Embedded Files
This page is focused on plastic pollution. There are many links here , but perhaps start with Carter O's (Rosmini College, 2024) movie "Plastic" via the link here.. Esta página se centra en la contaminación plástica. Hay muchos enlaces aquí, pero quizás comience con la película "Plastic" de Carter O (Rosmini College, 2024) a través del enlace aquí.
Link to the New Zealand Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science (PHF Science) Microplastics Unit. PHF Science experts and partners around New Zealand are investigating the impact of microplastics and the threat to our ecosystems, animals and people.
The Illusion of RecyclingThe recycling system itself is deeply flawed. Most plastics are incompatible, making sorting costly and inefficient. Only PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) are widely recycled. In short, once most plastic products are created and reach the end of their usefulness, they’re tough to repurpose.The economics of recycling are also stacked against success. Virgin plastic, often subsidized by fossil fuel subsidies, is cheaper than recycled plastic. This price disparity discourages the use of recycled materials.Furthermore, the rise of flexible packaging—those lightweight packets for snacks and food—exacerbates the problem. These multi-layered packets, while convenient, are incredibly difficult to recycle due to contamination and complex composition.How Much of the World’s Plastic Waste Actually Gets Recycled?January 13, 2025, Nick Routley Visual Capitalist 19/1/25
Coca-Cola’s Plastic Waste Polluting Oceans Projected to Reach 1.3 Billion Pounds per Year by 2030: Oceana Report
Coca-Cola’s Plastic Waste Polluting Oceans Projected to Reach 1.3 Billion Pounds per Year by 2030: Oceana Report
Coca-Cola products will be responsible for up to 1.33 billion pounds of plastic waste making its way into the planet’s oceans and waterways each year by 2030 — enough to fill the stomachs of more than 18 million blue whales, according to a new report by nonprofit Oceana.
The cost of preventing ocean plastic pollution.
OECD: Environment Working Paper No. 190 By Réka Soós, Andrew Whiteman and Gabriela Gavgas
This paper estimates the costs1 to upgrade plastic waste management infrastructure to prevent ocean pollution from land-based, end-of-life macroplastic 2 in OECD countries and 10 selected partner countries in Asia and Africa. The countries under review are grouped according to the stringency of their waste policy and the level of existing waste management infrastructure into four groups: High policy stringency and highly developed infrastructure (Group 1), further split into Group 1a comprising countries with high policy stringency with a circular economy focus and Group 1b comprising countries with similarly high policy stringency but still with the more linear economy approaches. Group 2 comprises countries with moderate infrastructure and moderate policy stringency, and Group 3 includes those with low to moderate infrastructure and policy stringency. For each country, an estimation of quantities of plastic waste leakage are based on available official statistics, secondary literature and expert judgement by the authors. The paper shows that in the reviewed countries around 5.4 megatonnes per year of land-based macroplastic leaks into the ocean due to the mismanagement of municipal solid waste (MSW). Two investment strategy scenarios are developed to evaluate the funds needed to tackle plastic leakage through both public and private investment. The Moderate Ambition scenario is based on linear economy solutions including enhanced mixed waste collection and landfilling; energy recovery and incineration and basic treatment are included in this scenario. The High Ambition scenario proposes circular economy solutions including prevention and high recycling targets based on source separation of materials leading to resource efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Both scenarios target a 100% waste collection rate and a 100% rate of controlled recovery and disposal. However, infrastructure alone is likely not enough for achieving zero plastic leakage to the ocean. Full prevention likely requires behavioural changes, shifts in production and consumption patterns and a complex set of additional public policies. The scenarios evaluate investment needs for addressing mismanaged mixed municipal waste. The focus is on investments into plastic management at the end of the value chain, including the sorting and pre-processing stages. Cost estimates include consideration of the current waste policy and infrastructure in the countries studied. Capital costs are estimated at a total of EUR 54 billion in the Moderate Ambition scenario and EUR 74 billion in the High Ambition scenario. The annualised per-capita costs range between EUR 0.2 to 6.5 in the Moderate Ambition scenario and from EUR 0.8 to 6.5 in the High Ambition scenario. These cost estimates are much lower than UNEP and ISWA estimates of the cost of inaction of inadequate waste management, roughly USD 9 to 45 per capita. Calculations presented show that the High Ambition scenario is more investment-intensive with investment costs ranging from EUR 6 to 26 per capita across the different country groups as compared to EUR 0.4 to 20 per capita in the Moderate Ambition scenario. For both scenarios, the lower costs occur in the higher policy stringency and infrastructure countries and the higher costs occur in the low policy stringency and infrastructure countries.
1 The paper estimates investment costs and annualised costs. It is not a cost-benefit analysis because the benefits, including, for example, the revenues generated from recycling in the High Ambition scenario, are not included in the model. 2 The estimations in this study consider end-of-life plastics. The estimations do not include at-sea sources, primary microplastics or leakage from production (abrasion) and consumption (littering).
While upfront capital investment costs are higher in the High Ambition scenario, in terms of annualised costs this scenario is similar as it results in some cost savings.3 Specifically, annualised costs in higher policy stringency and infrastructure countries are similar for the two scenarios, at EUR 0.2 and 1.2 per capita in Moderate Ambition scenario for Groups 1a and 1b, respectively, while these are slightly higher, at EUR 0.8 and 1.5 per capita in the High Ambition scenario. In these countries, the rate of plastic leakage to the ocean is rather low, estimated to be 0.2 to 0.4 kg/capita/year. In countries with moderate policy stringency and infrastructure, the High Ambition Scenario is less costly in terms of the annualised costs, at EUR 5.5, compared to EUR 6.4 in the Moderate Ambition scenario. In these countries waste generation rates are relatively high, waste streams are relatively rich with plastic and the current waste management systems exhibit higher leakage rates, estimated at around 3 kg/capita/year. In countries where policy stringency is only moderate to low and infrastructure is low, investing in traditional waste management infrastructure for the mixed municipal waste stream is imperative. The estimated annualised costs are slightly lower for the more traditional linear investment package at EUR 6.46 per capita in the Moderate Ambition scenario as compared to EUR 6.52 in the High Ambition scenario. In these countries, waste generation rates are relatively low, but capture rate of the waste management system is also low. Therefore, the leakage rate is rather high, estimated at 1.7 kg/capita/year. The on-going COVID-19 pandemic poses new challenges for waste management. For instance, it has increased the production and consumption of personal health-related products, resulting in an increased use of PPE, but also some other single use plastics (e.g. face masks, gloves, protective wear, containers for sanitizers). The volume of biomedical waste has also increased which adds pressure on hazardous waste management facilities to ensure its safe disposal. The pandemic has also lead to behavioural changes, such as less time spent outside and fewer large public events (which usually are a source of plastic waste). A UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub study estimates that in the United Kingdom, if every person used a single-use face mask per day for one year, this would generate an additional 66 000 tonnes of contaminated waste and 57 000 tonnes of plastic packaging. However, the overall impact on global plastic waste generation and its potential mismanagement are not yet clear.
3 Benefits, including revenues from recycling are not taken into account in the evaluation of either scenario. Inclusion of benefits in the High Ambition scenario are likely to improve the economic feasibility of the High Ambition scenario compared to the Moderate Ambition scenario, however such an evaluation has not been conducted in this study
4oceanThis beach used to be a place for families, for memories, for the sound of waves. Now it’s buried in plastic — bottles, bags, toys, and everything we’ve left behind.
By 2050, there could be more plastic in the ocean than fish. It’s a reality we can’t ignore.
By 2050, there could be more plastic in the ocean than fish. It’s a reality we can’t ignore.
Green roofs can capture nearly all the microplastic particles that contaminate rainwater in modern cities, according to a new study. The findings add to the list of benefits of green roofs, which have previously been shown to reduce energy needed for heating and cooling buildings and calm the flow of stormwater.
There is increasing global concern about the presence of plastic pollution in our oceans. New research from scientists at NIWA and the University of Auckland has identified microplastic particles in marine sediments within the Queen Charlotte Sounds / Tōtaranui, New Zealand. In this pilot study, microplastics were found throughout sediments, up to 50 cm below the seabed. Microplastics were identified in sites near coastal populations and within marine protected areas. Findings showed numerous sizes and shapes of microplastics, indicating they came from multiple sources. The next steps in this research project are to identify the type of plastics and try to establish where they came from.
Classification of plastics.a
aAdapted from Hartmann et al. in Environmental Science and Technology [24].
Macroplastics: plastics > 1 cm in at least one dimension
Mesoplastics: plastics 1 to <10 mm
Microplastics: plastics with dimensions between 1 and <1000 µm
Primary microplastics: originally made to be micronized, usually for cosmetics
Secondary microplastics: broken down from macroplastics in the environment
Nanoplastics: plastics 1 to <1000 nm
How Dangerous are Microplastics (Video - CBS)
How Dangerous are Microplastics (Video - CBS)
Life Cycle of Plastic
Life Cycle of Plastic
Dr. Rebecca Altman (she/her) is a writer and sociologist. Her work explores the history of plastics, pollution and environmental legacy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These headlines are concerning....
These headlines are concerning....
*****ResourceLinks****** Introduction to Microplastics and Health Implications:
*****ResourceLinks****** Introduction to Microplastics and Health Implications:
Effects of Plastics / Nanoplastics on Oceans
Effects of Plastics / Nanoplastics on Oceans
Where does plastic in the Ocean come from?
Where does plastic in the Ocean come from?
Video -- Are we being lied to about ocean plastic -- re the Great Garbage Patch
Are Microplastics Really Destroying our Health
Are Microplastics Really Destroying our Health
Plastics pollution exacerbates the impacts of all planetary boundaries
Plastics pollution exacerbates the impacts of all planetary boundaries
Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains
Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains
Nihart, A.J., Garcia, M.A., El Hayek, E. et al. Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nat Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1
Use link (after description) to find marine plastic data
Plastic pollution and global heating are caught in a “vicious circle” of one feeding the other, a new study by researchers from Sweden’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology has found.
The mutually reinforcing relationship increases global heating, plastic waste, the degradation of materials and the leaching of chemicals into the biosphere.
Rising global temperatures will cause everyday plastics to deteriorate more quickly, resulting in increased demand. Producing additional plastic products will lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, driving up temperatures, explained Xinfeng Wei, a polymeric materials researcher at KTH.
Plastics were responsible for 3.4 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 — roughly 1.8 billion tons — primarily due to their conversion from fossil fuels and their production, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said. That amount is predicted to double by 2060.
The feedback loop described by the researchers links the greenhouse gas emissions with moisture, heat and the weakened structural bonds of polymers like rubber and plastic that are formed from chains of large molecules.
In order to address the dual challenges of climate change and plastic pollution, the researchers encouraged a mobilization of efforts in all sectors of the lifecycle of plastics.
***The Hidden Polluter: Car Tires and Ocean Microplastics***
Did you know that car tires are one of the largest contributors to ocean pollution? As tires wear down during everyday driving, they release tiny particles of synthetic rubber and plastic—microplastics—that can have devastating effects on marine ecosystems.
These microplastics don’t simply disappear; they are washed away through runoff or discarded improperly, making their way into our water systems. Once in the water, they are carried by currents and accumulate in our oceans, where they pose a significant threat to marine life. Fish and other creatures ingest these particles, which can lead to serious health issues and disrupt entire ecosystems.
Fertilizing Fields With Sewage Sludge Releases More Microplastics Into the Airhttps://www.ecowatch.com/microplastics-fertilizers-wind.html
MICROPLASTICS -- BBCMicroplastics are everywhere: Is it possible to reduce our exposure?https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240110-microplastics-are-everywhere-is-it-possible-to-reduce-our-exposure
Link to Website
Be aware of who is the steering committee of this group
16,000 plastic chemicals, with at least 4,200 of those considered to be “highly hazardous” to human health and the environment
cosmetic product containing ingredients commonly used in shampoo and conditioner; hairspray and dyes; hygiene products; foundation and primer; lotions; fragrances such as perfumes and laundry powders
VOICE ABOVE WATER is the story of a 90-year-old Balinese fisherman who can no longer fish because of the amount of plastic pollution in the ocean, instead he collects trash in hopes of being able to fish again. The story is a glimpse into how one human is using his resources to make a difference and a reminder that if we all play our part we can accomplish something much greater than ourselves.
<<< Good summary info and links
Journal of American Medical Association
Plastic pollution is one of the great environmental challenges of the 21st century, causing wide-ranging damage to ecosystems and human health.
Plastic pollution is one of the great environmental challenges of the 21st century, causing wide-ranging damage to ecosystems and human health.
COMING CLEAN
COMING CLEAN
SERIES
Rethinking plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand
Rethinking plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand
Plastic particles in bottled water
Plastic particles in bottled water
MIT lab designs biodegradable material to replace microplastics in beauty products
MIT lab designs biodegradable material to replace microplastics in beauty products
Of the 380 million tons of plastic that are produced every year, 50% is for single-use purposes such as product packaging. And once that styrofoam packaging becomes marine litter, it degrades into microplastics making it almost impossible to collect.
Using chitin, an abundant natural biopolymer found in shellfish like crab, shrimp, and lobsters, Cruz Foam is creating novel thermoplastic pellets that eliminate the need to use harsh, environmentally-harmful chemicals in the packaging production process.
CEO at Seven Clean Seas | Leading Ocean Conservation Efforts.
Microplastics aren’t just floating around in our oceans. They are starting to threaten our food supply.
A shocking new study found that plastic pollution is now cutting crop yields by as much as 14%, hitting staples like wheat, maize and rice, the very foods billions rely on! If this continues, an extra 400 million people could face starvation in the next 20 years!
The plastic we use every day doesn’t vanish. It breaks down into tiny particles that contaminate our soil, block sunlight and carry toxic chemicals that stunt plant growth. It’s not just farms either. Marine life is suffering too, with seafood losses potentially reaching 24 million tonnes a year.
Scientists have warned us for years, but world leaders keep letting corporate interests come first. Plastic production isn’t slowing down; it’s speeding up. Rather than acting decisively, governments continue negotiating half-measures and empty promises.
It’s time we stop prioritising profit over people’s lives. History will not be kind to those who chose corporate interests over human survival.
Ending plastic pollution from cradle to grave
Ending plastic pollution from cradle to grave
Volume 404, Issue 10460P1305October 05, 2024
The Lancet's Editorial1 on plastic pollution makes one small but weighty error: “sealed landfills” are referred to as one way to reduce human exposure to toxicants within the nearly half a billion tons of plastics produced annually. There is no such thing as a sealed landfill.
The scientific literature makes clear that the synthetic liners intended to keep leachate from contaminating groundwater and surface water often fail during their installation, or can develop cracks or holes within several years of use.2–3 This danger is not, as is implied, a problem restricted to “developing economies”; in the USA, landfill companies routinely claim that leaking landfills are not a concern with the newer lined facilities, but do not mention that many US states have shown no interest in monitoring for leaks. It is also impossible, logically, to know how long a system invented a given number of years ago will remain intact; at best, all that could be said is that such a system tends to last for at least that many years before failing. Moreover, in New Hampshire and other US states, substantial leachate spills outside the footprints of landfills occur with disturbing frequency.4 When plastics are buried, leachate containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, chlorinated compounds, and other toxicants will inevitably result in human exposure.
I applaud the emphasis on reducing the production of “unnecessary short-lived disposable items”, but hasten to add that such policies need not be construed as restrictions, which implies sacrifice on the part of consumers. Using the example of the ubiquitous plastic water bottle, I and others have suggested that the human need for a convenient supply of clean cold water can easily be fulfilled by reverting to the times when drinking fountains were a normal feature of most street corners and public and private buildings in the USA.5
AMF declares voluntary membership of the Forest Lake Association, an unincorporated community group in northern New Hampshire, USA.
Towards a sustainable future: mitigating the plastic paradox
The Lancet's Editorial1 on ending plastic pollution poignantly captures the paradox of plastics: an indispensable component of modern life, with dire environmental consequences. India's recent plastic waste management rules emphasise reducing plastic waste, proper storage, and segregation at source. The 2016 rules introduced Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for producers, importers, and brand owners, mandated thicker plastic carrier bags, and expanded applicability to rural areas. The 2018 amendments aimed to phase out non-recyclable multilayered plastics, and established a central registration system. The 2021 amendments banned certain single-use plastics by 2022, further increased the thickness of carrier bags, and enforced EPR for other plastic packaging waste. The 2022 amendments detailed EPR guidelines with recycling targets, and imposed environmental compensation for non-compliance. Complementary initiatives, such as the Swachh Bharat Mission, India Plastics Pact, Project REPLAN, Un-Plastic Collective, and GoLitter Partnerships Project, support these regulations.2Laws mandating recycling and reuse, full disclosure of plastic content, and increased investment in waste management infrastructure are essential. Additionally, participating in international treaties and aligning domestic laws with global standards will ensure comprehensive and effective plastic waste management. Providing incentives for companies to adopt sustainable packaging practices and comply with regulations is essential for reducing plastic mismanagement.3These incentives can include recognition through eco-certification programmes and industry rankings. Such a comprehensive approach not only mitigates environmental impact but also enhances the competitiveness and reputation of businesses dedicated to sustainability.We declare no competing interests.References The Lancet Ending plastic pollution: an opportunity for health Lancet. 2024; 403, 1951 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of IndiaTowards a sustainable future: mitigating the plastic paradox
EditorialVolume 8, Issue 9e610September 2024Open access
Less than fantastic plastic
Less than fantastic plastic
The modern world is filled with plastics, from colourful children's toys to cheap clothing and textiles, food packaging, car components, consumer and electrical products, disposable water bottles and coffee cups, wet wipes, and medical items to name just a few. Plastics are used in most of the items we use on a daily basis. These are often incredibly useful and in some cases even irreplaceable, but unsurprisingly since we use so much plastic, we also have a huge plastic waste problem.
The ocean is awash with plastics, most visibly forming vast ocean rafts with larger pieces of plastic debris tangling marine animals. Smaller particles are also released directly into the environment or by the breakdown of larger pieces to form microplastic particles which along with some larger pieces are readily ingested by marine organisms. The smallest plastic particles are now ubiquitous in the air and have been found on remote mountain tops and at the earths poles as well as in human tissues. The potential environmental and human health effects of theses plastics remain to be fully understood but their ubiquity and the ongoing growth in production signals the need for interventions to curb the growth in plastic pollution.
While some voluntary initiatives like replacing plastic straws or using more plastic efficient packaging are welcome, they are clearly insufficient to address the scale of the problem. An attempt at a more coordinated intervention has taken the form of A UN resolution. Formal negotiations on the UN treaty to end plastic pollution began in November 2022, with the ambition to complete the negotiations in late 2024.
While there are no credible voices arguing that plastic pollution is not a problem at all, plastics are petrochemical products and so it is perhaps unsurprising that many of the same sticking points that act to stall climate policy development are emerging in the negotiations for the plastics treaty. A particular point of contention has been a reluctance to include any specific measures to curb plastic production. Instead, petrochemical and plastics industry lobbies have argued for measures to improve recycling and waste management and to leave decisions regarding production to individual countries. This strongly resembles how fossil fuels were barely mentioned in formal climate talks for decades. Even though it has long been clear that coal, oil and gas extraction and utilization are the primary cause of climate change, until recently the UN climate talks have been effectively steered away from addressing the supply side and toward limiting warming by lowering emissions; essentially the same argument for better waste management without reference to production levels.
One way in which plastics differ from the direct burning of fossil fuels is that many of the products are branded, consequently much plastic debris can be attributed to certain companies. A recent study used this branded waste to investigate the relationship between production and branded plastic pollution volume. They found a strong relationship between companies’ annual production of plastic and their quantity of branded plastic pollution, with food and beverage companies being disproportionately large polluters. This strongly suggests that phasing out single-use and short-lived products by the largest polluting companies would be a very effective way to reduce plastic pollution.
Recently, the United States changed its position from favouring demand side measures to acknowledging that supply side measures will be critical tools to address plastic pollution. The US was the last of the G7 to resist supply side measures and so perhaps this will increase the chances of agreement on including legally binging production targets in the UN Plastics Treaty. However, several countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and India continue to resist this move.
No doubt there will be many more points of contention in the coming months regarding issues like the level of detail of the treaty, how legally binding it should be, and what the supporting financial mechanisms should look like. Based on climate negotiations we can expect this to be a protracted process with efforts to delay incorporation of legally binding targets maintained at each step. It will be important to consider who is involved in these discussions and monitor for excessive industry influence. The treaty represents an important opportunity to reduce plastic pollution and tackle the vital issue of supply. But precisely because of this potential we can expect intense resistance and attempts to water down ambition. Those concerned with planetary health have an important role in scrutinising the process and lobbying for ambitious targets with near term goals.
REFERENCES -- PER DR PANKO
Aotearoa Impacts and Mitigation of Microplastics (AIM²)
National research programme which aims to determine the impacts of microplastics in New Zealand.
https://www.esr.cri.nz/expertise/water-environment/microplastics
They have in the past had presence at public events with organisations like Ecomatters and Seaweek (https://seaweek.org.nz/news/microplastics-nga-korero-webinar-recap)
You could get in touch with ESR to see if there are any other info sessions coming up.Litter Intelligence
https://litterintelligence.org/
National litter monitoring programme, focusing on larger pieces of plastic rubbish from which MPs come from. While it's not directly about MPs, most info that is is based in academic data that is hard for public to access, so Litter Intelligence good inbetween for litter education geared toward schools.Dr Amanda Valois - NZ scientist who has carried out MP research alongside community/volunteer citizen science, could be a good option for giving direction on how the school could get involved with MP monitoring, research, outcomes.
https://www.nzappa.org/user/avalois/
amanda.valois@niwa.co.nz
Below are some research papers they could take a look at. Let me know if you're looking for more public access kind of info, like websites.
James H. Bridson, Meeta Patel, Anita Lewis, Sally Gaw, Kate Parker,
Microplastic contamination in Auckland (New Zealand) beach sediments,
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 151, 2020, 110867, ISSN 0025-326X,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110867.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X19310239)
This study has a couple of sampling sites really close to Rosmini College, so the local data could be really interesting to them. I attach a copy of the article and sample location map in the supporting data doc, since the school might not have access to the paper via ScienceDirect.Hale, R.C., Seeley, M.E., La Guardia, M.J., Mai, L., Zeng, E.Y., 2020. A Global Perspective on Microplastics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 125.. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jc014719
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/C96PGYU9PJZCHEHWC6I4?target=10.1029/2018JC014719
Good overview on MPs.Issac, M.N., Kandasubramanian, B. Effect of microplastics in water and aquatic systems. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 19544–19562 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13184-2
Padervand, M., Lichtfouse, E., Robert, D. et al. Removal of microplastics from the environment. A review. Environ Chem Lett 18, 807–828 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00983-1
Joana Correia Prata, João P. da Costa, Isabel Lopes, Armando C. Duarte, Teresa Rocha-Santos,
Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 702, 2020, 134455, ISSN 0048-9697,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719344468)
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES OCEAN PLastics
"Industrialised Fishing Nations Largely Contribute to Floating Plastic Pollution in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre," Scientific Reports (2022)
"Extent and Reproduction of Coastal Species on Plastic Debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre," Nature Ecology & Evolution (2023)
"Emergence of a Neopelagic Community Through the Establishment of Coastal Species on the High Seas," Nature Communications (2021)
"Biodegradation of Polyethylene by the Marine Fungus Parengyodontium Album," Science of the Total Environment (2024)
"A Global Mass Budget for Positively Buoyant Macroplastic Debris in the Ocean," Scientific Reports (2019)
"Global Simulations of Marine Plastic Transport Show Plastic Trapping in Coastal Zones," Environmental Research Letters (2021)
"Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060," Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2022)
"Branded 6," Break Free From Plastic (2023)
"Global Producer Responsibility for Plastic Pollution," Science Advances (2024)
Click through photos/posters below: Haga clic en las fotos/pósteres a continuación:
Click through photos/posters below: Haga clic en las fotos/pósteres a continuación:
Are microplastics really destroying our health?
They’re in our brains, hearts, and blood — but what are they doing to us? Richard Thompson analyzing nurdles and other microplastics at the University of Plymouth. (Credit: Ben Stansall / AFP)KEY TAKEAWAYSAre microplastics really destroying our health?
- Microplastics have been found throughout the human body, raising concerns about their potential impact on our health.
- Studies have shown correlations between their presence and health issues such as heart attacks and strokes, but proving a direct link is challenging.
- Efforts to mitigate microplastic pollution include banning certain plastic products, developing better recycling technologies, and working towards a UN agreement to end plastic pollution globally.
In 2022, scientists found microplastics — pieces of plastic less than five millimeters long — in human blood. Since then, they’ve been discovered throughout the human body, including in our lungs, kidneys, livers, hearts, and brains.So, why do we have all this plastic in us, what does it mean for our health, and what can we do about it?Living in a plastic worldPlastics are a wonder material. They’re tough, lightweight, flexible, sterile, and cheap, which has made them hugely popular — since the 1950s, production levels for plastic have increased faster than for any other material. We’re now producing 440 million tons of plastic every year, with the total still trending upward.
Unfortunately, there’s a major tradeoff for all the benefits of plastic. Not only is the production of it bad for the environment, contributing to global warming, but so is the way we treat the material after we’re done using it: only about 9% of the world’s plastic waste is recycled, while 19% is incinerated. The rest goes into landfills (50%) or becomes litter (22%).Researchers have known since the 1960s that plastic waste was an issue, but the problem took a new shape in 2004 when marine biologist Richard Thompson published a paper in the journal Science in which his team reported the discovery of microscopic plastic fragments and fibers in the ocean environment.They dubbed these pollutants “microplastics.”“The fragments appear to have resulted from degradation of larger items,” the researchers wrote. “Plastics of this size are ingested by marine organisms, but the environmental consequences of this contamination are still unknown.”In 2024, Thompson led a new study https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2746--see video interview here https://x.com/PlymUni/status/1837142896249581939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1837142896249581939%7Ctwgr%5Efaf28122dcd8001a55897049ef1086417d9fece4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freethink.com%2Fbiotech%2Fmicroplastics-human-health also published in Science. This time, his team looked back at the 7,000 microplastics studies that followed their 2004 discovery to see what we now know about the pollutants — and the answer wasn’t great.Not only had the amount of microplastics in the ocean increased over the past two decades, scientists had also found the particles in tons of other places — they’re in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the animals we eat, as well as hundreds of species outside our food chain. They’ve also been found in other foods that we consume, from vegetables to ice cream.As for where all these microplastics were coming from, Thompson’s team was right that many were once a part of larger pieces of plastic — polyester clothing and synthetic rubber tires proved to be particularly large sources of microplastics in the environment. The tiny plastic pellets which are used to create larger plastic products are a big contributor, too — at various points in the supply chain, they can slip into the environment.Identifying microplastics and their sources was just the start, though. A major focus of research has been on determining the impact of these particles, and that’s led to more bad news.“After 20 years of research, there is clear evidence of harmful effects from microplastic pollution on a global scale,” said Thompson in a press release about the new study. “That includes physical harm to wildlife, harm to societies and cultures, and a growing evidence base of harm to humans.”
Mitigating microplasticsThat evidence has been enough to inspire officials in some places to take action to try to reduce the amount of microplastics in the environment.In 2015, for example, Congress passed the Microbead-Free Waters Act, which banned the inclusion of plastic microbeads in toothpaste, face wash, and other products. Some states and cities have also banned some single-use plastics, which can break down into microplastics once discarded.These policies aren’t enough to significantly reduce the amount of microplastics in the environment, though — the most straightforward way to make that happen would be for the textile industry and tire manufacturers to stop creating products with so much plastic.“[W]e can not dramatically reduce microplastic pollution without leadership from the textile industry and tire manufacturers to produce consumer products that don’t add to the growing problem,” said Mark Gold, executive director of the California Ocean Protection Council.These are massive, global industries, though, and convincing them to change en masse how they operate (or getting governments around the world to force them to change) won’t be easy, especially since we still don’t know for sure just how bad microplastics are for human health.There’s no straightforward path to figuring it out, either.“We know these microplastics are all over the place. We don’t know whether the presence in the body leads to a problem.”Albert RizzoBecause microplastics are everywhere, we can’t exactly compare the health of people who are exposed to them to people who aren’t to determine their possible effects, so our real world studies have no controls — already a big strike against them.“Plastic” is also not just one thing. There are more than 13,000 different chemicals used in plastic production, which complicates matters even further — how do we know which ones are causing which health effects and therefore need to be regulated or banned? There isn’t any systematic testing of these chemicals in humans, much less the countless potential combinations of them that are used in plastic products. Scientists can — and have — exposed human cell cultures to certain kinds of plastic chemicals and microplastics and recorded how often the cells experienced inflammation, DNA damage, or death. They’ve also performed controlled studies on animals and recorded their effects, noting how exposure to certain levels of microplastics can cause mice to experience organ failure, develop immune disorders, demonstrate signs of dementia, and more.Even though these studies (and common sense) suggest that having microplastics in our bodies is probably harming us in some way, they don’t prove it, though. “Are the plastics just simply there and inert or are they going to lead to an immune response by the body that will lead to scarring, fibrosis, or cancer?” Albert Rizzo, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, told National Geographic in 2022. “We know these microplastics are all over the place. We don’t know whether the presence in the body leads to a problem.”Looking aheadProving a link between microplastics and health issues may be a huge challenge, but as Thompson noted, the evidence base of harm to humans is growing. A study published in March 2024, for example, analyzed plaques removed from the clogged heart arteries of about 300 people with heart problems and found microplastics in about 60% of the samples. People with microplastics were 4.5 times more likely to have a heart attack, stroke, or die within 34 months of the plaque removal surgery, compared to those without. That correlation does not prove causation — it could be that people who are sicker for other reasons are also ingesting or retaining more microplastics, and that’s what the study is picking up on. But the result is certainly consistent with microplastics worsening health problems.We don’t have to wait as researchers work to unravel the connection between microplastics and human health to start mitigating the problem, though. “Nobody’s saying there’s no safe way to use plastics.”Richard ThompsonWe already know that plastic waste in the environment, big and small, is killing wildlife, degrading ecosystems, and generally just making the world a worse place, and tire wear particles, which include plastics as well as a range of other unpleasant substances, have long been known as a major source of pollution. To combat this, some people are developing better plastic recycling tech and sustainable plastic alternatives. Others are collecting and recycling the plastic waste that’s already in the environment and taking steps to prevent new waste from reaching it.These are still relatively small-scale solutions, but in 2022, the members of the United Nations committed to establishing a legally-binding agreement designed to end plastic pollution. This agreement is expected to include concrete plans for reducing plastic production, phasing out particularly problematic plastics, redesigning products that create significant microplastics, and more. A UN committee will meet in South Korea the week of November 25 to finalize a draft of the agreement.“Nobody’s saying there’s no safe way to use plastics,” Thompson told Yale Environment 360. “It’s just that we need to start making them to be safer and more sustainable than we have done so far, and that’s what the treaty needs to help us do.”
Water from glass bottles might contain up to 3x more microplastics than plastic bottles.
A recent study tested common beverages in France and consistently foundglass bottles had the highest microplastic contamination, significantly exceeding plastic bottles and cans.
Beer topped the list, with small glass bottles averaging 134 microplastics per liter (MPs/L), compared to ~32 MPs/L in cans or large bottles. Lemonades (112 MPs/L), colas (103 MPs/L), and cold teas (86 MPs/L) followed (all in glass), with far fewer MPs (1.5–2.4 MPs/L) in plastic bottles or cans.
Even plain bottled water wasn’t exempt. Glass bottles averaged 4.5 MPs/L. That's 181% higher than plastic bottles, which averaged 1.6 MPs/L.
Most surprising of all? The contamination wasn't from the glass itself. Rather, it came from the bottle caps. Researchers discovered that flakes of polyester-based paint on metal caps shed into the beverages. Uncleaned caps drove contamination levels as high as 287 MPs/L, while cleaning caps greatly reduced microplastic contamination by up to 70%.
These findings were both surprising and eye-opening, revealing hidden sources of contamination and challenging common assumptions (even some of my own!) about beverage safety.
Water is Still Safe, But The Source Matters A Lot
Water is Still Safe, But The Source Matters A Lot
The study was conducted by France’s national food safety agency (ANSES). Researchers systematically analyzed microplastic contamination across popular drinks sold in France, including water, cola, tea, lemonade, beer, and wine. Until now, this type of formal assessment had not been conducted in France.
Testing occurred in a specialized laboratory designed specifically to prevent external contamination. Researchers evaluated microplastic levels, particle types (such as polyethylene, polyester, and polypropylene), particle sizes (ranging from 30–50 μm, 50–100 μm, to 100–500 μm), and contamination sources, particularly from packaging materials and caps.
Water generally contained the lowest levels of microplastics compared to other beverages, averaging 2.9 microparticles per liter (MPs/L), but packaging type mattered. Glass bottles had higher contamination (4.5 MPs/L) compared to plastic bottles (1.6 MPs/L).
Differences among water sources were also uncovered. Mineral water had higher microplastic levels (3.7 MPs/L) compared to spring water (1.6 MPs/L) and sparkling water had higher microplastic levels (3.4 MPs/L) compared to still water (2.4 MPs/L)—a small difference that didn't quite reach statistical significance. Particle size distribution was consistent across water samples, meaning that small, medium, and large particles were, for the most part, not different among the different beverage and packaging types.
How did microplastic levels fare among the remaining beverages studied?
Beer had the highest levels of microplastics detected across all beverage types, averaging 82.9 MPs/L regardless of packaging. Small glass bottles were the worst offenders (133.7 MPs/L), followed by large glass bottles (32.8 MPs/L) and then cans (31.8 MPs/L).
Cold tea averaged 28.5 MPs/L, but levels were higher in glass bottles (86.3 MPs/L) than in cans (16.3 MPs/L) and plastic bottles (2.2 MPs/L).
Lemonade averaged 45.2 MPs/L across the board, with levels that were highest in glass bottles (111.6 MPs/L), moderate in cans (10.9 MPs/L), and lowest in plastic bottles (1.5 MPs/L).
Cola (soft drinks) averaged 31 MPs/L across all samples but varied dramatically by packaging type.
Glass bottles contained extremely high levels of microplastics (103 MPs/L), cans contained 3.4 MPs/L, and plastic bottles contained 2.1 MPs/L.
Sugar-sweetened colas contained fewer microplastics on average (14.3 MPs/L) than unsweetened ones (48.5 MPs/L).
Wine, on the other hand, generally had lower contamination than other beverages, averaging only 8.2 MPs/L. Boxed wine contained high levels of microplastics (30 MPs/L) while other packaging types including small plastic bottles, large plastic bottles, and glass bottles contained relatively lower levels (2.1–8.7 MPs/L).
On the surface, these results might run contrary to what many of us think—how do microplastics "sneak into" water packaged in glass? Well, it isn't the glass itself that's the source of microplastic contamination. That comes from another culprit—bottle caps.
Painted Bottle Caps As Hidden Source of Contamination
Painted Bottle Caps As Hidden Source of Contamination
The researchers discovered a critical yet unexpected contributor to microplastic contamination: the metal caps on glass bottles.
Caps were typically coated with polyester-based paint, which easily scraped off during packaging and storage, introducing substantial microplastic contamination into the beverages. Analysis showed that the color and chemical composition of the paint on the caps was identical to the microplastic particles found in the drinks!
To confirm this, researchers tested several cleaning methods to remove microplastic contamination from the caps prior to placing them on freshly-bottled (microplastic-free) water.
First, they tested a new set of glass-bottled beverages without clearing the caps. This resulted in high microplastic contamination, with drinks containing an average of 287.3 MPs/L.
Next, they treated the caps by blowing them clean with air, a process thatreduced contamination by 63% (to 105.8 MPs/L), significantly less than the untreated caps.
Finally, they blew the caps clean and rinsed them with water and an alcohol solution. This further reduced microplastic levels to 86.7 MPs/L—an 18% drop compared to the air-blown caps and a 70% drop from the uncleaned caps.
When the researchers looked at the rinsing solutions used for cleaning, they found it contained, on average, 47.8 particles per rinsed cap, a clear indication that storage conditions and abrasion during handling contribute to contamination.
Considering Other Contaminants in Water (And Which Packaging Contains the Fewest)
Considering Other Contaminants in Water (And Which Packaging Contains the Fewest)
This study raises some alarms and questions our assumptions about the perceived safety of glass versus plastic. Especially because of the mixed evidence on other plastic-associated chemicals including PFAS, BPA, and BPS.
Two public data sets published in the last few years have been informative in showing levels of PFAS—otherwise known as "forever chemicals"—in bottled water from various sources in the United States.
A Consumer Reports analysis in 2020–2022 found that noncarbonatedbeverages (most of which were bottled in plastic with a few exceptions) had detectable levels of PFAS, including several with total PFAS over the "safe" limit of 1ppt. Only two still water brands had undetectable PFAS levels, and both of them (Mountain Valley spring water and Saratoga spring water) are bottled in glass. However, all carbonated water (including three brands packaged in glass) tested had measurable amounts of PFAS, ranging from 1.1 ppt to 9.76 ppt (a level detected in the popular Topo Chico sparkling water).
In the FDA's 2023–2024 analysis, most still waters packaged in plastic (specifically, polyethylene terephthalate or PET tested below detection of 0.3 ppt or below the "safe" limit of 1 ppt. In fact, the analysis of bottled water products revealed that none of the samples exceeded the EPA limits for PFAS and only ten had detectable levels—all were below 2 ppt.
The takeaway here is the PFAS shows up in both container types, but peak values come from certain glass-bottled sparkling waters—the highest result from the U.S.-sold waters was Topo Chico's 9.76 ppt; the typical range of glass-bottled waters is not detectable up to 5 ppt. Among plastic bottles, levels range from not detectable to 2 ppt. Still water is generally less microplastic-laden than sparkling (carbonated).
Page updated
Report abuse