# data[].attributes.body
Username: gulliveracad

Password: raiders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School, a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Middle School

Explore the most-studied topics including cultures, government, people, history, literature, and more.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Middle School Explore the most-studied topics including cultures, government, people, history, literature, and more. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
Username - gulliver19
Password - gulliver19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fashion today is about obsession with outward image and appearance. Rarely do we as consumers consider what's on the inside: the hundreds of thousands of fibres that make up our clothing which have led to an estimated 1.4 million trillion plastic fibres in the ocean.

The fashion industry itself has a huge impact on the environment. It is responsible for 20 per cent of global wastewater, 10 per cent of carbon emissions and huge amounts of waste. Every second, one garbage truck full of textiles is landfilled or incinerated. If that wasn't enough, our clothing is also polluting the ocean with plastic.

About 60 per cent of material made into clothing is plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic and nylon textiles. These synthetic fabrics are lightweight, durable, affordable and flexible. But here's the catch: every time they're washed, they shed tiny plastic fibres called microfibres, a form of microplastics-tiny pieces up to five millimetres in size.

Laundry alone causes around half a million tonnes of plastic microfibres to be released into the ocean every year-the equivalent of almost three billion polyester shirts. This happens because water treatment plants let up to 40 per cent of microfibres they receive into lakes, rivers and the ocean due to their small size. Most treatment plants are not mandated to capture microfibres.

Microfibres and other microplastics, which make their way up the food chain when they are mistaken for food by fish and other marine animals, often carry concerning contaminants such as toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals. The effects of microplastic ingestion on marine life are catastrophic; they have caused starvation, endocrine disruption, stunted growth in some species and broken down digestive systems.

"One of the problems is plastic ingestion at all levels of the food chain, which may pass plastic to larger animals and humans. The question is 'Is it acceptable to us to end up eating plastic?'" says UN Environment's marine environment expert Heidi Savelli. "I think it's a human right to not have to ingest plastic."

While extensive research on the effects on plastic ingestion on humans is under way, it's clear humans consume plastic regularly. A recent study conducted on eight people from around the world found microplastics in all test subjects' waste. They have been found in everyday foods such as beer, honey, sugar and about 90 per cent of table salt brands tested by a group of scientists.

Worse yet, the amount of polyester produced annually is expected to triple between 2007-the year polyester became the world's dominant fibre-and 2025, according to Tecnon Orbichem, a chemical data company.
So, what can we do?
Significantly reducing microfibre release has two parts, according to a 2017 report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Primarily, designers and manufacturers will need to change the way clothing is made and develop new materials.

Fibre length and fabric density are two factors that determine the amount of microfibres that will break free during washing. Some finishing treatments such as coating have also proven to reduce shedding by up to 50 per cent. Reducing brushing, a technique used to create fleece, and replacing traditional cutting methods with ultrasound or laser cutting could also limit microfibre release.

Secondly, technologies to capture microfibres which are unavoidably released must increase in scale and efficiency, according to the report. Current technologies are available for purchase, but place an onus on consumers to lessen the impact of clothing on the environment.

Some things people-and industries such as hospitality-can do to limit microfibre shedding during washing include:

Washing less. Fabrics that have been washed many times will shed more microfibres than they did when new.

Front load washing machines have been found to reduce microfibre shedding.

Washing bags such as the one developed by guppyfriend can reduce microfibre release by 86 per cent and captures the microfibres that do break free.

The Cora Ball can be added to loads of laundry to collect microfibres. The company says that if 10 per cent of U.S. households used Cora Ball, it would prevent the equivalent of 30 million water bottles from entering waterways per year.

Retrofitting old laundry machines with a microfibre-catching device, such as the Lint LUV-R washing machine discharge filter, can capture fibres before they enter the environment.

"While there are things consumers can do to limit microfibre release from clothing, extra effort shouldn't be on the consumer, it should be on manufacturers," says Savelli. She notes that once microfibres are captured, there is no guarantee they won't find their way into the environment through other means.

The new United Nations Alliance on Sustainable Fashion, a partnership between UN Environment and other UN agencies, will officially launch at the UN Environment Assembly in March 2019. The Alliance will target the private sector, UN Member States, non-governmental organizations and other relevant stakeholders to create a unified movement for a more sustainable fashion industry.

Ultimately, the world's dependence on synthetic materials must change to adequately reduce plastic microfibre release. But until new materials are designed, reducing shedding and capturing fibres before they enter the environment can limit potential harm to marine life and humans.

During the United Nations Environment Assembly, from 11 to 19 March 2019, UN Environment is urging people to Think Beyond and Live Within. Join the on social media using #SolveDifferent to share your stories and see what others are doing to ensure a sustainable future for our planet.

For more information, please contact Heidi Savelli

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fashion today is about obsession with outward image and appearance. Rarely do we as consumers consider what's on the inside: the hundreds of thousands of fibres that make up our clothing which have led to an estimated 1.4 million trillion plastic fibres in the ocean.

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

I just want to say one word for you, just one word.... Plastics. In its time, this iconic line from The Graduate made a valid point: In 1967, there was a "great future in plastics." Since then plastics production has exploded, and in 2017 the world produced nearly 450 million metric tons of these lightweight materials, the equivalent of more than three million Olympic-sized swimming pools, used in everything from automobiles to food packaging to personal care products. Nearly two-thirds is discarded, whereas almost 10 percent is recycled and 12 percent is incinerated. As much as 15 percent ends up in our waterways each year.

Plastics weren't on my mind in 2011 when I first stepped aboard the U.S. brig Niagara to teach students about how atmospheric fallout contaminates the Great Lakes. By that time I had lived along the shores of Lake Erie--the smallest, shallowest, and warmest of the Great Lakes--for 10 years. But I had never been out on the lake, in part, because of the smell: Its often pungent shorelines were littered with decaying algae and dead fish.

But aboard the Niagara, on the open waters of the lake, I was dumbfounded. Lake Erie was vast and beautiful. The air was crisp; the sunlight glistened off the clean, blue waves. The shoreline was not even visible--that is how vast the Great Lakes are. On the Niagara during the following summer, undergraduate students and I began sampling the water for plastics as a teaching exercise. Before I knew it, my research changed course. I was studying plastics pollution.

When we started, I expected to find large objects such as bags, straws, or bottles, but instead we mostly found small fragments, some of them too small to see. These plastic particles--tiny threads, fragments, or beads--are collectively known as microplastics.

Over the next three years, I would sail, swim, and sample all five of the Great Lakes that collectively form the world's largest freshwater ecosystem. At that time, we already knew that plastics were polluting the oceans and that most ocean plastic was coming from land. Marine species can ingest plastics of all sizes, but these tiny particles also leach chemicals with known human health effects and provide a surface for collecting and concentrating other water pollutants (see the graphic on page 286). Researchers hypothesized that plastic traveled to the ocean through fresh water, and the Great Lakes seemed like the prime location to start looking. These five inland seas flow into one another with the waters ultimately gushing into the St. Lawrence River and out into the northern Atlantic Ocean.

In 2012 I started a series of eight expeditions, each with up to 20 undergraduate students, to quantify plastic pollution within the Great Lakes. Sailing on the Niagara, we used surface-skimming nets to collect anything larger than 0.3 millimeters. On board, we transferred those samples to containers. Back on land, in the laboratory, we would separate and remove tiny zooplankton, algae, plants, and bugs to reveal the microplastics.

Tiny Plastics in Wastewater

On an average day most of us take a shower and brush our teeth. Many of us use an exfoliating face wash, shampoo, or body wash. Before 2018, many of these products contained microbeads, small (approximately 0.33 millimeters in diameter), round beads of plastic (usually polyethylene), included as a gentle abrasive. As the products are used, these microbeads are flushed down the drain with the wastewater. In an average week most of us also do laundry. As we clean our clothing, sheets, and towels, tiny threads--commonly called microfibers--break off and wash away To better understand how microbeads and microfibers--collectively making up microplastics--move through the Great Lakes and other freshwater systems, we wanted to understand whether they are removed at wastewater treatment plants.

After collecting and analyzing 90 samples taken from 17 different facilities across the United States, we confirmed that microplastics travel through wastewater treatment plants. On average, each wastewater treatment facility was releasing more than four million pieces of microplastic into U.S. waterways every day: 60 percent fibers, 34 percent beads, and 6 percent films and foams. With 15,000 such facilities in continual operation around the United States, billions of microplastic particles are finding a pathway through our wastewater from our homes to the fresh water we rely on.

Most wastewater treatment plants discharge into streams and rivers, which eventually flow to lakes and other large bodies of water. Wastewater treatment plants were built to remove urine, fecal matter, nutrients, and microbes, which are known to have negative impacts on the environment and the organisms that rely on that water: They weren't designed to remove plastics. Other studies have shown that wastewater treatment plants can remove 75 to 99 percent of these microplastics from wastewater, depending on the study conditions and the particle sizes sampled. But even when removed from wastewater, microplastics remain in sewage sludge, which is often applied to agricultural land as a fertilizer. As a result, they stay in the ecosystem and through runoff can end up back in the lakes and oceans anyway.

A Great Lakes Perspective

Given our wastewater treatment plant study, one may think that such plants are a primary pathway of microplastics into our freshwater bodies. But when we studied 29 of the major tributaries to the Great Lakes--nearly one-quarter of the flow into these inland seas--we uncovered a different story.

These rivers span different land covers, wastewater effluent contributions, population densities, and hydrologic conditions. In our studies, urban runoff contributed significantly more to microplastic abundances than wastewater treatment plant effluent. In both wastewater and freshwater samples, microfibers were the most abundant microplastic type and did not seem to be correlated with either land use or hydrologic conditions. Other studies, including a 2019 study within the Pyrenees Mountains, highlight one explanation: the presence of microfibers in our air. Such tiny threads-from manufacturing clothes, drying laundry, and shedding in the environment--could account for the ubiquitous microfiber concentrations found in our river samples.

These 29 tributaries flow directly into the Great Lakes. This ecosystem starts in Lake Superior, the largest, most remote, and least densely populated of all five of the Great Lakes. But despite its relative remoteness, we found evidence of plastic pollution in all 187 samples we collected for a 2014 study. Although few people live around Lake Superior, water can linger for nearly 200 years, allowing plastic concentrations to build up over time. Our study projects that the lake's surface has an average of more than 30,000 particles per square kilometer, or 2.5 billion particles in total.

Despite this staggering number, Lake Superior is second to Lake Ontario, which appears to carry the greatest total load of plastic particles among the Great Lakes, with nearly 4.5 billion (see map). Because Lake Ontario is the last lake within the Great Lakes chain, it is not surprising that it has the greatest concentration of plastic pollution.

As plastic particles travel from our homes into and through wastewater treatment facilities, only to be added to those particles washing off our streets directly into our rivers, they all flow into larger bodies of water. Although the majority of my studies have focused on the Great Lakes, this story is the same across the United States and around the world. Further, the flow of wastewater from river to lake should remind each of us of one simple fact: We are all downstream from somewhere, and we are all upstream from the oceans that we share. Water ultimately and intimately connects us all to one another.

Lakes, rivers, and streams represent the primary source of fresh water (approximately 70 percent) for all types of use. Because we find plastic pollution within fresh water throughout the planet, it's not surprising that we find it in our tap water. In 2017 we examined 159 samples of tap water collected from 14 different countries. Eighty-eight percent of these samples showed evidence of microplastic contamination, with an average of 5.5 particles per liter. Almost all (98 percent) of these particles were microfibers, which suggests that air is the primary source of contamination.

The overall health effects of these microplastics remain unknown. Research clearly shows that larger plastic debris harms more than 300 oceanic species. But teasing apart the potential chemical effects remains tricky. Plastic materials contain more than the polymer chains that give them structure; anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of their mass comes from colorants, plasticizers, and other chemicals, some of which can act as endocrine disrupters or have been linked with cancer, obesity, and more. The chemicals found in plastics have been found in human tissues, but it's unclear whether we're ingesting those chemicals from plastic, food, or other sources.

When we released these findings in 2017,1 expected that people would be so shocked that plastics contaminate tap water that they would demand change. But as I answered questions from the media and the public, I soon realized that people cited our work as an argument for drinking bottled water. This conclusion didn't make sense to us, and we immediately shifted to studying bottled water around the world.

In our bottled water study, we analyzed 11 top-selling brands of bottled water--259 individual bottles purchased in 19 locations within nine different countries. All the brands and 93 percent of the individual bottles showed evidence of microplastic contamination. Per unit volume, we found twice as many plastic particles of similar size in bottled water as in tap water. However, in this study we could measure much smaller particle sizes (6.5 micrometers in bottled water versus 100 micrometers in tap water). When you consider this smaller size fraction, we found an average of 325 particles of plastic per liter of bottled water as compared with 5.5 microparticles in tap water. Furthermore, given the particle shapes (largely fragments, rather than fibers) and the chemical makeup (largely polypropylene), these data show that the majority of these plastics came from the bottling process.

Drinking water isn't the only source from which people are ingesting microplastics. We have also found particles in beer, sea salt, and freshwater (game) fish.

These more recent studies show us something very basic: that age-old adage that what goes around, comes around. The plastic we use ultimately comes back to us in the food we eat and the water we drink. Although this is scary and a bit distressing, it also means we can make positive changes.

After our first Great Lakes study in 2013, New York state proposed legislation limiting the use of microplastics in personal care products. As our work received increasing press coverage and plastic pollution groups boosted public awareness, I was asked to testify before numerous policy boards and committees. Meanwhile, consumers demanded loudly and consistently that they didn't want microbeads in their face wash, body wash, shampoos, and toothpastes. In 2015, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015. Although this legislation is not expected to rein in pollution from plastic microfibers, it is a major success story in the work toward reducing microplastics in the environment.

As a next step, our society needs to reduce overall plastic production and consumption, because plastic materials of all sizes can pollute and degrade into ever smaller particles. Each of us can reduce our individual use of plastic, lobby industry to use alternative materials and package products within reusable containers, and push our governments to enact legislation in the best interest of public health. This success highlights hope for the future, characterized by a quote from Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Sherri "Sam" A. Mason's research group is among the first to study the prevalence and affect of plastic pollution within freshwater ecosystems. She received her PhD in chemistry from the University of Montana. She was an EPA Environmental Champion in 2026, received the Excellence in Environmental Research award from the Earth Month Network in 2017, and earned the Heinz Award in Public Policy in 2018. She is now sustainability coordinator at Penn State Behrend. Email: sam7201@psu.edu

Baldwin, A. K., S. R. Corsi, and S. A. Mason. 2016. Plastic debris in 29 Great Lakes tributaries: Relations to watershed attributes and hydrology. Environmental Science & Technology 50:10377.

Mason, S. A., et al. 2016. Pelagic plastic pollution within the surface waters of Lake Michigan, U.S.A. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42:753-759.

Mason, S. A., V. G. Welch, and J. Neratko. 2018. Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water. Frontiers in Chemistry 6:407. doi:10.3389/fchem.2018.00407

Eriksen, M., et al. 2013. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 77:177-182.

Mason, S. A., et al. 2016. Microplastic pollution is widely detected in U.S. municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environmental Pollution 218:1045-1054.

Caption: The author has collected microplastics from the surface of all five Great Lakes, mostly aboard the U.S. brig Niagara. A replica of a ship that saw action during the Battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812, the Niagara often sails the Great Lakes in the summer. At other times, she is typically docked behind the Erie Maritime Museum.

Caption: The Great Lakes form a five-lake system that holds more than 20 percent of the world's surface fresh water. The largest, Lake Superior, flows into Lake Huron, which geologically forms a single lake with Lake Michigan, separated by the lower peninsula of Michigan. The primary outlet for Lake Huron is Lake Erie, which then gushes into Lake Ontario via Niagara Falls. All of this water moves into the St. Lawrence Seaway and eventually into the North Atlantic. In the map above, the numbers and bubble sizes demonstrate the average number of microplastic particles per square kilometer of surface water in each lake.

Caption: Plastics can have a range of physical, chemical, and environmental effects in fresh water. As the Sun's ultraviolet rays strike plastic objects such as bottles, bags, or straws, these objects break down into ever smaller fragments. These pieces foul water and sink into the sediments of lakes and streams. As microplastics move through waterways, they can leach chemical additives and sponge up persistent organic pollutants already present in the water. Aquatic life consumes microplastic particles, and these fragments and the chemicals within them accumulate in larger organisms and in humans.

Caption: Microplastics in fresh water come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Microfibers (left) were the most abundant type found in the author's 2016 Great Lakes tributary study. Before passage of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, tiny plastic beads (center) were routinely added to many personal care products in the United States. A freshwater sample can include particles in many forms: foams, pellets, fragments, lines, and films (right).

Caption: Plastic waste has both dramatic and less obvious effects on fish and other aquatic life. Although this image depicts the obvious harm of plastic trash, much smaller particles and any associated chemicals also accumulate in such animals from the waters and from eating other organisms.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastics, Plastics Everywhere: Studies in the Great Lakes and beyond highlight the ubiquity of microplastics in our rivers and drinking water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I just want to say one word for you, just one word.... Plastics. In its time, this iconic line from The Graduate made a valid point: In 1967, there was a "great future in plastics."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Which bag should you use? - Luka Seamus Wright and Imogen Ellen Napper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discovery Education | Your Daily Learning Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discovery Education inspires educators to go beyond traditional learning with award-winning digital content and professional development. Learn more today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sunlight Exposure for 100 Hours or Less Melts Plastics, Breaks Them Down Into Smaller Soup of New Chemicals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists recently learned that sunlight can also chemically transform plastics into a soup of new chemicals that no longer resemble the original product, which could be more sinister than microplastics that persist forever in the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millions of people along the East Coast and in the Midwestern United States are under a heat watch this weekend as a massive heat wave bears down. This scorching July weekend follows what NOAA recently reported was the hottest June on record.

But before you reach for a plastic water bottle to keep hydrated, you might think twice about whether it too has been wilting under a hot sun.

"The hotter it gets, the more the stuff in plastic can move into food or drinking water," says Rolf Halden, director of the Center for Environmental Health Engineering at Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute.

Most plastic items release a tiny amount of chemicals into the beverages or food they contain. As temperature and time increase, the chemical bonds in the plastic increasingly break down and chemicals are more likely to leach. According to the FDA, the amounts of the chemicals are too minuscule to cause health problems, but scientists looking at the long-term effects of filling our lives with plastic say all those small doses could add up in a big way.

A single-use bottle on a hot summer day

Most of the water bottles you find on supermarket shelves are made of a plastic called polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. It's recognizable by the recycling number one and accepted by most curbside recycling programs.

A study conducted by scientists at Arizona State University in 2008 looked at how heat sped up the release of antimony in PET bottles. Antimony is used to manufacture the plastic and can be toxic in high doses, the NIH reports. In mild, 70-degree weather, the researchers measured safe levels of the chemical in the bottled water. But the hotter the day, the less time it took for water to become contaminated.

A hot car can reach temperatures over 150 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. In experiments, it took 38 days for water bottles heated to that temperature in a lab to show levels of antimony that exceeded safety recommendations.

"As a general rule, yes, heat helps break down chemical bonds in plastics like plastic bottles, and those chemicals can migrate into beverages they contain," emails Julia Taylor, a scientist who researched plastic at the University of Missouri.

In 2014 scientists found high traces of antimony and a toxic compound called BPA in water sold in Chinese water bottles. In 2016 scientists found high antimony levels in bottled water sold in Mexico. Both studies tested water under conditions that exceeded 150 degrees Fahrenheit, representing worst-case scenarios.

According to industry group the International Bottled Water Association, bottled water should be kept in the same conditions that consumers keep other groceries.

"Bottled water has an important role in emergency situations. If you're at risk of dehydration, it doesn't matter what container that comes in. But for the average consumer," says Halden, "there is really no benefit for using all these bottles."

What about reusable containers?

Water bottles that can be used repeatedly are most often made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or polycarbonate. HDPE is largely accepted by recycling programs (recycling code number two), but polycarbonate is more difficult to recycle (recycling code number seven).

To make those bottles hard and shiny, manufacturers often use bisphenol-A or BPA, a compound that has come under fire for its toxicity. BPA is an endocrine disrupter, which means it can disrupt normal hormone function and lead to a slew of dangerous health issues. Studies have linked the compound to breast cancer.

The FDA bans BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, but has found no evidence to support additional restrictions.

Regardless, many manufacturers have responded to consumer concerns by making their products BPA free.

"'BPA free' does not necessarily mean 'safe,'" says Taylor. She notes that bisphenol-S is often used as an alternative even though it's "structurally similar to BPA and turns out to have very similar properties."

( Learn more about why "BPA-free" doesn't always mean better.)

Fewer studies have been done on what happens to water when left in reusable water containers in high temperatures, but research done by pouring boiling water into polycarbonate indicated that more BPA leached out as a result.

"The bottom line is that glass is better than plastic, wherever possible," says Taylor. "Otherwise, the message should be to keep the water bottle in a bag or covered when not in use (not exposed to bright sunlight for long periods of time) and not to leave plastic bottles in a hot car as temperatures rise fast at this time of year."

What's the big picture?

Ultimately, the amount of trace chemicals a person might consume from a plastic food or beverage containers left in the heat won't derail their health. But Halden says we should be concerned about how much plastic we surround ourselves with on a daily basis.

"If you drink water from one PET bottle, will that hurt your health? Probably not," he says. "But if you go through 20 bottles a day, then the question of safety is an entirely different one."

He notes that the cumulative effect of being surrounded by plastics in the goods we buy or microplastics in our water has the biggest potential health impact.

Personally, Halden opts for a metal water bottle instead of a reusable plastic one when trying to stay hydrated on the go.

"If you don't want it in your body, don't increase the material flow of it into society," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exposed to extreme heat, plastic bottles may ultimately become unsafe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of people along the East Coast and in the Midwestern United States are under a heat watch this weekend as a massive heat wave bears down. This scorching July weekend follows what NOAA recently reported was the hottest June on record.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separating Techniques for Plastic Pollution

# data[].attributes.subject
Separating Techniques for Plastic Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You’re Breathing in Microplastics, But What Does That Mean for Your Health?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China is forcing the world to rethink recycling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world's oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution arguably poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals - including humans - who are based on land.

Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to degrade, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.

Researchers in Germany are warning that the impact of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a long-term negative effect on such ecosystems. They say terrestrial microplastic pollution is much higher than marine microplastic pollution - estimated at four to 23 times higher, depending on the environment.

On the left: Artificial turf football field with ground tyre rubber used for cushioning. On the right: Microplastics from the same field, washed away by rain, and found close to a stream, Kristiansand, Norway. Photo: Soleincitta

The researchers concludethat, although little research has been carried out in this area, the results to date are concerning: fragments of plastic are present practically all over the world and can trigger many kinds of adverse effects.

The study estimates that one third of all plastic waste ends up in soils or freshwater. Most of this plastic disintegrates into particles smaller than five millimetres, known as microplastics, and these break down further into nanoparticles (less than 0.1 micrometre in size). The problem is that these particles are entering the food chain.
Sewage
Sewage is an important factor in the distribution of microplastics. In fact, between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the plastic particles contained in sewage, such as from garment fibres, persist in the sludge, says the study. Sewage sludge is often applied to fields as fertilizer, meaning that several thousand tons of microplastics end up in our soils each year. Microplastics can even be found in tap water.

Moreover, the surfaces of tiny fragments of plastic may carry disease-causing organisms and act as a vector for diseases in the environment. Microplastics can also interact with soil fauna, affecting their health and soil functions. "Earthworms, for example, make their burrows differently when microplastics are present in the soil, affecting the earthworm's fitness and the soil condition," says an article in Science Daily about the research.
Toxic effects
In 2020, the first-ever field study to explore how the presence of microplastics can affect soil fauna was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The paper notes that terrestrial microplastic pollution has led to the decrease of species that live below the surface, such as mites, larvae and other tiny creatures that maintain the fertility of the land.

Chlorinated plastic can release harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil, which can then seep into groundwater or other surrounding water sources, and also the ecosystem. This can cause a range of potentially harmful effects on the species that drink the water.

Shovel excavator spreading sewage sludge on a field. Photo: Flickr / SuSanA Secretariat

Generally speaking, when plastic particles break down, they gain new physical and chemical properties, increasing the risk that they will have a toxic effect on organisms. And the larger the number of potentially affected species and ecological functions, the more likely it is that toxic effects will occur.

Chemical effects are especially problematic at the degradation stage. Additives such as phthalates and Bisphenol A (widely known as BPA) leach out of plastic particles. These additives are known for their hormonal effects and can disrupt the hormone system of vertebrates and invertebrates alike. In addition, nano-sized particles may cause inflammation, traverse cellular barriers, and even cross highly selective membranes such as the blood-brain barrier or the placenta. Within the cell, they can trigger changes in gene expression and biochemical reactions, among other things.

The long-term effects of these changes have not yet been sufficiently explored. "However, it has already been shown that when passing the blood-brain barrier nanoplastics have a behaviour-changing effect in fish," according to the Leibnitz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries.
How do microplastics get into our water?
One of the main sources is our clothing. Minuscule fibres of acrylic, nylon, spandex, and polyester are shed each time we wash our clothes and are carried off to wastewater treatment plants or discharged to the open environment.

According to a recent study cited by Water World in 2016, more than 700,000 microscopic plastic fibres could be released into the environment during each cycle of a washing machine. This has not yet been studied in the case of handwashing, which is more common in developing counties, but the effects could be significant there as well.

Another study commissioned in the same year by clothing company Patagonia and conducted by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that washing a single synthetic jacket just once released an average of 1.7 grams of microfibres.

In 2019, it was estimated that 1.5 million trillion microfibers were present in the oceans around the world.
Microbeads
Microbeads are solid plastic particles that typically range from 10 micrometers (0.00039 inches) up to 1 millimeter (0.039 inches).

Numerous countries around the world have introduced legislation to ban the manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads. Such laws have already been passed in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Microbeads are solid plastic particles that typically range from 10 micrometers up to 1 millimeter. Photo: Wikimedia

In May 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and its Global Soil Partnership, the World Health Organization, the Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) organized the Global Symposium on Soil Pollution (GSOP18) to bring together science and policy to understand the status, causes, impacts and solutions to soil pollution. The outcome document of the symposium, ' Be the solution to soil pollution' paved the way to the implementation of a coordinated set of actions to # StopSoilPollution.

In 2021, FAO and UNEP teamed up again to launch the Global Assessment of Soil Pollution, which details the risks and impacts of soil pollution on human health, the environment and food security.

For further information: Birguy.Lamizana@un.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic planet: How tiny plastic particles are polluting our soil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much more research needs to be done to understand the impacts of microplastic pollution on land.

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic pollution sinks deeper into ocean

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic pollution sinks deeper into ocean

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Byline: Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO - The problem of plastic pollution in the ocean is even worse than scientists feared.

Tiny, broken pieces of plastic - microplastic - aren't just floating at the water's surface but are pervasive down thousands of feet. There's actually more microplastic 1,000 feet down than there is in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, research published Thursday found.

"We didn't think there would be four times as much plastic floating at depth than at the surface," said Kyle Van Houtan, chief scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

He's one of the authors of the study published in last week's edition of Scientific Reports from the journal Nature that investigated how much plastic there is in the ocean's depths.

Tons of plastic trash wash down rivers and out to sea each day, fouling the surface and endangering sea life.

When researchers looked deep below the surface, they found plastic pieces smaller than rice grains wherever they looked.

Public concern over plastic ocean trash has centered on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a huge floating blob halfway between California and Hawaii drawn together by ocean currents to create a gyre.

This vortex of waves concentrates the floating trash pieces in an area twice the size of Texas.

The patch isn't composed of big floating rafts of trash but rather a pervasive almost-mist of tiny bits of plastic floating in the water. Think of it more as a fog in the water than as a bleach bottle bobbing along.

It's worse deeper down than at the surface, the scientists found.

Previous research found concentrations of microplastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch were about 12 particles per cubic meter of water.

"We topped out at 16," said Van Houtan of his team's underwater findings.

The deep-sea methods they used were highly innovative and confirmed a bleak picture of what the past decade's research pointed toward, said Brendan Godley, a conservation scientist who studies plastic ocean pollution at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

"Scientists are now beginning to realize that microplastics are truly ubiquitous. They've been found from the seafloor to the mountain tops, in the air we breathe and in the salt we put on our meals," he said.

"This research demonstrates the way in which we've gone from zero understanding of the problem 15 years ago to full-fledged appreciation that this pollutant is completely distributed around our entire planet," said Peter Ross, a toxicologist who studies the impacts of microplastics on marine life at Canada's Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia.

The researchers used drone micro-submarines to sample the water from the surface all the way down to the ocean floor - 3,200 feet. The sample area included one site near Monterey Bay on the California coast and one site 15 miles offshore.

The highest concentrations of microplastics were 600 to 2,000 feet down.

The team inspected the guts of pelagic red crabs and jellyfish-like filter feeders called giant larvaceans.

Both species play key roles in ocean food webs, from the surface to the seafloor. Every one of them contained plastic.

"Even if you don't care about the crabs and the larvaceans, they're the food of things you do care about - tuna, seabirds, whales and turtles all feed on them or feed on things that feed on them," said Anela Choy, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego and one of the paper's authors.

Though the researchers sampled only two areas, Van Houtan said he believes they would find similar patterns elsewhere, given ocean currents and the mix of waters.

Laser spectroscopy allowed the scientists to analyze what kind of plastic each of the particles they found came from, which turned up some surprises.

The researchers found that very few particles were from discarded or lost commercial fishing gear. Almost all were from terrestrial sources.

The one piece of good news Van Houtan found in what the team saw was that the single largest type of plastic the reseacrhers found floating in the water - about 40% - came from single-use plastics such as beverage and food containers.

"That's something we as consumers can do something about," Van Houtan said. "Single-use products are something that we can demand better alternatives for."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution sinks deeper into ocean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Byline: Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - The problem of plastic pollution in the ocean is even worse than scientists feared. Tiny, broken pieces of plastic - microplastic - aren't just floating at the water's surface but are pervasive down thousands of feet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separating Techniques for Plastic Pollution

# data[].attributes.subject
Separating Techniques for Plastic Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why 99% of ocean plastic pollution is "missing"

# data[].attributes.body
Username: gulliveracad

Password: raiders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HOW EVERYDAY STUFF TURNS INTO MICROPLASTICS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic debris takes a complicated - and sometimes weird - journey as it breaks down into pieces too small to see. MICROPLASTICS are all over the news lately. Actually,these plastic bits 0.2 inches (5 mm) wide or smaller are all over everything - from our food to the insides of animals, and especially in the oceans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scottish Marine Institute, Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), Oban, United Kingdom

Environmental Research Institute (ERI), North Highland College, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso, United Kingdom

Aquaculture Health Laboratory, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, United Kingdom

Microplastics (plastic particles ≤ 5 mm) have been studied extensively in coastal areas around the world in several habitats. Nevertheless, understanding and explaining the temporal and spatial occurrence and dynamics of microplastics is challenging. For the first time, three environmental variables were studied at six locations at the same time for each season over a year, along the North and West coasts of Scotland. Surface water was collected with a pole water sampler from the shore whilst beach sediment was sampled using glass jars, and mussels were the target organism collected. Concentrations of microplastics ranged from 0 to 6 ± 1.50 particles per l of surface water. In beach sediment, microplastics concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.37 ± 0.12 particles per g.dw, whilst for mussels it ranged from 0 to 23.81 particles per g.ww. This study was designed to determine the presence of microplastics as well as extend the temporal and geographical scales. We developed a simple, cost-effective and practical tool-kit to collect microplastics from the coastal environment and engaged the public in scientific research. The tool-kit was designed to take into account the latest recommendations for sampling each environmental substrate, whilst being practical for citizen scientists to use. This research demonstrates that using a semi-structured to structured project with a defined sampling approach including the participation of the public with local knowledge can be an effective way to monitor microplastics in the marine environment along the Scottish coastline. This approach, can be adapted to other projects monitoring microplastics to increase the use of citizen science in projects, allowing more studies to take place, more samples to be collected, and a greater understanding of the occurrence and the potential impact of microplastics in the environment.

Introduction

Frias and Nash (2019) have given a general definition for microplastics that are "any synthetic solid particle or polymeric matrix, with a regular or irregular shape and with a size ranging from 1 μm to 5 mm." Microplastics can be classified as either primary or secondary plastics ( Frias and Nash, 2019), with primary microplastics being intentionally-manufactured small pieces, whilst secondary microplastics are the result of fragmentation of larger pieces ( Thompson and Napper, 2018). These particles continue to degrade over time due to physical, biological and chemical processes ( Frias and Nash, 2019) and consequently, they may become available for ingestion to an increasingly wide range of marine organisms, which could result in physical/physiological disturbances ( Auta et al., 2017; Avio et al., 2017). Microplastics vary in type, shape, color and chemical composition ( Frias and Nash, 2019; Rochman et al., 2019).

Beach sediment has been collected to investigate the presence of microplastics in a plethora of studies, using a range of methods from direct sampling with forceps, volume-reduced sampling by sieving or using bulk sampling ( Prata et al., 2019). Bulk samples seemed to include the broadest size range for microplastics compared to sieving ( Brander et al., 2020). Blumenröder et al. (2017) suggested that the mechanical action of sieving would create artificially more microplastics leading to an inflation in the number recorded. Sieving would also potentially increase the risk of contamination from the personnel or the environment. It is also recommended to collect the top 5cm of beach sediment using five replicate samples where microplastics seemed to be more abundant ( Brander et al., 2020). Marine surface waters collection could be achieved by reduction in situ using nets (i.e., neuston or manta), sieves or pumps. Those techniques would allow for large volumes of water to be analyzed thus, outputs should be more representative of the environment being sampled ( Prata et al., 2019). However, these techniques require considerable means to deploy the equipment, i.e., a boat, or the need to transport pumps to several sites across hundreds of km, which is not practical for citizen science project. This is therefore perhaps not the best method to be employing when citizen scientists are involved. Nets can also clog easily causing a loss of particles collected ( Prata et al., 2019). Alternative techniques such as the use of bulk samples (i.e., bottle and bucket) are preferred with regards to the feasibility of sampling by citizen scientists especially where large distances need to be covered as well as for reducing contamination ( Prata et al., 2019). Although small volumes may not be accurate in representing the concentrations observed in the environment, Prata et al. (2020) indicated that low volumes allowed for the geographical and temporal range of a study to be greatly extended.

This study presents a methodological approach that is both simple yet standardized based on the recommendations for the collection of microplastics in coastal seawater, intertidal sediment and wild blue mussels ( Mytilus edulis). Sampling has been undertaken in different locations over a distance of ∼400 km at the same point in time, over a 12 months period to take into account seasonal variation. To enable this, citizen scientists followed the same protocols as the lead author for the collection the environmental samples to determine the concentration of microplastics in these three matrices and to contribute to the creation of a reliable database. Thus, interacting with volunteers, enabled a broader geographical region to be covered and allowed the sampling campaign to be repeated through time to include a temporal scale as recommended by Brander et al. (2020). This paper demonstrates the potential use of citizen science as a method to generate standardized data on the concentrations and temporal variation of microplastics found in three environmental matrices (water, sediment, and biota) along the North and West coasts of Scotland.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

Scotland has ∼18,000 km of coastline on the mainland alone with some areas inaccessible or not easily reached due to lack of infrastructure. To assess microplastics contamination along the West and North coasts of Scotland ( Figure 1), samples were collected from six contrasting sites based on several parameters, hydrodynamic activity (i.e., annual mean wave power, annual mean significant wave height, wave exposure index), anthropogenic activity (i.e., population number and density) and the tidal range (i.e., mean spring tidal range) that defined the sites ( Table 1). The general description of the sampling sites was based on the Marine Scotland, 2021 Maps National Marine Plan Interactive (NMPI) ( Marine Scotland (2021) Maps NMPI part of Scotland's environment).

Citizen Science

To be able to cover this large region, citizen scientists were recruited based on their educational background, science knowledge, interest in the topic and field/monitoring experiences, through professional contacts via emails, combined with the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded Capturing Our Coast (2016) [CoCoast; ( Capturing Our Coast (2016): An innovation in marine citizen science)] citizen science project. The team of citizen scientists ranged from postgraduate students at UHI partner institutes, Islay Natural History Trust volunteers and those who had been directly involved in the CoCoast programme (10 participants in total).

The initial exchange with volunteers introduced them to the topic, type of locations needed and why additional help was required. Volunteers based at Thurso, Islay and Mossyard ( Figure 1) were asked to identify suitable sampling locations, which combined selection criteria such as accessibility of the site, sandy beaches with rocks present, the presence of blue mussels, closeness to the volunteers' home's for safety reasons and transport time of samples. Volunteers' local knowledge was invaluable in aiding site selection. Prior to any sampling being undertaken, the citizen scientists took site photographs, recorded GPS location data, provided detailed descriptions of proposed locations, along with information on the selection criteria. Sites were deemed acceptable once the research team and volunteers were happy that the locations fulfilled the requirements for the science to be valid. Simple protocols were designed and initially field tested by the research team. Non-scientific personnel were drafted in to review the protocol in the field so that issues could be addressed prior to sampling kits being posted to the volunteers. Additional information was also provided including sampling schemes, pictures and a video explaining the methodology, what clothing they should/should not wear (i.e., wellington boots, waterproof jacket and natural fabrics as much as possible to prevent contamination) as well as a reminder to work in pairs to meet health and safety protocols. Volunteers were required to read and accept SAMS' risk assessment prior to any fieldwork commencing. Before each sampling event, a video-conference/telephone-call was organized between the lead author and each of the volunteers allowing for any questions/queries to be addressed. The lead author was also reachable by telephone during each sampling campaign in case any problems were encountered by the volunteers.

Sampling Kit

Sampling kits were designed to be simple tool-kits, easily used by all volunteers. The tool-kit consisted of a pole-water sampler, glass jars (15 of 7 ml), plastic bottles (5 of 500 ml), sealable plastic bags, filter paper already placed in Petri dishes, aluminum foil, deionised water (1l), electrical tape, water-resistant pencil, ice blocks (3) and a cool box ( Figure 2). The water-sampler, bottles, bags and jars were rinsed and cleaned with deionised water and 70% ethanol prior to being sealed. The filter papers and Petri dishes were examined using a stereomicroscope 37.5× magnification prior to sealing with electrical tape to ensure no contamination. Bottles, bags and jars were partially labeled to facilitate the work in the field by the volunteers. All materials were stored in an insulated cool-box immediately after collection and during transport of samples to the laboratory, which allowed safe transportation of materials. The cool-box provided thermal insulation for the samples, resulting in slower development of organic matter, as well as a convenient way to transfer materials to and from the site. The volunteers were asked to take a knife (Swiss army type knife) prior to going into the field, to be able to remove the mussels from their substrate.

Sampling Collection

At all six locations, intertidal sediment (i.e., sand), coastal water and benthic organisms (i.e., M. edulis) were collected four times during the year (every 13 weeks) i.e., April 2018, July 2018, October 2018, and January 2019, to investigate seasonal variability in microplastic abundances, polymer types and shapes. All the sites were sampled at the same time (e.g., over the same weekend) to avoid large weather and tidal disparities between locations.

Intertidal Sediment

The most recent high tide line was the focus of this study, to look at actual microplastic deposition rather than accumulation over time as suggested by Hidalgo-Ruz et al. (2012). Avoiding the springtide lines would allow the samples to be more representative of the actual microplastic accumulation ( Blumenröder et al., 2017). The aim was to investigate the effect of the tide, hydrodynamic and anthropogenic activities on microplastic deposition on sandy beaches.

Figure 4. Demonstration of sediment collection using a glass bijou jar as a scoop (a,b) with a dampened filter paper (c) to assess air contamination during the sampling.

Surface Water

Coastal water was surveyed at the same site after the intertidal sediment had been collected. Surface water was sampled using a pole-water sampler and a sample bottle capable of holding 500 ml previously rinsed and cleaned with deionized water and 70% ethanol ( Figure 5). After walking into the water to a depth of ∼30 cm to avoid, as much as possible, the mixing area of sand and coastal water, the water sampler was deployed to collect the surface water (i.e., top 15 cm). Five replicates of 500 ml were collected per site with a total of 2.5 l of water per location per season as suggested by Prata et al., 2020. The pole water sampler was wrapped in aluminum foil between collection of each sample to avoid air contamination. In addition, between each replicate, all material was rinsed with deionised water to avoid environmental contamination. The quantity of water collected was limited by the size of cool-box and the practicality of posting the samples back to the laboratory. Plastic bottles were preferred for sample collection compared to glass bottles in this study for safety and practical reasons (i.e., price and fragility).

Figure 5. Collection of surface seawater with a pole-water sampler using aluminum foil to avoid air contamination, (a) pole-water sampler protected from the air with aluminum foil, (b) remove aluminum foil at the end of pole and screw the bottle sampler, (c) put pole in the water, release the button to collect water, (d) press the button to avoid air coming into contact with the seawater, (e) put aluminum foil around the apertures to prevent air contamination and release the button prior to transferring the water to the container.

Biota: Mytilus edulis

Blue mussels ( M. edulis), are commonly observed along the shore in Scotland ( Svåsand et al., 2007). Mytilus edulis were collected from the rocky shore directly adjacent to the sampled beach. Adults ranging in size from 2 to 5 cm were collected to facilitate the statistical comparison of results between locations. M. edulis were removed from the substrate using a knife rinsed with deionised water prior to being used and any encrusting organisms were detached from the shell of the mussel. Each individual was rinsed with deionised water to remove any potential contamination before being wrapped in aluminum foil and individually stored in a plastic bag. Ten replicates were collected for each site in each season.

Sample Storage

In the laboratory, water and sediment samples were stored in a fridge at 5°C for a few days or up to 6 months, respectively, until the extraction and filtration processes could take place, to decrease the development of organic matter in the samples. This step also facilitated the recovery of microplastics using oil. To ensure no loss of ingested microplastics from M. edulis, they were frozen (−20°C) to keep the shells closed until extraction.

Sample Processing

Intertidal Sediment

Glass jars were placed in a drying oven for 48 h at 50°C with a 140 μm metal mesh placed on top of them to reduce air contamination. Blank samples were run at the same time to assess potential airborne contamination in the oven. The sand contained in the glass jar was weighed individually to record the dry mass (g) of each sample. The sand from each glass jar was mixed with 3 ml of canola oil combined with 25 ml of deionised water and placed in a 250 ml conical flask [this method was adapted from Crichton et al. (2017) and Courtene-Jones (2019)]. The quantity of canola oil was adapted to the sand mass content of one glass jar (approximately 10 g) and sand grain size [less fine than Courtene-Jones et al. (2017)]. Following the extraction, a cleaning step was added using an ethanol (99%) 1:1 isopropanol (99%) solution to ensure that the oily layer adhering to the particles was completely removed. Using the ethanol-isopropanol solution resulted in successful analysis of the polymer type using a Fourier Transform Infrared spectrometer (FTIR) ( Courtene-Jones, 2019). Each potential microplastic was stored on a separate gridded filter paper and labeled prior to FTIR analysis.

Surface Water

Water samples were filtered as soon as possible after the storage step using a Buchner funnel with filter paper (Whatman qualitative grade 4, 20-25 μm pore size), coupled to a vacuum pump. The bottle containing the water sample was rinsed three times with deionised water and then poured onto the same filter paper to ensure that all potential plastic pieces were recovered. The wet filter paper was stored and sealed in a glass petri dish and labeled prior to observation and analysis.

Biota: Wild Mussels

Prior to enzyme digestion, individual mussels were measured (length and width) using dial metal calipers to assess the size ranges within and between locations. Individual mussel flesh was placed onto a pre-weighed glass petri dishes to determine the flesh mass (i.e., wet mass in g). The flesh of each mussel was cut into five pieces, placed into a glass beaker and covered with aluminum foil. A 0.625% Trypsin solution (following the methodology of Courtene-Jones et al., 2016) was added to the mussel flesh (i.e., 25 ml per mussel). The beaker was put onto a hot plate (38-42°C) with a magnetic stirrer for 30 min, after which the contents were poured through a filter paper (Whatman qualitative grade 4, 20-25 μm pore size). After filtration, the beaker was rinsed three times with deionised water to recover all particles from the sample and this solution was also poured through the same filter paper. The filter paper was stored in a glass petri dish, sealed with electrical tape and labeled. These steps were repeated for each individual mussel.

Microplastic Identification and Characterization

Following quickly the filtration step, the filter papers (Whatman qualitative grade 4, 20-25 μm pore size) were visually inspected for microplastics using a dissecting microscope (WILD M5, 75×) and particles were transferred manually with tweezers (TAAB - High precision Stainless steel Anti-mag Type 3) to be stored on separate gridded filter paper and labeled. The particles were counted, photographed (Zeiss Stemi 2000-C microscope coupled with a Zeiss Axiocam camera), measured (i.e., ocular scale) and characterized by shape, color, length and polymer type. Each potential microplastic was scanned to confirm its polymer type using the FTIR in reflection and μATR collection mode (wavelength ranging from 4,000-600 per cm ⁻¹) of an Attenuated Total Reflection-Fourier Transform Infra-Red spectrometer (ATR-FTIR Thermo scientific Nicolet iN10 and iZ10, software Omnic Picta). Each final spectrum was the product of 16 co-added spectra with a spectral resolution of 8 cm ⁻¹. Spectra were compared with five inbuilt polymer libraries (Thermo Fisher) to aid identification and processed through the atmospheric suppression and baseline correction when necessary.

Contamination Control

A strict process was followed to avoid airborne contamination during the sampling campaigns and in the laboratory. In the field, volunteers wore natural fabrics when possible and collected samples whilst facing into the wind. The material was rinsed with deionised water and 70% ethanol if necessary and wrapped in aluminum foil. The environmental contamination in the field and the air contamination during laboratory work, were assessed with petri dishes and dampened filter paper (Whatman grade 1, 30 mm) left on the bench or near the collection point ( Courtene-Jones et al., 2016). In the laboratory, a 'clean room' was allocated to study microplastics ( Lusher et al., 2017), air vents were covered and the door remained closed during the experiment. Benches were cleaned with 70% ethanol three times prior to starting work ( Murphy et al., 2016). Personnel wore natural fabrics and a 100% cotton lab coat; long hair was tied back and numbers were restricted in the laboratory. All apparatus were washed with deionised water and 70% ethanol prior to use, and materials were inspected under a dissecting microscope to ensure that they were free of any contamination ( Lusher et al., 2017). Wherever possible the use of metal and glassware were preferentially chosen over plastic. These steps were repeated each day and for each extraction type. Procedural blanks were run for each protocol and taken into account in the results by subtracting the particles recorded from the database.

Results and Discussion

However, a high standard error between replicates at each site over the year was obtained ( Table 2) that may be the result of the relatively small volume of water (2.5 l) collected. It would not reflect the actual variability of microplastics in surface waters ( Brander et al., 2020). Work undertaken by Barrows et al. (2018), demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining accuracy when collecting small volumes of water, especially when microplastic concentrations are already low ( Barrows et al., 2018). The results for water samples did give representative values from the environment for small microplastics ( Prata et al., 2020). Those relative values are useful for monitoring, understanding the potential impact of plastic particles and informing measures to reduce this pollution ( Prata et al., 2020). Prata et al. (2020) collected surface waters with glass bottles of 1 l in four replicates and extracted subsamples volumes of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2.5 l, to investigate the minimum volume required to detect the small microplastics considered the most abundant fraction in the environment. Taking into account the feasibility of collecting and processing, Prata et al. (2020) suggested that 0.5-1 l of filtered water would be recommended for future research. Their study concluded that the utilization of small volumes would allow for studies looking at the temporal and geographic scales of microplastic studies to be undertaken with readily available materials ( Prata et al., 2020).

One alternative would be to use a pump to collect a greater volume of water and filter the surface water on-site prior to laboratory analysis ( Lusher, 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). This technique would not only allow a greater quantity of water to be collected but would also allow easy transportation of samples (filters) to the laboratory and potentially avoid environmental contamination. However, pump systems are expensive to purchase and difficult to transport to different locations ( Zhao et al., 2015). Also, using a pump system would require an energy supply for it, which is not practical for use in a citizen science project. Therefore, a balance needs to be maintained based on finances, practicality for collection, working with numerous volunteers and collecting water samples from multiple areas, versus water collection from limited sites. Brander et al. (2020) suggest a combination of grab and net techniques to analyze a wider quantity and range of plastic particles in seawater. For example, McEachern et al. (2019) combined discrete samples (i.e., 1 l per site using a Van Dorn sampler) and plankton tows (i.e., 330 μm net). No significant differences were observed in microplastic concentrations between stations or regions ( McEachern et al., 2019), perhaps highlighting that the two techniques could give the same outputs.

Bulk sampling produced the biggest range of size classes of microplastics reporting particles from 1 μm to 5 mm ( Brander et al., 2020). This technique was chosen as it was a good method to recover all sizes of microplastics from an area never studied before. Moreover, as the bijou jars used to collect the sediment were not plastic and no sieving step was applied this allowed for a reduction in potential air contamination. Sieving could artificially create more microplastic particles due to mechanical action that would be avoided using bulk samples ( Blumenröder et al., 2017). As a result of their smaller volumes compared to other techniques, bulk samples are more easily transported back to the laboratory. All the recommendations cited by Brander et al. (2020) have been respected such as collecting the first 5 cm of sediment, making a transect, a minimum of five replicates per point and approximately 10 samples per 100 m of beach.

When the volunteers collected biota such as wild mussels, all the mussels were cleaned from their byssus and barnacles attached to them and wrapped into aluminum foil to be stored separately in a cleaned plastic bag. No liquid coming out the mussels was visible when the cool-box arrived at the laboratory, which meant that the transport went well and no potential microplastics were lost. Again there was no concern raised that volunteers had contaminated the samples because some of the steps in the protocol were designed to clean and rinse the mussels prior to storage. In Table 4, the standard errors were low demonstrating that this technique was suitable to look at microplastics in mussel. In Table 4, the variability of concentrations of microplastics per g.ww could be explained by the physiology and the size of the organisms ( Brander et al., 2020). The recommendations of Brander et al. (2020) have been respected such as collecting 10 individuals per site or area. Lastly, the volunteers respected the specific guidance provided regarding the collection of adult specimens where possible, with 97% being included between 2 and 5 cm in length as mentioned in the protocol. The concentrations observed in wild mussels all sites and seasons combined were ranging from 0 to 23.81 microplastics per g.ww for this study. These results seemed to be similar to the concentrations observed in Oban area, Scotland with a range of 1.05 to 4.44 per g.ww ( Courtene-Jones, 2019). Catarino et al. (2018) have found similar level of microplastics in wild mussels around Scotland with an average of 3.0 ± 0.9 particles per g. Those concentrations matched the observations of microplastics in wild mussels in China with a range of 0.9-4.6 particles per g ( Li et al., 2016), whereas the concentrations recorded in France were lower with an average of 0.23 ± 0.20 microplastics per g.ww ( Phuong et al., 2017). Therefore, microplastic concentrations observed in wild mussels in this study seemed to be similar to other studies in Scotland and Europe, which means that the protocol could work for bigger citizen science project.

Citizen science can be a powerful research tool enhancing spatial and temporal coverage ( Pocock et al., 2017), increasing access to sites and samples ( Honorato-Zimmer et al., 2019), reducing financial project costs, raising awareness regarding research or conservation aims ( Eaton et al., 2017) and providing opportunities for people to become involved in science projects ( Cohn, 2008; Bonney et al., 2009; Bosker et al., 2017). Calculations were made for this study ( Table 5) to confirm the extent to which volunteers helped reduce the financial costs, time and carbon footprint of the campaign. Table 5 demonstrates that for this study using citizen scientists (10) helped decrease the sampling time by 73%, lowered the carbon footprint by 65% and reduced the overall financial cost by 63% by using this new methodological development. Including more citizen science in research would, potentially, allow more studies to take place, and more samples to be collected. It could reduce the impact on the environment and support the movement toward more sustainable research.

These results indicate that in order to create and develop a baseline monitoring for plastic pollution along the coastline, as well as for studies that want to cover large spatial and temporal scales, it is essential to have citizen scientists involved in the project. Based on the definition of citizen science projects by Kelling et al. (2019), this study would be classified in the semi-structured to structured categories due to its well-defined objectives, a rigorous protocol with open recruitment and recorded observations during sampling. This type of project has been recommended for the future due to the good collection of scientific values, enough bias control, but still able to attract a large number of volunteers ( Kelling et al., 2019).

However, there are some drawbacks including difficulties in finding volunteers without a pre-established network, training and managing citizen scientists (which can be time-consuming), sampling accuracy, as well as ensuring quality control in the field and blanks for the assessment of environmental contamination ( Forrest et al., 2019). In our particular study, based on feedback, all the volunteers had some previous field experience, a great engagement with the topic, and a precision and rigor in applying the methods. If this protocol was to be used again, it would be useful to include video or live training through different media platforms. The advantage of pre-recorded would be that the volunteers could go back and have another look at the file. Communicating positively with the public would potentially interest more volunteers, especially if it fits their beliefs and values ( Domroese and Johnson, 2017).

Research teams planning to use citizen scientists in future programs would benefit from accessing larger networks, creating an online platform to facilitate the data collection from volunteers as well as to showcase the results to a wider audience, developing a promotional strategy which could recruit volunteers more efficiently and be less time consuming ( Bayas et al., 2017; Barrows et al., 2018; Sanders and Brandes, 2020). Recording field site data is also important for future studies. This should include metadata such as wind speed, wind direction, wave height, wave strength, substrate type and weather forecast which can all provide useful information for the background understanding of samples ( Herrera et al., 2018). Barrows et al. (2018) also suggested creating a smartphone application which could be used by volunteers to easily record all useful site information.

Assessing the temporal variation of microplastics along the coastline is one of the biggest challenges that coastal microplastic researchers face. However, a 1-year study may not be long enough to accurately assess the seasonal trends of abundance, or composition, of microplastics in the environment. Barrows et al. (2018) collected microplastics at multiple sites and found both a significant annual and seasonal difference when comparing samples from the same location over 2 years.

Heigl et al. (2019) suggested moving toward a global and general definition based on scientific standards, communication, collaboration and ethics of a citizen science project to ensure standardization and higher quality of studies as more and more research projects involve citizen scientists.

Conclusion

Concentrations of plastic in surface waters ranged from 0 to 6 microplastics per l depending on the sites and seasons. The concentration of microplastics in beach sediment fluctuated between 0 and 0.37 particles per g.dw for all sites and seasons combined, while in wild mussels the number of particles ranged from 0 to 23.81 per g.ww. From the results, the low volumes for water and sediment samples seemed to be a good compromise between the feasibility of the study and the approximation to the real concentration for small microplastics. Using low volumes combined with strict contamination process and good identification protocols allowed us to extend the temporal and geographical sampling of microplastics. The novel aspect of this study was the collection by citizen scientists of three different types of samples at several sites that spanned ∼400 km of coastline, fundamentally at the same time (i.e., the same weekend), several times a year in Scotland. We proposed and deployed a simple, cost-effective and practical collection method that facilitated microplastic sampling for several matrices to enhance the knowledge of microplastic distribution, fate and dynamics in the marine environment. The practical tool-kit was designed to be easy to use, small enough to be posted, and readily used and understood by non-scientific personnel. This technique could be adapted for projects in different environments and countries due to its simplicity, showing the feasibility of monitoring microplastics on a large spatial scale as well as on a temporal scale at low cost.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions generated for this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The animal study was reviewed and approved by University of the Highlands and Islands.

Author Contributions

BN, NJ, BQ, and AD conceived the project aim. LP, BN, and AD designed the methodology. BN and NJ provided help finding citizen scientists. LP collected and obtained the samples. LP collected and obtained the samples, carried out the sample processing work and the analysis, and led the writing manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Funding

This project was funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) scholarship in partnership with the Scottish Funding Council and the European Regional Development Fund Investing in a Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Future.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the volunteers who helped collect the samples specifically Huiyi Zhang and Anika Grosse (ERI-UHI), Jim and Pauline Logan (local Natural History Society), Emma Baker (Islay Nature Centre), Lesley Silcock (Islay), Alasdair O'Dell, Solene Giraudeau-Potel, Julie Rostan, Fatima Gianella, Elise Depauw, and Guy Trimby (SAMS-UHI), and Jessica Gianotti (Crùbag-SAMS). We would also like to thank Hannah Grist the CoCoast project officer who helped to recruit volunteers.

References

Lassen, C., Hansen, S. F., Magnusson, K., Norén, F., Bloch Hartmann, N. I., Jensen, P. R., et al. (2015). Microplastics: occurrence, effects and sources of releases to the environment in Denmark. Denmark: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114980

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A New Collection Tool-Kit to Sample Microplastics From the Marine Environment (Sediment, Seawater, and Biota) Using Citizen Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Microplastics (plastic particles ≤ 5 mm) have been studied extensively in coastal areas around the world in several habitats. Nevertheless, understanding and explaining the temporal and spatial occurrence and dynamics of microplastics is challenging. For the first time, three environmental variables were studied at six locations at the same time for each season over a year, along the North and West coasts of Scotland.

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies

Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
Username: gulliveracad

Password: raiders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.body
Username: gulliveracad

Password: raiders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School, a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

Biodegradable products and packaging (biodegradables) are items engineered to degrade with minimal environmental impact using only biological processes or natural weathering. Biodegradable products may be made from plant or animal materials or from conventional industrial materials such as petroleum to which degrading agents are added. Compostable products are often confused with biodegradable products, and break down faster into humus (the organic components of soil), which provide valuable nutrients to the soil.

Biodegradables aim to reduce solid municipal waste streams. Greater waste streams require more space for landfills and produce more greenhouse gas emissions. Common non-engineered biodegradables include food and paper wastes. Engineered biodegradables include biodegradable plastics, fabrics, detergents, and inks.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Words to Know

Aerobic

Any process or organism that requires the presence of oxygen.

Anaerobic

A process or organism not dependent on the presence of oxygen.

Biodegradable

A material that uses biological processes or natural weathering to degrade rapidly with minimal environmental impact.

Compostable

Organic and engineered wastes able to be composted; that is, able to be broken down by various aerobic microorganisms.

Municipal solid waste

Solid refuse, including household and business trash, that is disposed of by local sanitation agencies.

Historical Background and Scientific Foundations

Consumer desire for convenience products led to the development of disposable containers and packaging. Consumer consumption of disposable products grew rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century. Processed convenience foods such as frozen dinners gained popularity in the 1950s. They were attractively packaged for simple cooking and easy cleanup, often in tinfoil containers inside of cardboard outer packages. In the following decades, household cleaning products packaged in plastic bottles became popular. Consumers flocked to disposable versions of everyday items, such as pens and diapers. The advent of fast food and carryout restaurants further increased the use of disposable materials. All of these contributed to an increase in municipal waste streams.

In 2017, plastics took up an estimated 13.2 percent of landfill volume in the United States. Bioplastics accounted for about one percent of the total plastic used by consumers. Whereas paper and cardboard, being wood products, have the ability to degrade fairly rapidly under the right conditions, traditional petroleum-based plastics degrade slowly over thousands of years. Biodegradable plastics were invented to reduce the environmental impacts of plastics and reduce landfill burdens.

Biodegradable plastics are engineered to break down into base materials and chemicals with no or minimal harm to the environment. They rely on different natural processes, from sunlight to bacteria, to fully degrade. Oxo-biodegradable (OBD) plastics degrade when exposed to sunlight and oxygen. Many shopping bags are made with OBD. Bioplastics-plastics made from corn, potatoes, or tapioca food starches-use heat and moisture to degrade. Bio-active bioplastics combine bioplastic technology with the addition of swelling or digesting agents to speed degradation. Even petroleum-based plastics can be engineered to degrade faster and better with the addition of bio-active compounds or digesting bacteria that activate to help breakdown the plastics into tiny pieces.

Corn-based bioplastic (PLA) packaging is one common bioplastic currently used by consumers. The plastic was designed to mimic traditional petroleum-based PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastics. PLA has several advantages over traditional plastics. According to bioplastic producer NatureWorks (owned by agribusiness giant Cargill), depending on manufacturing processes, PLA production may use as much as 70 percent less energy and generate 68 percent fewer greenhouse gases than traditional plastic production. Neither the manufacture nor the decomposition of PLA produces toxins. PLA plastic containers do not leach potentially harmful chemicals (such as vinyl chloride) into stored foods. The first PLA products were only for use with cold foods and beverages and could not be exposed to high temperatures, but more recent research has produced PLA that is heat resistant up to about 230°F (110°C). PLA is made from renewable plant resources, helping to reduce the more than 200,000 barrels of oil used daily in plastic production in the United States alone.

In 2005, Wal-Mart, one of the largest North American retailers, introduced PLA containers into its stores. The company used 114 million PLA containers in the first year, saving an estimated 800,000 barrels of oil.

Impacts and Issues

In the United States in 2017, about 52 percent of the 254 million tons of trash thrown out ended up in landfills. Biodegradable products and packaging rely on certain environmental conditions to degrade properly and rapidly as designed. Photodegradable items need adequate light to degrade; oxy-degradable plastics require exposure to humid air. Common municipal solid waste disposal practices undermine or even completely negate the degradability of some products.

As many as 5 trillion plastic shopping bags are used worldwide each year. Many of these bags are manufactured to be compostable, biodegradable, or photodegradable. However, anaerobic landfills do not offer the light, air, and moisture necessary for effective breakdown of most bioplastic bags. PLA and PET containers buried in the same level of a landfill may take equal time to degrade. Similarly, many recycling centers that accept petroleum-based plastics do not have the facilities to process plant-based bioplastics, meaning more bioplastics end up in landfills.

Current waste disposal technologies in most areas are insufficient to promote full degradation of most biodegradable materials. Composting facilities and large-scale anaerobic digesters capable of handling biodegradable wastes could help communities move from capturing as much as 30 percent of their solid municipal wastes through recycling to capturing as much as 90 percent of their waste before it reaches a landfill.

Products labeled as biodegradable appeal to environmentally conscious consumers. Without commonly accepted definitions for the term biodegradable and regulations on use of the word in product labeling, however, the term is susceptible to "greenwashing," the specious promotion of a product as environmentally sound without sufficient scientific basis.

In the United States, use of the terms degradable or biodegradable in product marketing is governed by the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Green Guide (Guide for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims). For example, plastic products advertised as biodegradable must disclose the environmental requirements and timeframe necessary for the claimed biodegradation to take place. Manufacturers must also note the circumstances under which a product does not degrade completely or degrades into smaller components. In 2015, the FTC passed stringent criteria for biodegradable labeling of products; several states including California have also enacted legislation that exceeds FTC requirements for labeling products as biodegradable or compostable. The first product lawsuits under the California act targeted two bottled water sellers that claimed their bottles were made from biodegradable plastic. The United Kingdom, Australia, and the European Union also have labeling laws that govern use of the term biodegradable.

Biodegradable products manufactured from food plants raise socioeconomic ethical concerns. Like biofuels such as corn ethanol, bioplastics made from corn products divert possible food stores to industrial production. High global petroleum prices make corn-based materials more economically attractive-encouraging the diversion of more corn to increased packaging production-at the same time that scarcer food and rising fuel costs raise the market price of food corn. Higher food prices disproportionately affect the world's poorer citizens, but corn plastic biodegradable products are disproportionately consumed in wealthy industrialized countries.

A desire for biodegradable products also led to revival of older technologies. Use of petroleum-based plastics increased as they became cheaper to produce. A campaign begun by U.S. school children in the 1980s prompted international fast-food chain McDonalds to change from Styrofoam containers to paper wrappers and containers. Seeking a more biodegradable alternative to plastic drinking straws and cups, some consumers have chosen to return to older style waxed paper products. In contrast, however, fast food advertising aimed at younger children often emphasizes incentives over the food and so children often desire manufactured toys and other incentives more than the food. Not only are there concerns about such advertising of bonus toys and other incentives contributing to childhood obesity, but the demand for cheap disposable toys, often made of plastic and other nonbiodegradables impedes effortsto combat environmental pollution.

Although biodegradable products may offer environmental benefits over non-biodegradable products, some environmental advocates worry that biodegradable containers impart to consumers a false sense of diminished environmental impact. Biodegradable plastics in particular encourage consumer "take-out" behavior that promotes over-packaged, single-serving, disposable products. Instead of focusing on proliferating biodegradable products, advocates argue that emphasis should be shifted to using fewer containers and disposable products overall.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|VXTERI809575597

Google Drive™

OneDrive™

Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biodegradable products and packaging (biodegradables) are items engineered to degrade with minimal environmental impact using only biological processes or natural weathering. Biodegradable products may be made from plant or animal materials or from conventional industrial materials such as petroleum to which degrading agents are added.

# data[].attributes.headline
Testing for the Presence of Microplastics

# data[].attributes.subject
Testing for the Presence of Microplastics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Discover the world's research

20+ million members

135+ million publications

700k+ research projects

Join for free

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Develoment of a user-friendly river basin information system for the Vechte based on the georeferenced exposure model GREAT-ER for prediction of pharmaceuticals' concentration in whole watersheds

View project

MicBin aims to improve our understanding of microplastic sources, sinks and fluxes within the German part of the Danube catchment. For this purpose field measurements, laboratory analyses and model ... [more]

View project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(PDF) Student Experiments on the Topic of Micro-plastics in the Environment for Secondary Education Level II: The Coffee Pad Machine Experiment and Sediment Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PDF | On Apr 10, 2019, Sarah Vortmann and others published Student Experiments on the Topic of Micro-plastics in the Environment for Secondary Education Level II: The Coffee Pad Machine Experiment and Sediment Analysis | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

# data[].attributes.body
Password gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies

Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

The term plastic usually refers to a class of synthetic materials first introduced in the early 1900s. Subsequently, a host of other plastic materials were invented, with familiar-sounding names such as nylon, rayon, and PVC (short for polyvinylchloride). The properties of plastics range from the thin, soft, and flexible plastic wrap used in kitchens to strong, stiff, heat-resistant parts used in vehicles and aircraft.

Most plastics manufactured are made from chemicals derived from fossil fuels such as petroleum (oil). However, some plastics are composed of chemicals derived from biomass-such plastics are referred to as bioplastics. Biomass refers to materials from plants, microorganisms, and other living things.

Bioplastics represent about one percent of all plastics produced, in part due to their typically higher costs when compared to plastics made from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, bioplastics are gaining a bigger share of the plastics market. One reason for the market share increase is the rising cost of oil, which makes the plastics derived from oil more expensive, and hence bioplastics more cost competitive. Another reason for the increased use of bioplastics is that biologically derived materials are more environmentally friendly than traditional plastics derived from fossil fuels.

The terms biodegradable and bioplastic should not be confused. A material is biodegradable if it decomposes in the soil or other natural environment fairly rapidly. Bioplastics may or may not be biodegradable; the same is true for conventional plastics made from fossil fuels. Indeed, some companies have created plastic bags and other items from conventional plastics that decompose in the soil in a matter of weeks.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Words to Know

Biomass

Any sort of material recently derived from living things such as plants, animals, or microorganisms. The qualifier "recently derived" is added to distinguish biomass from fossil fuels and similar substances that were produced millions of years ago from the remains of plants and animals.

Fossil fuel

Hydrocarbons (molecules containing only hydrogen and carbon atoms) derived from ancient organisms that typically lived millions of years ago. Petroleum, coal, and natural gas are all examples of fossil fuels.

Genetic engineering

The human alteration of the genetic material of an organism. Recombinant DNA is the technique used to perform genetic engineering.

Greenhouse gas

Any gas in Earth's atmosphere that contributes to the greenhouse effect, wherein solar radiation (such as visible light) largely passes through such gases, which block infrared radiation from Earth or the atmosphere from escaping into space.

Microorganism

Any organism that is too small to be seen unless magnified, as with the use of a microscope.

Sustainability

The use of natural resources such that the resources in question are not significantly depleted.

Historical Background and Scientific Foundations

All plastics are made from molecules called polymers. Most polymers are organic (contain the element carbon), but there are some types that are inorganic, such as silicone. Polymers are composed of smaller subunits called monomers. In different polymers, the type of monomer, as well as the way in which they are linked together, can vary.

Rubber was originally made from latex, a naturally occurring polymer that forms the sap of certain plants. Rubber is thought to have been introduced to France in the early 1700s. In Europe, natural rubber was used to waterproof cloth, but it had a tendency to crack and split. American inventor Charles Goodyear (1800-1860) discovered the vulcanization of rubber around 1839, from which a semi-synthetic rubber could be formed with qualities much superior to those of natural rubber.

The first purely synthetic plastic, called Bakelite after its inventor, Leo Baekeland (1863-1944), was introduced in the early twentieth century. After the introduction of Bakelite, many other plastics followed with names such as polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinylchloride (PVC), and polyamide (nylon).

The production of plastic begins with basic chemicals, which can vary depending upon the type of plastic. For instance, Bakelite is formed from the chemicals phenol and formaldehyde. The production of polystyrene begins with the chemicals benzene and ethylene. Both these chemicals typically are derived from petroleum. Reaction of the two chemicals creates ethylbenzene. This synthesized chemical is exposed to heat and catalysts (compounds that speed up chemical reactions), resulting in liquid styrene. Styrene is the monomer (subunit) that forms polystyrene. Styrene molecules are linked together, or polymerized, using heat, pressure, and chemical reactions to produce the polymer called polystyrene. Generally speaking, polystyrene, along with most other modern plastics, is produced using chemicals derived from petroleum or natural gas.

Bioplastics are a specific type of organic or semi-organic plastic-the basic chemicals from which bioplastics are made are derived from some sort of biomass. For instance, in the United States and many other countries, large quantities of ethanol are produced from corn and other grains. Also, sugars are derived from sugar cane and sugar beets. The basic compounds of ethanol and various sugars can be processed into chemicals, which in turn can be made into bioplastics.

Compostable plastics, biodegradable via composting, are composed of renewable raw materials. They are increasingly popular and present no hazards in production. Compostable plastics ultimately degrade into biomass, water, and carbon dioxide.

Besides plants, microorganisms such as bacteria, as well as certain types of algae, show great potential for producing the chemical constituents of plastics. Like plants, algae use photosynthesis to grow. Algae are being researched intensively to produce large quantities of biofuels to power cars and trucks. Such fuels, including biodiesel, are chemically similar to petroleum-based fuels. Because chemicals used to make plastics are derived from petroleum, those same chemicals could also be derived from the biofuels that researchers hope will one day be produced in large quantities by algae.

Bacteria are another group of promising microorganisms for producing chemicals for plastics. Bacteria have long been cultured in large vats on an industrial scale to yield beneficial substances such as penicillin and insulin. More recently, bacteria have been genetically engineered to produce precursor (starting) chemicals for plastics.

A more direct approach has also been demonstrated: Instead of culturing bacteria that produce chemicals, which in turn are further processed to make the actual plastic, some researchers have developed strains of bacteria that produce the actual polymer of which the plastic is composed. The polymers are harvested directly from the bacteria to produce bioplastic.

Impacts and Issues

There are a number of reasons to replace traditional plastics-almost all of which are derived from fossil fuels-by bioplastics derived from microorganisms and other biomass. Petroleum is a limited resource in the world. In the early years of the petroleum industry, oil deposits that were relatively close to the surface and easy to drill into were tapped first. Although there still exist large reservoirs of oil in the world that are fairly easy to extract, in other regions oil is being recovered from sources that were once considered not economical to utilize. Besides being very costly as compared to more traditional oil deposits, these more recently developed techniques raise significant environmental concerns. For instance, oil wells are being drilled into petroleum deposits that are far beneath the ocean floor. For example, in 2009, the Deepwater Horizon rig was able to drill some of the deepest undersea oil wells up to that time, to a depth of about 6 miles (9.7 km). In 2010, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill occurred in the wake of an explosion that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon oil platform and killed 11 crewmen. The Gulf spill released nearly 5 million barrels of crude oil before the leak at the bottom of the Gulf was sealed, becoming the largest marine oil spill in history. Tremendous damage to both the environment and regional economies resulted from the nearly three-month leak.

Also, the extraction of oil embedded in the Canadian tar sands is increasing each year. A large quantity of oil is trapped within the Canadian tar sands, mostly located in the province of Alberta. In 2019, the United States now imports more oil from Canada than any other country, and much of that oil is derived from Canada's tar sand deposits. Unfortunately, the oil is mixed with sand, clay, and soil, and forms a thick, viscous paste that requires heat (usually steam) to extract. In the process to recover the oil, topsoil is destroyed; also, the energy value of the oil is lessened because of the energy needed to heat it; and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are released by the extraction process. Increased worldwide demand for oil is driving these measures to increased production, in spite of the environmental impacts.

Natural gas is another fossil fuel that is used to form the basic chemical units used to make plastics. The supply of natural gas in the United States has been increasing. However, much of this increase in supply is due to a method of liberating the gas from shale deposits (a kind of rock) called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Some people are concerned that this method of injecting liquid under high pressure to fracture the shale may contaminate ground water supplies (although fracking is typically carried out thousands of feet below most ground water reservoirs) and potentially trigger small earthquakes.

By deriving the materials needed to make plastics from biological sources, the use of oil and natural gas can be reduced. The production of chemicals needed to produce plastics from plants and microorganisms is referred to as a sustainable process. This means that the basic feedstock used to make bioplastic, whether it come from plants or microbes, can be renewed continuously, as opposed to the Earth's oil and natural gas reserves, which are limited.

One factor limiting the greater utilization of bioplastics is their higher cost compared to conventional plastics derived from fossil fuels. This situation may change if the price of fossil fuels-especially that of petroleum-increases dramatically. Additionally, the use of microorganisms holds out great promise for producing bioplastics that are more affordable. Bacteria especially are the focus of intensive research, either to make the polymer materials directly, or to produce chemicals that in turn are processed into plastics. Genetically engineered bacteria have been used to produce butadiene, a chemical used in the production of carpeting, latex, and the rubber used in tires. Another line of bacteria has been used to produce limited quantities of a chemical called butanediol (BDO), which is used to create the plastics in products such as running shoes, sports clothes, and computers.

Scientists have also developed particular types of bacteria that will produce the polymers of plastics directly. For instance, researchers have demonstrated that a particular strain of the soil bacterium Pseudomonas putida can convert the chemical styrene into the polymer polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). The PHA produced by the bacteria is a polymer that can be used directly to make various plastic products. Styrene is used industrially to make the plastic polystyrene, but the chemical also ends up in industrial wastes of various sorts, and disposal of it is difficult. The Pseudomonas putida bacteria identified by the researchers could turn toxic wastes into a useful polymer for making plastic products.

Many companies produce bioplastic products, mostly from plant byproducts such as sugars. Their market is currently limited, but growing. In many workplaces and universities, for example, bioplastic products have replaced food service items, janitorial supplies, and additional items in everyday use. Several companies are also working on producing chemicals for plastics, or the plastics themselves, in the form of polymers from microorganisms such as bacteria. Ultimately, the marketplace success of bioplastics most likely will depend upon a combination of factors, including the cost of fossil fuels, government incentives to manufacturers for producing bioplastics, and the attitude of consumers towards purchasing plastics made from renewable resources.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|BXDGEA077479648

Google Drive™

OneDrive™

Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term plastic usually refers to a class of synthetic materials first introduced in the early 1900s. Subsequently, a host of other plastic materials were invented, with familiar-sounding names such as nylon, rayon, and PVC (short for polyvinylchloride).

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Save documents, citations, and highlights to Google Drive™

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies

Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies

Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What really happens to the plastic you throw away - Emma Bryce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are You Eating Plastic for Dinner? | Short Film Showcase

# data[].attributes.headline
Resin Identification Numbers - Overview of All Plastics

# data[].attributes.subject
Resin Identification Numbers - Overview of All Plastics

# data[].attributes.body
Username: gulliveracad

Password: raiders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Britannica School , a safe, up-to-date, and age-appropriate information resource for Elementary, Middle, and High School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

# data[].attributes.body
Password: gulliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies

Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Environmental Studies Understand environmental issues that affect people globally through topic overviews, journals, news, and multimedia content. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discover Marine Debris | OR&R’s Marine Debris Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our oceans are filled with items that do not belong there. Huge amounts of consumer plastics, metals, rubber, paper, textiles, derelict fishing gear, vessels, and other lost or discarded items enter the marine environment every day, making marine debris one of the most widespread pollution problems…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Professor Rob Hale of William & Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science is lead author of a new "Grand Challenges" paper commissioned to mark the 100 th anniversary of the American Geophysical Union, the world's largest association of Earth and space scientists with more than 60,000 members in 137 countries.

The paper, "A Global Perspective on Microplastics," is co-authored by VIMS doctoral student Meredith Seeley and senior research scientist Dr. Mark LaGuardia, along with Drs. Lei Mai and Eddy Zeng of Jinan University in Guangzhou, China.

"Microplastics" are microscopic particles fabricated for products like facial scrubs, or produced when physical, chemical, and biological forces break down larger pieces of plastic debris. There has been widespread concern among scientists and the public that these minute synthetic fragments are impacting marine ecosystems.

AGU Executive Director/CEO Chris McEntee says the Grand Challenges "represent a special collection of open-access review papers with the shared goal of transforming Earth and space science to meet the challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. They explore where major research and discovery are needed to address fundamental questions in our understanding of Earth and the solar system."

Not just an ocean problem

The team's paper appears in the January issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, but Hale is quick to stress that microplastics are a concern outside the marine environment as well.

"It's not just an ocean problem," says Hale. "There's growing evidence that microplastics are distributed across the land surface and in the air. We're finally opening up the other boxes and discovering a pretty substantial footprint."

Indeed, the broad nature of the microplastic threat is a main focus of the authors' manuscript. "We stress that microplastics are a global phenomenon that can't be adequately understood or addressed in the context of the marine environment alone," says Hale. "Plastics are produced, used, and discarded on land, and disperse through soils, rivers, and the atmosphere. The cat's already out of the bag if you're talking about dealing with these materials after they've reached the ocean."

The researchers note that the global scope of the issue extends to the social sphere as well. "We have to recognize that microplastic pollution is an international problem that doesn't respect political boundaries," says Seeley. "As with climate change and species management, developed and emerging nations will have to cooperate to find equitable solutions."

Not all plastic is the same

A second goal of the article is to gain broader recognition that "plastic" is a catch-all term for a complex array of materials that vary in chemical composition, size, texture, and shape-including pellets, fragments, and fibers. Adding further complexity is that plastics are often infused with additives, including flame retardants and UV inhibitors, which may themselves have environmental and health impacts.

"People often assume that all plastics are the same and behave identically in the environment," says Hale, "but that isn't the case at all. To resolve key questions and mitigate possible impacts, everyone-manufacturers, scientists, health-care specialists, engineers, economists, policymakers, and others-must collaborate to better understand the composition and nature of plastic products and their additives."

The researchers also stress that the characteristics of microplastics can and do change during and after use. "The complexity of microplastics becomes even more convoluted once they enter the environment and begin to intermingle and weather," says LaGuardia. "We have to better understand these complexities, especially in transition zones such as estuaries."

To gain that understanding, the authors recommend the research community move beyond studies of individual habitats, size ranges, polymer types, or forms; and into more holistic studies of the changing characteristics of microplastics and their impacts on ecosystem health and processes.

A need for better tools

The researchers' third main message is that comprehensive understanding of the microplastics issue, and the most effective responses, will require better analytical tools.

"To understand the real impacts of microplastics," says Hale, "we've got to improve our sampling and analytical capabilities, including the ability to study nanoplastics and weathered materials." Nanoplastics are particles even smaller than microplastics, with sizes ranging from 1 nanometer to 1,000 nanometers or a micron. A strand of DNA is about 2.5 nanometers across.

Hale says current state-of-the-art instruments, such as FTIR and Raman microscopes, "provide really great information when you zero in on a single microplastic particle." The problem, he says, is that many samples contain thousands of different particles, and many of these particles are really, really small.

"There's a disconnect," says Hale. "A lot of our technology can't get down to stuff below 10 microns, and in terms of effects on organisms, we think that smaller particles may be more toxic." Trying to bridge this gap, VIMS recently received funding from the NOAA Marine Debris program to investigate interactions between particles smaller than 10 microns and infectious disease in fish.

Effects on human health?

The authors' concerns regarding microplastics extend to potential impacts on human health.

"There have been concerns about ingesting microplastics from seafood, but the indoor environment is our biggest direct threat," says Hale. "Many people in developed countries spend almost all their time indoors, in spaces that are increasingly air-tight and insulated with things like polystyrene foam. Our exposure to microplastics from breathing and ingesting indoor dust may have toxicological consequences, but there's been very little research."

To address these concerns, Hale and colleagues at VIMS are acquiring a time-of-flight mass spectrometer, which will hopefully allow them to better analyze chemical contaminants associated with microplastics, as well as those found in other environmental samples.

"This will help us start going after all these unknown additives in plastics and open up that Pandora's Box a little better," says Hale. "I think that's where the action really is in terms of human health."

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, e2018JC014719. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014719

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Grand Challenge" review stresses global impact of microplastics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Professor Rob Hale of William & Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science is lead author of a new "Grand Challenges" paper commissioned to mark the 100 th anniversary of the American Geophysical Union, the world's largest association of Earth and space scientists with more than 60,000 members in 137 countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic is the most prevalent type of marine debris found in our ocean and Great Lakes. Plastic debris can come in all shapes and sizes, but those that are less than five millimeters in length (or about the size of a sesame seed) are called "microplastics."

As an emerging field of study, not a lot is known about microplastics and their impacts yet. The NOAA Marine Debris Program is leading efforts within NOAA to research this topic. Standardized field methods for collecting sediment, sand, and surface-water microplastic samples have been developed and continue to undergo testing. Eventually, field and laboratory protocols will allow for global comparisons of the amount of microplastics released into the environment, which is the first step in determining the final distribution, impacts, and fate of this debris.

Microplastics come from a variety of sources, including from larger plastic debris that degrades into smaller and smaller pieces. In addition, microbeads, a type of microplastic, are very tiny pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, such as some cleansers and toothpastes. These tiny particles easily pass through water filtration systems and end up in the ocean and Great Lakes, posing a potential threat to aquatic life.

Microbeads are not a recent problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, plastic microbeads first appeared in personal care products about fifty years ago, with plastics increasingly replacing natural ingredients. As recently as 2012, this issue was still relatively unknown, with an abundance of products containing plastic microbeads on the market and not a lot of awareness on the part of consumers.

On December 28, 2015, President Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, banning plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products.

Video Transcript

Plastic is everywhere. A lot of it ends up in the ocean. Most plastics in the ocean break up into very small particles. These small plastic bits are called "microplastics." Other plastics are intentionally designed to be small. They're called microbeads and are used in many health and beauty products. They pass unchanged through waterways into the ocean. Aquatic life and birds can mistake microplastics for food. Research is being conducted. But there's still much we don't know. In 2015, the U.S. banned the use of microbeads. But microplastics are still a huge problem. You can help keep plastic out of the ocean. Remember: Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.