ngueutchoua, G.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Nadine Sonfack, A.; Kontchipe Ngagoum, Y.S.; Ekoa Bessa, A.Z.; Ambassa Bela, V.; Tsanga, D.A.; Sylvain Ludovic Wouatong, A. Petrography and geochemistry of the Sanaga River sediments, central Cameron: Constraints on weathering, provenance and tectonic setting. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2023, 199, 104840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Madhavaraju, J.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Pillai, R.B.; Pi-Puig, T. Geochemistry of sands from the Huatabampo and Altata beaches, Gulf of California, Mexico. Geol. J. 2021, 56, 2398–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Madhavaraju, J.; Noriega-Montoya, D.G.; Ramirez-Montoya, E.; González-León, C.M.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Provenance and tectonic setting of sandstones of Lomas Coloradas Formation, Cabullona Group, Sonora, Mexico: Constraints on petrography and geochemistry. J. Palaeogeogr. 2024, 13, 839–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Djibril, K.N.G.; Yiika, L.P.; Etutu, M.E.M.M.; Eric, B.E.; Mengu, E.E.; Jean-Lavenir, N.M.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S. Geochemistry of sediments from the Mugheb River, Bamenda, Cameroon volcanic line: Implications for provenance, paleoweathering and tectonic setting. Arab. J. Geosci. 2024, 17, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Weber, B.; Schaaf, P.; Valencia, V.A.; Iriondo, A.; Ortega-Gutiérrez, F. Provenance ages of late Paleozoic sandstones (Santa Rosa Formation) from the Maya block, SE Mexico: Implications on the tectonic evolution of western Pangea. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geológicas 2006, 23, 262–276. [Google Scholar]
  99. Weber, B.; Valencia, V.A.; Schaaf, P.; Pompa-Mera, V.; Ruiz, J. Significance of provenance ages from the Chiapas massif complex (Southeastern Mexico): Redefining the Paleozoic basement of the Maya block and its evolution in a peri-Gondwanan realm. J. Geol. 2008, 116, 619–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Estrada-Carmona, J.; Weber, B.; Hecht, L.; Martens, U. PTt trajectory of metamorphic rocks from the central Chiapas Massif Complex: The Custepec Unit, Chiapas, Mexico. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geol. 2009, 26, 243–259. [Google Scholar]
  101. Estrada-Carmona, J.; Weber, B.; Martens, U.; López-Martínez, M. Petrogenesis of Ordovician magmatic rocks in the southern Chiapas Massif Complex: Relations with the early Palaeozoic magmatic belts of northwestern Gondwana. Int. Geol. Rev. 2012, 54, 1918–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Verma, S.P.; Pandarinath, K.; Rivera-Gómez, M.A. Evaluation of the ongoing rifting and subduction processes in the geochemistry of magmas from the western part of the Mexican Volcanic Belt. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2016, 66, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Loza-Aguirre, I.; Nieto-Samaniego, Á.F.; Alaniz-Álvarez, S.A.; Ortega-Obregón, C. Cenozoic volcanism and extension in northwestern Mesa Central, Durango, México. Bol. Soc. Geol. Mex. 2012, 64, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sieck, P.; López-Doncel, R.; Dávila-Harris, P.; Aguillón-Robles, A.; Wemmer, K.; Maury, R.C. Almandine garnet-bearing rhyolites associated to bimodal volcanism in the Mesa Central of Mexico: Geochemical, petrological and geochronological evolution. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2019, 92, 310–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Paulín Zavala, T.S. Geoquímica y Geocronología de U-Pb en Circones de la Playa Miramar Sur, Estado de Tamaulipas, Golfo de México, México: Implicación de Procedencia. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2020; 139p. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ferrari, L.; Valencia-Moreno, M.; Bryan, S. Magmatismo y tectónica en la Sierra Madre Occidental y su relación con la evolución de la margen occidental de Norteamérica. Bol. Soc. Geol. Mex. 2005, 57, 343–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Juárez-Arriaga, E.; Lawton, T.F.; Ocampo-Díaz, Y.Z.E.; Stockli, D.F.; Solari, L. Sediment provenance, sediment-dispersal systems, and major arc-magmatic events recorded in the Mexican foreland basin, North-Central and Northeastern Mexico. Int. Geol. Rev. 2019, 6117, 2118–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Stewart, J.H.; Blodgett, R.B.; Boucot, A.J.; Carter, J.L.; López, R. Exotic Paleozoic strata of Gondwanan provenance near Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. In Laurentia-Gondwana Connections Before Pangea; Ramos, V.A., Keppie, J.D., Eds.; Geological Society of America (GSA): Boulder, CO, USA, 1999; pp. 227–252. [Google Scholar]
  109. Trainor, R.J.; Nance, R.D.; Keppie, J.D. Tectonothermal history of the Mesoproterozoic Novillo Gneiss of eastern Mexico: Support for a coherent Oaxaquia microcontinent. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geol. 2011, 28, 580–592. [Google Scholar]
  110. Alemán-Gallardo, E.A.; Ramírez-Fernández, J.A.; Weber, B.; Velasco-Tapia, F.; Casas-Peña, J.M. Novillo Metamorphic Complex, Huizachal-Peregrina Anticlinorium, Tamaulipas, Mexico: Characterization and development based on whole-rock geochemistry and Nd-isotopic ratios. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2019, 96, 102382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Espejo-Bautista, G.; Ortega-Gutiérrez, F.; Solari, L.A.; Maldonado, R.; Valencia-Morales, Y.T. The Sierra de Juárez Complex: A new Gondwanan Neoproterozoic-early Palaeozoic metamorphic terrane in southern Mexico. Int. Geol. Rev. 2022, 64, 631–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Esen, E.; Kucuksezgin, F.; Uluturhan, E. Assessment of trace metal pollution in surface sediments of Nemrut Bay, Aegean Sea. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sutherland, R.A. Bed sediment-associated trace metals in an urban stream, Oahu, Hawaii. Environ. Geol. 2000, 39, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Hansen, A.M.; Zavala, A.L.; Inclan, L.B. Fuentes de contaminación y enriquecimiento de metales en sedimentos de la cuenca Lerma-Chapala. Ing. Hidrául. México 1995, 10, 55–69. [Google Scholar]
  115. Punshon, T.; Jackson, B.P.; Meharg, A.A.; Warczak, T.; Scheckel, K.; Guerinot, M.L. Understanding arsenic dynamics in agronomic systems to predict and prevent uptake by crop plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 581–582, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Inventory of Radioactive Waste Disposals at Sea; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Vienna, Austria, 1999; ISSN 1011-4289. [Google Scholar]
  117. Hu, Q.H.; Weng, J.Q.; Wang, J.S. Sources of anthropogenic radionuclides in the environment: A review. J. Environ. Radioact. 2010, 101, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Botello, A.V.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Villanueva, S.F.; Velandia, L.A.; Arellano, A.F. Evaluation of potentially toxic metal concentrations in the Terminos lagoon, Campeche, Gulf of Mexico. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 17, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Estrada Omaña, J.C. Características Granulométricas y Geoquímicas de Arena de Playa de Tecolutla, Veracruz, México: Implicaciones de Procedencia y Ambientes Sedimentarios de Depósito. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  120. Condie, K.C. Chemical composition and evolution of upper continental crust: Contrasting results from surface samples and shales. Chem. Geol. 1993, 104, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Vélez, G.P.; Botello, A.V. Aspectos geoquímicos y de contaminación por metales pesados en la Laguna de Términos, Campeche. Hidrobiológica 1992, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  122. Aguilar-Ucán, C.A.; Montalvo-Romero, C.; Cerón-Bretón, J.G.; Anguebes-Fransesch, F. Niveles de metales pesados en especies marinas: Ostión (Crassostrea virginica), Jaiba (Callinectes sapidus) y Camarón (Litopenaeus setiferus), de Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, México. Rev. Latinoam. Recur. Nat. 2014, 10, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  123. Choppala, G.; Bolan, N.; Park, J.H. Chromium contamination and its risk management in complex environmental settings. Adv. Agron. 2013, 120, 129–172. [Google Scholar]
Minerals 15 01277 g001
Figure 1. Simplified geological map of the study area. Possible source terranes in the southern Gulf of Mexico are also included. Map modified after SGM [30]. The coastal currents are after [31].
Figure 1. Simplified geological map of the study area. Possible source terranes in the southern Gulf of Mexico are also included. Map modified after SGM [30]. The coastal currents are after [31].
Minerals 15 01277 g001
Minerals 15 01277 g002
Figure 2. Simplified geological map of PT. Map modified after SGM [30].
Figure 2. Simplified geological map of PT. Map modified after SGM [30].
Minerals 15 01277 g002
Minerals 15 01277 g003
Figure 3. Simplified geological map of PN. Map modified after SGM [30].
Figure 3. Simplified geological map of PN. Map modified after SGM [30].
Minerals 15 01277 g003
Minerals 15 01277 g004
Figure 4. SEM-EDS spectrum of mineral phases in PT sediments (yellow square shows the analyzed grain): (a) quartz, (b) K-feldspar, (c) zircon, (d) ilmenite, and (e) magnetite.
Figure 4. SEM-EDS spectrum of mineral phases in PT sediments (yellow square shows the analyzed grain): (a) quartz, (b) K-feldspar, (c) zircon, (d) ilmenite, and (e) magnetite.
Minerals 15 01277 g004
Minerals 15 01277 g005
Figure 5. SEM-EDS spectrum of mineral phases in PN sediments (yellow square shows the analyzed grain): (a) quartz, (b) calcite, (c) magnetite, (d) K-feldspar, and (e) ilmenite.
Figure 5. SEM-EDS spectrum of mineral phases in PN sediments (yellow square shows the analyzed grain): (a) quartz, (b) calcite, (c) magnetite, (d) K-feldspar, and (e) ilmenite.
Minerals 15 01277 g005
Minerals 15 01277 g006
Figure 6. Trace element patterns for the PN and PT beach sediments [UCC values are after] [48].
Figure 6. Trace element patterns for the PN and PT beach sediments [UCC values are after] [48].
Minerals 15 01277 g006
Minerals 15 01277 g007
Figure 7. Rare earth element patterns for PN and PT beach sediments [Chondrite values are after] [48].
Figure 7. Rare earth element patterns for PN and PT beach sediments [Chondrite values are after] [48].
Minerals 15 01277 g007
Minerals 15 01277 g008aMinerals 15 01277 g008b
Figure 8. U-Pb Concordia diagrams for PN and PT zircons. (A,C) Age probability density plot and (B,D) histograms. n = number of zircon grains.
Figure 8. U-Pb Concordia diagrams for PN and PT zircons. (A,C) Age probability density plot and (B,D) histograms. n = number of zircon grains.
Minerals 15 01277 g008aMinerals 15 01277 g008b
Minerals 15 01277 g009aMinerals 15 01277 g009b
Figure 9. Rare earth element patterns with respect to the geological era for PN (A–D) and PT (E–H) detrital zircon grains, normalized against chondrite values [48]. (A) Cenozoic, (B) Mesozoic, (C) Paleozoic, and (D) Proterozoic represent PN beach sediments; (E) Cenozoic, (F) Mesozoic, (G) Paleozoic, and (H) Proterozoic represent PT beach sediments.
Figure 9. Rare earth element patterns with respect to the geological era for PN (A–D) and PT (E–H) detrital zircon grains, normalized against chondrite values [48]. (A) Cenozoic, (B) Mesozoic, (C) Paleozoic, and (D) Proterozoic represent PN beach sediments; (E) Cenozoic, (F) Mesozoic, (G) Paleozoic, and (H) Proterozoic represent PT beach sediments.
Minerals 15 01277 g009aMinerals 15 01277 g009b
Minerals 15 01277 g010
Figure 10. Th/U—U-Pb bivariate plot for the zircons recovered in PN and PT sediments.
Figure 10. Th/U—U-Pb bivariate plot for the zircons recovered in PN and PT sediments.
Minerals 15 01277 g010
Minerals 15 01277 g011
Figure 11. Provenance diagram for the PN and PT sediments, after [82]. The discriminant functions are as follows: Discriminant Function 1 = (−1.773 × TiO2) + (0.607 × Al2O3) + (0.760 × Fe2O3) + (−1.500 × MgO) + (0.616 × CaO) + (0.509 × Na2O) + (−1.224 × K2O) + (−9.090); and Discriminant Function 2 = (0.445 × TiO2) + (0.070 × Al2O3) + (−0.250 × Fe2O3) + (−1.142 × MgO) + (0.438 × CaO) + (1.475 × Na2O) + (1.426 × K2O) + (−6.861).
Figure 11. Provenance diagram for the PN and PT sediments, after [82]. The discriminant functions are as follows: Discriminant Function 1 = (−1.773 × TiO2) + (0.607 × Al2O3) + (0.760 × Fe2O3) + (−1.500 × MgO) + (0.616 × CaO) + (0.509 × Na2O) + (−1.224 × K2O) + (−9.090); and Discriminant Function 2 = (0.445 × TiO2) + (0.070 × Al2O3) + (−0.250 × Fe2O3) + (−1.142 × MgO) + (0.438 × CaO) + (1.475 × Na2O) + (1.426 × K2O) + (−6.861).
Minerals 15 01277 g011
Minerals 15 01277 g012
Figure 12. Map illustrating the zircon ages reported by various authors along the Gulf of Mexico coastal area: (1) La Pesca Beach and Tesoro Altamira Beach [23]; (2) Playa Tamiahua (PT) and Playa Norte (PN) (this study); (3) Palma Sola and Riachuelos Beaches [5]; (4) Chachalacas Beach [26]; (5) Brujas Beach [24]; and (6) Bosque and Paseo del Mar Beaches [25]. Ceno = Cenozoic; Meso = Mesozoic; Prote = Proterozoic; Paleo = Palaeozoic.
Figure 12. Map illustrating the zircon ages reported by various authors along the Gulf of Mexico coastal area: (1) La Pesca Beach and Tesoro Altamira Beach [23]; (2) Playa Tamiahua (PT) and Playa Norte (PN) (this study); (3) Palma Sola and Riachuelos Beaches [5]; (4) Chachalacas Beach [26]; (5) Brujas Beach [24]; and (6) Bosque and Paseo del Mar Beaches [25]. Ceno = Cenozoic; Meso = Mesozoic; Prote = Proterozoic; Paleo = Palaeozoic.
Minerals 15 01277 g012
Table 1. Sampling locations and geographic coordinates for the PN and PT, Gulf of Mexico. Samples were collected at ~5 cm depth during October 2021.
Table 1. Sampling locations and geographic coordinates for the PN and PT, Gulf of Mexico. Samples were collected at ~5 cm depth during October 2021.
SampleCo-OrdinatesSampleCo-Ordinates
PN 118°39′53.26″ N91°49′52.56″ WPT 121°17′12.92″ N97°25′13.06″ W
PN 218°39′53.25″ N91°49′52.47″ WPT 221°17′14.54″ N97°25′12.92″ W
PN 318°39′53.28″ N91°49′52.65″ WPT 321°17′16.17″ N97°25′12.82″ W
PN 418°39′53.29″ N91°49′52.73″ WPT 421°17′17.71″ N97°25′12.73″ W
PN 518°39′53.30″ N91°49′52.81″ WPT 521°17′19.29″ N97°25′12.63″ W
PN 618°39′53.32″ N91°49′52.91″ WPT 621°17′20.87″ N97°25′12.53″ W
PN 718°39′53.34″ N91°49′53.01″ WPT 721°17′22.47″ N97°25′12.44″ W
PN 818°39′53.34″ N91°49′53.10″ WPT 821°17′24.08″ N97°25′12.31″ W
PN 918°39′53.35″ N91°49′53.20″ WPT 921°17′25.81″ N97°25′12.25″ W
PN 1018°39′53.36″ N91°49′53.31″ WPT 1021°17′27.30″ N97°25′12.18″ W
PN 1118°39′53.38″ N91°49′53.41″ WPT 1121°17′28.92″ N97°25′12.08″ W
PN 1218°39′53.40″ N91°49′53.50″ WPT 1221°17′30.41″ N97°25′12.07″ W
PN 1318°39′53.42″ N91°49′53.59″ WPT 1321°17′32.07″ N97°25′12.05″ W
PN 1418°39′53.44″ N91°49′53.69″ WPT 1421°17′33.67″ N97°25′11.96″ W
PN 1518°39′53.45″ N91°49′53.79″ WPT 1521°17′35.30″ N97°25′11.91″ W
PN 1618°39′53.45″ N91°49′53.92″ WPT 1621°17′36.91″ N97°25′11.84″ W
PN 1718°39′53.46″ N91°49′54.05″ WPT 1721°17′38.45″ N97°25′11.75″ W
PN 1818°39′53.47″ N91°49′54.16″ WPT 1821°17′40.05″ N97°25′11.73″ W
PN 1918°39′53.48″ N91°49′54.27″ WPT 1921°17′41.69″ N97°25′11.7″ W
PN 2018°39′53.49″ N91°49′54.38″ WPT 2021°17′43.32″ N97°25′11.5″ W
Table 2. List of equations to calculate the environmental indices utilized in this study.
Table 2. List of equations to calculate the environmental indices utilized in this study.
IndexEquationClassificationReferences
Enrichment Factor (EF) E F = X s a m p l e Y s a m p l e X r e f e r e n c e Y r e f e r e n c e EF < 2 Deficiency to minimal enrichment
2 < EF < 5 Moderate enrichment
5 < EF < 20 Significant enrichment
20 < EF < 40 Very high enrichment
EF < 40 Extremely high enrichment		[15]
Geo-accumulation index (Igeo) I g e o =   l o g 2 C n 1.5 + B n
Cn = Measured concentration of the element in the sample
Bn = Geochemical background concentration of the element		Igeo ≤ 0 Uncontaminated
0 < Igeo < 1 Uncontaminated to
moderately contaminated
1 < Igeo < 2 Moderately contaminated
2 < Igeo < 3 Moderately to strongly
contaminated
3 < Igeo < 4 Strongly contaminated
4 < Igeo < 5 Strong to extremely
contaminated
Igeo ≥ 5 Extremely contaminated		[16]
Adverse Effect
Index (AEI)		 A E I i =   C i P E L i
Ci = Measured concentration of the element
PELi = Probable effect level of the element		AEI < 1.0 Low probability of adverse
effects
AEI ~ 1.0 Moderate risk, there may be
adverse effects
AEI > 1.0 High probability of adverse
effects		[17]
Table 3. Textural parameters with mean grain size [Mz] [46] for PT and PN beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico.
Table 3. Textural parameters with mean grain size [Mz] [46] for PT and PN beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico.
SampleMz (ɸ)Sorting
(σ1)		Skewness
(SKI)		Kurtosis (KG)ɸ Classσ1 ClassSKI ClassKG Class
Playa Norte
PN12.530.68−0.210.9Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedPlatykurtic
PN22.570.68−0.311.37Fine sandMWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PN32.70.58−0.341.02Fine sandMWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PN42.830.52−0.271.23Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PN52.730.62−0.251.08Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedMesokurtic
PN62.920.58−0.191.43Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PN72.880.48−0.290.82Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedPlatykurtic
PN82.550.48−0.681.23Fine sandWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PN92.730.52−0.261.02Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedMesokurtic
PN102.870.48−0.161.13Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PN112.880.45−0.151.19Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PN122.670.65−0.140.98Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedMesokurtic
PN132.820.61−0.221.12Fine sandVWell-sortedCoarse-skewedV-platykurtic
PN142.880.53−0.260.97Fine sandVWell-sortedCoarse-skewedV-platykurtic
PN152.950.55−0.081.05Fine sandMWell-sortedSymmetricMesokurtic
PN162.80.63−0.361.28Fine sandMWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PN172.830.52−0.271.23Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PN182.680.62−0.221.26Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PN192.630.85−0.431.36Fine sandMWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PN203.070.51−0.261.38Fine sandMWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
Playa Tamiahua
PT12.80.36−0.111.64Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT22.870.36−0.081.98Fine sandWell-sortedSymmetricEx-leptokurtic
PT32.850.38−0.271.49Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT42.870.42−0.21.46Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT52.80.43−0.291.64Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT62.780.38−0.161.49Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT72.770.39−0.181.28Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT82.770.4−0.171.54Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT92.850.33−0.041.64Fine sandWell-sortedSymmetricEx-leptokurtic
PT102.80.37−0.161.49Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT112.90.37−0.161.49Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT122.880.37−0.181.64Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT132.770.41−0.361.24Fine sandWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PT142.820.34−0.221.46Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT152.880.3−0.141.29Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
PT162.820.38−0.311.14Fine sandWell-sortedVC-skewedLeptokurtic
PT172.80.38−0.271.70Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT182.830.35−0.141.71Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT192.820.35−0.241.52Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedEx-leptokurtic
PT202.670.41−0.291.32Fine sandWell-sortedCoarse-skewedLeptokurtic
MWell-sorted = Moderately well-sorted; VWell-sorted = Very well-sorted; VC-skewed = Very coarse-skewed; V-platykurtic = very platykurtic; Ex-leptokurtic = Extremely leptokurtic.
Table 4. List of minerals identified through X-ray diffraction in the PT and PN beach sediments (in %).
Table 4. List of minerals identified through X-ray diffraction in the PT and PN beach sediments (in %).
Playa Tamiahua (PT)Playa Norte (PN)
GroupMineral (abbr.)Sample
PT4PT8PT9PT14PT17PN1PN5PN7PN11PN15
Feldspar (Plagioclase)Andesine (And)8138––108121513
Quartz (Silicate)Quartz (Qz)79787481813476694873
Feldspar (K-feldspar)Orthoclase (Or)6596520101017–
Feldspar (Plagioclase)Anorthite (An)–––98–––––
AmphiboleActinolite (Act)44224–––84
PyroxeneAugite (Aug)4–––––––––
CarbonateCalcite (Cal)––4228––––
CarbonateAragonite (Arg)–––––2174–3
Phyllosilicate (Mica Group)Mica (Mc)––2––6–621
Phyllosilicate (Clay)Kaolinite (Kln)––––––––9–
Phyllosilicate (Chlorite Group)Clinochlore (Cchl)–––––––––4
Table 5. Major element concentrations (wt. %) of the PN and PT beach sediments.
Table 5. Major element concentrations (wt. %) of the PN and PT beach sediments.
SampleSiO2TiO2Al2O3Fe2O3 *MnOMgOCaONa2OK2OP2O5LOITotalCIAAl2O3/TiO2
n = 10Playa Norte
PN185.860.254.650.860.020.401.281.11.620.051.4697.5353.7618.6
PN387.060.214.860.720.020.270.341.171.750.030.6897.159.8523.14
PN577.150.194.360.830.020.56.761.051.530.066.0698.531.8222.95
PN779.470.184.90.980.020.574.611.211.750.074.5398.2739.2927.22
PN981.490.194.620.810.020.463.891.111.650.053.6897.9640.9924.32
PN1182.620.165.320.930.020.502.511.221.90.062.7197.9348.5833.25
PN1366.520.134.961.160.020.7611.91.221.760.0910.799.2624.9538.15
PN1569.060.216.611.920.031.158.041.542.080.098.1198.8436.1831.48
PN1784.820.245.050.910.020.451.451.21.780.051.6297.5853.2721.04
PN1980.920.195.351.020.020.523.451.271.870.063.3898.0344.8128.16
Mean79.490.195.061.010.020.554.421.21.760.064.2998.143.3526.83
std6.860.030.620.3400.243.570.130.150.013.170.6410.816.04
Playa Tamiahua
PT288.660.184.650.40.010.250.51.181.550.020.3797.7759.0125.83
PT388.490.294.380.570.020.210.541.091.390.020.4697.4559.1915.1
PT488.360.294.460.550.020.210.541.121.40.020.4797.4459.3115.38
PT887.80.284.870.60.020.20.541.161.50.020.5397.5260.3517.39
PT1088.190.344.50.620.020.240.571.111.40.020.3697.3759.3713.24
PT1188.910.214.50.390.020.180.51.081.410.020.3897.5860.0821.43
PT13880.194.60.450.020.180.51.161.50.020.4597.0659.2824.21
PT1488.270.24.590.450.020.160.481.161.530.020.4797.3559.1522.95
PT1687.290.145.270.370.010.160.471.291.80.020.4897.3159.6837.64
PT1988.170.154.970.350.010.240.481.231.630.020.4197.6659.8133.13
Mean88.210.224.670.470.010.20.511.151.510.020.4397.4559.5222.63
std0.450.060.270.100.030.030.060.1200.050.190.437.99
std = standard deviation; n = total number of samples; chemical index of alteration (CIA) = [Al2O3/(Al2O3 + CaO* + Na2O + K2O)] × 100], where CaO* represents the CaO associated with silicate fractions [51]; * Total Fe expressed as Fe2O3.
Table 6. Trace element concentrations (in ppm) for the PN and PT beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico.
Table 6. Trace element concentrations (in ppm) for the PN and PT beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico.
SampleAsBaCoCuCrNiPbRbSrThUVYZnZr
n = 10Playa Norte
PN110.936754.95138406.728.113.166.82243.11.532.67.441.143.9
PN36.025332.9184.9357.919.19.554.51302.71.023.76.028.449.1
PN57.44733.523.3112.721.28.850.64172.71.420.68.616.534.3
PN725.75033.26118399.222.110.757.03032.81.468.26.126.934.9
PN98.526444.3564.2171.325.412.769.03703.01.428.27.227.831.6
PN1116.9511516.97208284.246.120.41154744.22.048.511.656.159.8
PN1317.013872.993.3150.722.57.943.14722.31.338.15.011.824.9
PN1511.557338.0575.0315.961.016.392.46225.62.339.113.040.457.9
PN178.86714.776.0331.628.112.370.92303.91.538.88.531.052.9
PN193.552431.6429.561.510.04.426.61171.40.715.92.98.113.6
Mean11.646014.3380.02259.228.3611.664.63363.171.4535.377.6328.8140.29
std6.562441.9463.08124.914.664.4925.01641.150.4515.182.9914.5615.01
SamplePlaya Tamiahua
n = 10AsBaCoCuCrNiPbRbSrThUVYZnZr
PT22.138.40.41.12.00.60.83.310.40.10.151.412.12.9
PT31.844.90.51.13.00.813.612.60.10.281.893.63.6
PT41.147.50.51.33.01.513.813.60.10.281.813.73.5
PT81.354.20.61.34.011.14.414.90.10.282.084.24.6
PT10140.60.60.93.00.70.93.212.10.10.282.032.93.8
PT110.840.40.40.73.00.60.83.210.60.10.161.4422.9
PT131.449.70.50.93.00.714.113.20.10.261.662.83
PT141460.49.93.00.71412.20.10.161.68.33.5
PT161.743.60.40.83.00.813.811.20.10.151.332.32.9
PT191.4430.40.63.00.60.83.711.40.10.151.3423.2
Mean1.3644.80.471.8630.080.943.7112.20.10.156.51.653.393.39
std0.44.750.082.830.470.270.10.391.400.051.350.281.890.53
std = standard deviation; n = total number of samples.
Table 7. Rare earth element contents (in ppm) for PN and PT beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico.
Table 7. Rare earth element contents (in ppm) for PN and PT beach sediments, Gulf of Mexico.
BeachPlaya Norte(n = 10)
SamplePN1PN3PN5PN7PN9PN11PN13PN15PN17PN19Mean ± 1s
La11.6910.099.669.0711.5176.3515.7414.214.510.98 ± 3.9
Ce22.8219.1718.918.1522.4533.5912.9232.1828.048.2321.6 ± 8.0
Pr2.662.132.192.162.624.011.483.743.251.282.55 ± 0.89
Nd10.968.639.239.0910.8516.296.5615.1713.154.0810.4 ± 3.74
Sm2.361.822.092.082.353.391.633.312.741.182.29 ± 0.7
Eu0.650.470.480.550.651.090.370.860.730.760.66 ± 0.21
Gd2.532.042.342.242.573.621.863.582.931.232.49 ± 0.74
Tb0.320.260.320.310.320.480.240.490.370.480.35 ± 0.09
Dy1.591.271.661.371.542.381.122.571.81.261.65 ± 0.47
Ho0.350.280.370.320.340.50.250.540.380.490.38 ± 0.09
Er0.850.670.920.730.821.330.571.450.970.830.91 ± 0.27
Tm0.160.140.170.180.160.230.120.250.180.510.21 ± 0.11
Yb0.930.780.990.830.891.370.681.541.060.920.99 ± 0.26
Lu0.240.220.250.260.240.310.210.330.270.510.28 ± 0.08
LREE50.4941.842.140.5549.7774.2828.9470.1461.3919.2747.9 ± 17.3
HREE6.975.667.026.246.8810.225.0510.757.966.237.29 ± 1.86
TREE57.4647.549.146.7956.6584.533.9980.969.3525.555.2 ± 18.9
Eu/Eu*0.810.740.660.770.80.950.650.760.781.90.88 ± 0.36
(Gd/Yb)CN2.22.121.922.192.342.142.221.882.241.082.03 ± 0.36
(La/Sm)CN3.123.492.912.743.083.162.452.993.262.42.96 ± 0.34
Playa Tamiahua
PT2PT3PT4PT8PT10PT11PT13PT14PT16PT19(n = 10)
La33.43.33.93.72.63.43.32.82.73.2 ± 0.4
Ce5.956.86.597.837.315.316.646.395.375.16.3 ± 0.9
Pr0.70.80.810.90.70.80.80.70.70.8 ± 0.1
Nd2.63.23.183.623.572.433.143.032.452.492.9 ± 0.5
Sm0.50.60.60.60.60.30.50.60.30.40.5 ± 0.1
Eu00.10.10.10.100.10.1000.06 ± 0.05
Gd0.40.50.50.60.60.30.40.50.30.40.5 ± 0.1
Tb0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 ± 0
Dy0.30.40.40.40.40.30.40.30.30.30.3 ± 0.05
Ho0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 ± 0
Er0.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.20.2 ± 0.04
Tm0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 ± 0
Yb0.10.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.10.10.2 ± 0.05
Lu0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.1 ± 0
LREE12.814.814.516.916.111.314.514.211.6211.3913.8 ± 2
HREE0.91.31.31.41.40.91.21.20.811.1 ± 0.2
TREE13.616.115.818.3517.512.2415.6815.3212.4212.3914.9 ± 2.2
Eu/Eu*00.540.540.50.500.660.54000.3 ± 0.3
(Gd/Yb)CN3.242.032.032.432.432.431.622.032.433.242.4 ± 0.5
(La/Sm)CN3.783.573.464.093.885.464.283.465.874.254.2 ± 0.8
Eu/Eu* = EuCN/[(SmCN)*(GdCN)]1/2, where CN is the chondrite-normalized value [48]; n = total number of samples.
Table 8. Geo-accumulation Index (Igeo) [16] calculated based on upper continental crust values [UCC; 48] for PN and PT beach sediments.
Table 8. Geo-accumulation Index (Igeo) [16] calculated based on upper continental crust values [UCC; 48] for PN and PT beach sediments.
Playa Norte
SampleBaCoCuNiPbCrZnVAsSrCdCs
PN1−0.29−2.361.88−1.23−0.961.67−1.37−2.32.28−1.23−3.881.06
PN3−0.63−3.131.18−1.79−1.431.49−1.91−2.761.42−2.02−3.880.56
PN5−0.8−2.86−3.51−1.64−1.53−0.18−2.69−2.961.72−0.33−3.880.62
PN7−0.71−2.971.65−1.58−1.251.65−1.99−1.233.51−0.79−3.880.51
PN9−0.36−2.550.78−1.38−10.43−1.94−2.511.92−0.5−3.881.13
PN110.48−1.872.47−0.52−0.321.16−0.93−1.732.91−0.15−3.881.8
PN13−1.09−3.09−3.49−1.55−1.680.24−3.18−2.082.92−0.15−3.880.29
PN15−0.17−1.661−0.11−0.651.31−1.4−2.042.360.24−3.881.29
PN17−0.3−2.441.02−1.23−1.061.38−1.78−2.051.97−1.19−3.881.07
PN19−1.77−3.96−0.35−2.72−2.54−1.05−3.72−3.330.66−2.17−3.88−0.34
Playa Tamiahua
SampleBaCoCuNiPbCrZnVAsSrCdCs
PT2−4.43−5.99−5.09−6.78−4.99−5.99−5.66−5−0.1−5.66−3.88−4.39
PT3−4.2−5.67−5.09−6.37−4.67−5.41−4.89−4.33−0.32−5.38−3.88−4.3
PT4−4.12−5.67−4.85−5.46−4.67−5.41−4.85−4.33−1.03−5.27−3.88−4.26
PT8−3.93−5.41−4.85−6.04−4.53−4.99−4.66−4.33−0.79−5.14−3.88−4.11
PT10−4.34−5.41−5.38−6.56−4.82−5.41−5.2−4.33−1.17−5.44−3.88−4.26
PT11−4.35−5.99−5.74−6.78−4.99−5.41−5.73−4.74−1.49−5.63−3.88−4.43
PT13−4.05−5.67−5.38−6.56−4.67−5.41−5.25−4.74−0.68−5.31−3.88−4.3
PT14−4.16−5.99−1.92−6.56−4.67−5.41−3.68−4.74−1.17−5.43−3.88−4.18
PT16−4.24−5.99−5.55−6.37−4.67−5.41−5.53−5−0.4−5.55−3.88−4.15
PT19−4.26−5.99−5.97−6.78−4.99−5.41−5.73−5−0.68−5.53−3.88−4.26
Table 9. Enrichment factor (EF) for the PN and PT beach sediments. Reference values are from [15,48].
Table 9. Enrichment factor (EF) for the PN and PT beach sediments. Reference values are from [15,48].
Playa Norte
SampleBaCoCuNiPbCrZnVAsSrCdCs
PN140.9518.042.092.5215.611.890.9923.772.090.3310.18
PN33.020.5310.61.351.7413.141.250.6912.531.160.326.89
PN52.990.720.461.681.814.610.810.6717.164.150.368.01
PN72.830.5914.561.551.9514.541.171.9753.042.680.326.63
PN93.840.848.441.892.466.621.280.8618.653.470.3410.78
PN115.971.1723.682.993.439.542.251.2932.223.860.2914.94
PN132.150.540.411.561.435.420.511.0934.684.120.315.62
PN153.061.096.883.182.28.531.30.8417.674.080.238.41
PN173.670.839.131.922.1711.721.311.0917.621.980.319.48
PN191.250.273.340.640.732.050.320.426.710.950.293.37
Playa Tamiahua
SampleBaCoCuNiPbCrZnVAsSrCdCs
PT20.230.080.140.040.150.080.10.154.570.10.330.23
PT30.280.10.150.060.20.120.180.264.160.120.350.26
PT40.290.10.180.120.20.120.180.252.490.130.350.27
PT80.310.110.160.070.20.150.180.232.70.130.320.27
PT100.250.120.120.050.180.120.140.252.250.120.340.26
PT110.250.080.090.050.160.120.090.191.80.10.340.23
PT130.30.10.120.050.190.120.130.183.080.120.340.25
PT140.280.081.310.050.190.120.390.192.20.120.340.27
PT160.230.070.090.050.170.10.090.133.260.090.290.24
PT190.240.070.070.040.140.110.090.142.850.10.310.24
Table 10. Adverse Effect Index of metals and metalloids in PN and PT beach sediments. Concentration limit values are after [17].
Table 10. Adverse Effect Index of metals and metalloids in PN and PT beach sediments. Concentration limit values are after [17].
Playa Norte
SampleAsCrCuPbNiZn
PN 110.93406.7138.2613.1228.1441.1
PN 36.02357.9484.99.4719.128.35
PN 57.4112.73.38.8421.2316.52
PN 725.7399.24117.5610.7222.126.89
PN 98.52171.2565.2412.7325.3727.75
PN 1116.95284.24207.5720.4246.1456.09
PN 1317.01150.683.347.9422.5111.75
PN 1511.55315.9374.9516.2961.0140.35
PN 178.8331.6476.0112.2628.0731.02
PN 193.5561.5129.464.37108.1
Playa Tamiahua
SampleAsCrCuPbNiZn
PT 22.121.10.80.62.1
PT 31.831.110.83.6
PT 41.131.311.53.7
PT 81.341.31.114.2
PT 10130.90.90.72.9
PT 110.830.70.80.62
PT 131.430.910.72.8
PT 14139.910.78.3
PT 161.730.810.82.3
PT 191.430.60.80.62
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

Flores-Ocampo, I.Z.; Armstrong-Altrin, J.S.; Fernández-Guevara, G.D.; Madhavaraju, J.; Acevedo-Granados, I.V.; Pérez-Alvarado, B.Y.; Ibarra-Rueda, S.E.; Flores-Cortés, M.; Guadalupe-Díaz, I.A. Geochemical and Geochronological Constraints on the Provenance and Heavy Metal Contamination of Beach Sediments Along the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. Minerals 2025, 15, 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121277

AMA Style

Flores-Ocampo IZ, Armstrong-Altrin JS, Fernández-Guevara GD, Madhavaraju J, Acevedo-Granados IV, Pérez-Alvarado BY, Ibarra-Rueda SE, Flores-Cortés M, Guadalupe-Díaz IA. Geochemical and Geochronological Constraints on the Provenance and Heavy Metal Contamination of Beach Sediments Along the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. Minerals. 2025; 15(12):1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121277

Chicago/Turabian Style

Flores-Ocampo, Itzamna Zaknite, John Selvamony Armstrong-Altrin, Gloria Daniela Fernández-Guevara, Jayagopal Madhavaraju, Inna Valeria Acevedo-Granados, Barbara Yaneth Pérez-Alvarado, Sandra Elizabeth Ibarra-Rueda, Mayte Flores-Cortés, and Isis Allanah Guadalupe-Díaz. 2025. "Geochemical and Geochronological Constraints on the Provenance and Heavy Metal Contamination of Beach Sediments Along the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico" Minerals 15, no. 12: 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121277

APA Style

Flores-Ocampo, I. Z., Armstrong-Altrin, J. S., Fernández-Guevara, G. D., Madhavaraju, J., Acevedo-Granados, I. V., Pérez-Alvarado, B. Y., Ibarra-Rueda, S. E., Flores-Cortés, M., & Guadalupe-Díaz, I. A. (2025). Geochemical and Geochronological Constraints on the Provenance and Heavy Metal Contamination of Beach Sediments Along the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. Minerals, 15(12), 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15121277

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