One type of algae in the Great Lakes, Cladophora, readily tangles up with plastic microfiber. Brenda Lafrancois / National Park Service
By Andrew Blok
Great Lakes algae is catching huge amounts of microplastics.
Researchers found that one type of algae, which has greatly expanded its range within the Great Lakes and is one of the most abundant algae by weight there, could catch up to one trillion pieces of microplastic in the Great Lakes.
<p>"It's just a massive amount of these microscopic particle pollutants that are now part of our environment," Julie Peller, a professor of chemistry at Valparaiso University whose recent research revealed the microplastics-algae dynamic, told EHN.</p><p>Peller and colleagues say the study may offer insight into how we can stop the microplastic pollution — any plastic debris less than five millimeters long — from getting into the lakes. However, in the meantime, algae are often used as shelter for freshwater species at the bottom of the food chain, so the findings suggest that these microplastic hiding spots could be contaminating Great Lakes fish — and the people that eat them.</p>
<h3>The Hiding Spots for Great Lakes Plastic</h3><p>There are a lot of microplastics in the Great Lakes, one of the world's largest freshwater ecosystems and the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> source for 30 million people. While less well understood than ocean plastics, the tiny bits of plastic are pretty much ubiquitous throughout the five lakes. <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194970" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Research shows</a> they're in tap water and beer brewed with water from the Great Lakes. Surface water samples show huge numbers of microplastics, but statistical models always predict more microplastics are in the lakes than are found by sampling.</p><p>Finding them in algae helps close some of that gap.</p><p>"I think that we found one of those reservoirs where some of the microplastics have been, for lack of a better word, hiding," said Peller, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121002736" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">whose recently published study</a> in <em>Environmental Pollution</em> documented the close interactions between algae and microplastics.</p><p>This study examined the most abundant group of algae in the Great Lakes: Cladophora. Cladophora, which looks a bit like green hair, readily tangles up with plastic microfibers, which are shed from synthetic clothing, carpets, and other cloth.</p><p>Nearly every penny-sized sample of Cladophora collected from the lakes contained at least one microfiber, Peller said. Even samples from apparently pristine locations, like near Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the northwest corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, contained microplastics.</p><p>Peller's team also took clean, living Cladophora samples and added plastic microfibers to them. Plastic microfibers quickly adhered to the algae in a process called adsorption, in which two substances stick together because of a molecular attraction.</p><p>"The affinity between microplastics and Cladophora may offer insights for removing microplastic pollution," Peller and colleagues wrote in the study. In fact, adsorption already plays a major role in stopping microplastic pollution.</p>
<h3>Attracted to Sludge</h3><p>Synthetic fabrics shed microfibers when washed, so microfibers are often most abundant near populous areas where they enter the environment through treated wastewater.<br></p><p>Even without special plastic screening technology, removing 90 percent of plastics is not only possible, but probable, Heng Zhang, the assistant director of monitoring and research at Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, told EHN. Studies of wastewater treatment plants around the world put the removal rate <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416" target="_blank">as high as 98 percent</a>.</p><p>A main goal of wastewater treatment is removing particles of organic waste by screening and settling out waste into a sludge. Because microplastics tend to attach to these particles, like they do to algae, a lot of it is captured by processes designed before microplastic pollution started gaining attention.</p><p>"I have to admit, it wasn't designed. It just happened by chance or by nature or the characteristics of the stuff," Zhang said.</p><p>Removal rates of 90 percent or higher still leave a lot of microplastics in the Great Lakes. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X1630981X" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Some researchers estimate</a> 10,000 metric tons (or about 11,000 tons) of plastic pollution enters the Great Lakes each year.</p><p>But regulation will likely dictate when new microplastic removal technology is developed.</p><p>"I don't see any EPA guidelines that says we need to start looking at the technology to remove that," Zhang said. "It looks like microplastics is down to the very end of the priority list."</p><p>Until then, wastewater treatment plants are likely to focus on other areas, Zhang said.</p><p>Pollutants like metals, nutrients and emerging contaminants like improperly disposed pharmaceuticals take precedence now.</p><p>If or when microplastics become a focus of wastewater treatment it makes sense to "start with what has worked," Zhang wrote in a follow-up email. There would still be questions to answer about efficacy, cost and consequences — such as safe disposal after microplastic is collected.</p>
<h3>Plastics at the Base of the Food Web</h3><p>Cladophora is a genus of freshwater algae that has increased in the Great Lakes with the arrival of invasive mussels. Filter-feeding zebra and quagga mussels have spread throughout the Great Lakes basin, sucking light-blocking algae and plankton out of the water. As the water cleared and sunlight could reach greater depths, Cladophora expanded its range to deeper waters.<br></p><p>Cladophora is different from the toxic blue-green algae that has caused problems for some Great Lakes water supplies. But there's so much of it now it's become a nuisance, Meredith Nevers, a research ecologist for the U.S. Geological Survey and a co-author of the new study, told EHN.</p><p>The sheer amount of long, stringy Cladophora in the lakes — up to 129,000 tons, according to one estimate — means it's likely playing a significant role in microplastic's fate in the Great Lakes.</p><p>"If there are microfibers and microplastics in the lake, there's no question they're going to get tangled up in filaments of algae," Nevers said.</p><p>Great Lakes fish don't eat Cladophora, but it provides shelter for zooplankton and other invertebrates, which are a major food source for some prey fish. The mingling of microplastics with natural fish food could be one entry point for microplastics into the food chain. Further, by catching microplastics, algae may be keeping them suspended in the water for longer where they're more likely to be eaten.</p><p>"It wouldn't surprise me to have microplastics enter food webs through the invertebrates that live in and graze on Cladophora," Eric Hellquist wrote in an email to EHN. Hellquist is a professor of biological sciences at State University of New York Oswego.</p>
<p>Once microplastics enter a food chain, they can make their way up to fish species that humans eat, research shows.</p><p>Hellquist and his students surveyed prey fish — such as alewife, sculpin, and invasive round gobies — in Lake Ontario and found that 97 percent of 330 fish had microfibers in their digestive tracts. The majority of microplastics found were microfibers, he said.</p><p>Higher up the food chain, microplastics were present in most animals, too. In 40 chinook salmon, Hellquist found that 92 percent had microplastics in their digestive tract. Of 33 coho salmon, 82 percent had ingested microplastics. Hellquist's students found, on average, 3.5 to 4 pieces of plastic in each salmon.</p><p>Research is beginning to show harmful effects on fish from microplastics. Microplastics are often found in their gills and digestive systems, but also within muscle tissue. When ingested they've been found to have harmful effects on fish digestion, metabolism, growth and brain function. They've also been associated with higher levels of toxic substances in fish.</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719346169#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20mean%20of,MP%20items%2Fyear%2Fcapita." target="_blank">Research suggests</a> that fish consumption could be one way that microplastics get into people.</p>
<h3>'It's Just So Huge'</h3><p><span style="background-color: initial;">The study of microplastics in the Great Lakes is still a relatively young field and a lot of questions need to be answered.</span><br></p><p>One thing is clear: the amount of microplastics in the Great Lakes is huge.</p><p>"It's hard to think about because it's so large," Peller said.</p><p>However, Peller thinks the stickiness of algae might inspire better removal technology.</p><p>"I think that a lot of times when we look for solutions to problems that we as humans have created, we often find a lot of insight into nature's natural mechanism for cleansing itself," she said.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.ehn.org/great-lakes-plastic-algae-2651097829.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=6353557&utm_medium=social&utm_content=Environmental+Health+News&utm_source=facebook" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Tons of Plastic Trash Enter the Great Lakes Every Year – Where ... ›
- Microplastics Pollute Rivers and Lakes, Too - EcoWatch ›
- 22 Million Pounds of Plastic Enters Great Lakes Each Year - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Planting dandelions could help reduce deforestation caused by traditional rubber plantations. Tashka / Getty Images
By Jack McGovan
In 1931, Soviet scientists were on the hunt for a natural source of rubber that would help the USSR become self-sufficient in key materials.
<p>They scoured the vast and various territories of the Soviet Union and tested over 1,000 different species looking for an alternative to the South American rubber tree, Hevea brasiliensi. Eventually, on the steppes of Kazakhstan, they found one.</p><p>By 1941, the Russian dandelion, <em>Taraxacum koksaghyz</em>, supplied 30% of the USSR's rubber. During the Second World War, shortages of Havea rubber prompted other countries, including the United States, Britain and Germany, to begin cultivating dandelion rubber. </p><p>Once the war was over and supplies returned to normal, these countries — including, ultimately, the Soviets — switched back to Hevea tree rubber because it was cheaper. </p><p>But now, with demand for rubber continuing to grow, there is renewed interest in the Russian dandelion, particularly from the tire industry, which consumes 70% of the world's rubber supply. </p>
<h2>Diversifying Natural Rubber </h2><p>Overall, 65% of rubber consumed worldwide is derived from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-climate-activists-occupy-coal-mine-power-plants/a-55063482" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fossil fuels</a>. This synthetic rubber is cheaper and more hardwearing than its natural counterpart. But natural rubber disperses heat better and has better grip, which is why tires are made with a mix of both. </p><p>Today, 90% of natural rubber comes from Havea plantations in Southeast Asia, which have been linked to <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/could-rubber-from-dandelions-make-tires-more-sustainable/a-56766389" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">deforestation</a>. And there are commercial as well as environmental reasons the tire industry would like to find an alternative. </p><p>Havea rubber trees are vulnerable to a fungal leaf blight that has hit plantations in South America, making some in the tire industry nervous about such dependence on a single crop, with little genetic diversity, grown in a single geographical region. </p>
<h2>Developing the Dandelion </h2><p>Over recent years, projects in both Europe and the US have been taking a fresh shot at making dandelion rubber commercially viable. </p><p>Among them is Taraxagum, a collaboration between Continental Tires and the Fraunhofer Institute of Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology in Aachen, Germany. </p><p>"Continental Tires tested the performance of the material and said that it was brilliant — in some cases better than Hevea rubber," said Dirk Prüfer, a plant biotechnologist on the Taraxagum team. </p><p>Both Continental and competitor Apollo Tyres have used dandelion rubber to manufacture bike tires, and Continental reports "promising" tests on dandelion truck tires.</p><p>Apollo was part of the EU-funded DRIVE4EU consortium, a project that ran from 2014 to 2018 and worked on developing the entire production chain for dandelion rubber, starting with cultivation.</p><p>Unlike the rubber tree, the Russian dandelion thrives in temperate climates. </p><p>"We cultivated the dandelion in Belgium, the Netherlands and Kazakhstan," said Ingrid van der Meer, coordinator of DRIVE4EU, adding that other researchers had previously cultivated the crop in Sweden, Germany and the United States. </p>
<h2>Fewer Chemicals and Poorer Soils </h2><p>The Russian dandelion can also be grown on relatively poor soils, meaning it doesn't have to compete with agriculture. Prüfer said his team was researching whether brownfield land — former industrial sites that may be heavily polluted — might even be suitable. </p><p>"There are big areas like this near Cologne or Aachen that could potentially be used for cultivation," Prüfer said.</p><p>Once the dandelions are harvested "hot-water extraction" is used to separate out the rubber. "The roots are chopped up mechanically and water is added," van der Meer explained. "It has to be heated up, but no large volumes of chemicals are needed.</p><p>This is in contrast to Hevea rubber extraction, which requires the use of organic solvents, resulting in chemical waste that poses an environmental hazard if not disposed of properly. </p>
<h2>Environmental Problems Persist </h2><p>But while the Russian dandelion could make the production of tires greener, it won't improve their environmental impact once they leave the factory. </p><p>As tires are used, they shed <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-say-atmosphere-carrying-microplastics-to-the-arctic/a-50028215" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">microplastics</a>, which are then carried on air and end up in oceans. A recent study found that this source of ocean microplastics amounts to 100,000 metric tons each year.</p>
<img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" lazy-loadable="true"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTgxMzUyMy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjk2MDI4MX0.HPOm5ApbHdAl1_9Rymdw0XFXnA0xZ7pXnLOnLLVB7RM/img.png?width=980"
id="7d399"
width="940"
height="529"
data-rm-shortcode-id="e291331169268cdb3958c88db24ba869" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>Then, at the end of their life, most tires finish up in landfill, in part because the mix of rubbers make them difficult to recycle.</p><p>"Tires are meant to optimize different kinds of properties, so it's not easy to just use one kind of rubber," said Francesco Piccihoni, an expert in rubber recycling at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. </p><p>"You could make tires from only natural rubber but it degrades faster, meaning you would have to change the tires much more often," Piccihoni added.</p><p>Even shifting rubber farming to European wastelands wouldn't automatically avert deforestation in Asia. Georg Cadisch, an expert in tropical agronomy at the University of Hohenheim in Germany, says forests will continue to be felled as long as the land can be used more profitably for agriculture. </p><p>"Rubber farmers need to survive, so they would simply produce other crops," he said, adding that rubber plantations in China and Thailand have already been replaced with crops like <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/indonesia-palmoil-deforestation-peatlands-fires-climate-change/a-53587027" target="_blank">palm oil</a> or bananas.</p>
<h2>Bright Prospects? </h2><p>Still, proponents of the Russian dandelion argue that as demand rises, we need a source of rubber that doesn't rely on expanding into new areas of forest. Growing it close to European and US tire factories would also means fewer <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/5-years-paris-climate-agreement/a-55901139" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CO2 emissions</a> from transport. </p><p>And as far as performance goes, tire makers are impressed. </p><p>"The moment natural rubber from the dandelion is available in significant quantities, Apollo will resume using the material and develop other tire products," chief technical officer Daniele Lorenzetti said. </p><p>As things stand, though, the supply chain needs some work. "To compete with other rubbers, the production costs of dandelion rubber need to match the market price. This is not yet the case," said van der Meer, who will continue working on optimizing Russian dandelion cultivation. </p><p>For now, Europe's wastelands aren't about to be swathed in sunny yellow. But there might just be a bright future for a material that had been consigned to Soviet history. </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/could-rubber-from-dandelions-make-tires-more-sustainable/a-56766389" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- After Plastic Straws, Are Balloons Next To Go? - EcoWatch ›
- Plastic Shreds, Rubber Bands and Balloon Pieces Found in Thai ... ›
- The Power of Bike Education to Transform Lives and Communities ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
boonchai wedmakawand / Moment / Getty Images
Delta-8 THC is a cannabis product that has become a bestseller over the past few months, as many consumers find they can legally purchase it from CBD retailers. Its proponents say that Delta-8 THC will give you a nice little buzz, minus some of the more intense feelings (including paranoia) that are sometimes associated with marijuana.
Delta-8 THC is being marketed as a legal option for consumers who either don't live in a state with legal cannabis, or are a little apprehensive about how traditional psychoactive THC products will affect them. But is it all it's cracked up to be? Let's take a closer look, exploring what Delta-8 THC is, how it differs from other THC products, and whether it's actually legal for use.
<h2>What is Delta-8 THC?</h2><p>To better understand <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/health/marijuana-hemp-delta-8-thc.html" target="_blank">Delta-8 THC</a>, it helps to cover some basics about THC and cannabis.</p><p>Cannabis plants come chock full of different <a href="https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/cannabis-marijuana-and-cannabinoids-what-you-need-to-know" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>cannabinoids</em></a>. These are naturally-occuring chemical compounds that bind with receptors throughout your body. They can offer a wide range of mental, emotional, and physical effects; indeed, the healing and therapeutic properties marijuana or <a data-linked-post="2648563694" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/strongest-cbd-oil-2648563694.html" target="_blank">CBD products</a> offer can be attributed to cannabinoids.</p><p>One of the most common cannabinoids is what's known as Delta-9 THC. Simply put, this is the part of marijuana that gets you "high." It's worth noting that Delta-9 THC remains illegal in many states, except for in the most minute doses, and is still illegal at the federal level. CBD products are made with trace amounts of THC, ensuring that consumers can enjoy positive health effects in a perfectly legal way, without the risk of getting high.</p><p>On a chemical level, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/health/marijuana-hemp-delta-8-thc.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Delta-8 THC</a> is not too different from Delta-9 THC; the distinction comes down to just a few molecules. But those molecules make a big practical impact: Delta-8 THC will give you a buzz, but the psychoactive effects are considerably milder than with Delta-9 THC.</p><p>More specifically, many cannabis enthusiasts report that Delta-8 THC helps them feel good but also leaves them relatively clear-headed; and, it doesn't produce the anxiety or jitteriness that often characterize a Delta-9 THC high.</p><p>Additionally, because of the way the law is written regarding Delta-9 THC, some CBD companies now sell Delta-8 THC products in places where traditional cannabis is still illegal.</p><h2>What's the Difference Between Delta-9 THC and Delta-8 THC?</h2><p>Here are the primary differences to note between Delta-9 and Delta-8 THC:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Delta-9 THC is the primary psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana. In other words, it's the part that gets you high.</li><li>Though some states have found workarounds, Delta-9 THC is still illegal under federal law.</li><li>Delta-8 THC is also found in the cannabis plant, though it's not quite as powerful or as well-known. </li><li>Delta-8 THC is milder in its psychoactive effects. And, it's not <em>technically </em>illegal under current law.</li></ul><p>These are just a few of the key distinctions to keep in mind. Delta-8 THC is popular among consumers who want a smoother high, and don't want to violate federal law.</p><h2>Is Delta-8 THC Legal?</h2><p>We noted that Delta-8 THC is not <em>technically </em>illegal. Here, we need to get into some of the nuanced legal considerations that surround this substance.</p><p>First of all, there are plenty of cannabis companies that actively promote Delta-8 THC as a legal way to get high. Again, that's technically true, but is still a point of debate for some.</p><p>For one thing, it's not explicitly listed as an illegal substance. While federal laws, and some state laws, specifically ban Delta-9 THC, Delta-8 THC is never mentioned. More to the point, though, many proponents will cite the<a href="https://www.usda.gov/farmbill" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> 2018 Farm Bill</a>. This law legalized several industrial hemp products on a national level, including CBD.</p><p>The Farm Bill also includes some fairly nuanced positions regarding THC. In summary, the law says that hemp and cannabis-derived products are legal so long as they contain less than 0.3 percent Delta-9 THC.</p><p>With that said, some lawyers contend that Delta-8's heyday may soon come to an end. That's because the Farm Bill clears it only so long as it's derived directly from hemp; most of the Delta-8 THC products sold today aren't made from hemp, but rather from synthetically-altered CBD.</p><p>Some of these issues are a little fuzzy, and <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/delta-8-thc-legal-weed-explained-1113859/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">the legal future of Delta-8 THC</a> remains a little uncertain. For now, though, many experts would argue that it is legal to purchase.</p><h2>What Kinds of Delta-8 THC Products Are Available?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><p>If you're looking to try Delta-8 THC products, you'll certainly find plenty of different products. Dispensaries and legal cannabis stores currently have a trove of products that use this cannabinoid. Some examples include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Vape cartridges, tinctures, and capsules.</li><li>Beverages made with Delta-8 THC, including some seltzers.</li><li>Edibles, including Delta-8 THC gummy bears, chocolate bars, and more.</li></ul><p>The cannabis industry has really been running with Delta-8 THC, finding creative ways to bring it to market. And chances are, even more products will be springing up in the weeks and months to come. </p><p>It's very important to note that you should only purchase Delta-8 THC products from reputable brands and established cannabis retailers. We do not recommend purchasing any products that contain Delta-8 THC from gas stations or vape shops. If you are looking for a reputable place to explore these products, here are a few brands that we trust and recommend:</p>
<h2>What are the Pros and Cons of Delta-8 THC?</h2><p>As you consider whether Delta-8 THC is worth your time, it may be helpful to weigh the pros against the cons.</p><p><strong>Pros</strong></p><p>Let's start with some of the positives:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Delta-8 THC does have psychoactive effects, but it's a milder effect than with traditional Delta-9 THC.</li><li>Delta-8 THC is currently legal and widely accessible in multiple states.</li><li>There are a wide number of products that use Delta-8 THC.</li></ul><p><strong>Cons</strong></p><p>Now, a few of the downsides.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Delta-8 THC isn't quite as commonplace as other cannabis products, including CBD, and some of the options on the market are expensive.</li><li>While this substance is technically legal, there are plenty of uncertainties over its legal future. It's something you want to keep in mind.</li><li>As a relatively new product, Delta-8 THC products are not regulated by the FDA and there is not independent testing in place to verify that it is safe or pure.</li></ul><p>As with any cannabis product, Delta-8 THC has its pros and cons. As you seek the cannabis product that's best for you, it's largely a matter of personal preference.</p><p>Also note that smoking, vaping, or otherwise imbibing any kind of cannabis-related product can carry some medical risks and negative health consequences. If you have any specific concerns, we recommend consulting with your doctor before you try any Delta-8 THC product.</p><p><em><strong>Josh Hurst </strong></em><em>is a journalist, critic, and essayist. He lives in Knoxville, TN, with his wife and three sons. He covers natural health, nutrition, supplements, and clean energy. His writing has appeared in Health, Shape, and Remedy Review.</em></p>
NuLeaf Naturals Full Spectrum Delta 8 THC Oil
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzNjAyMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTMxMjAyNX0.wRpb_E9ZFZFNgkYsYh6cleNbTezo16rUeTmifcP_yCk/img.jpg?width=980" id="60683" width="400" height="400" data-rm-shortcode-id="32630bf41fd6909a232194b540c570eb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />nuleafnaturals.com
<p><a href="https://nuleafnaturals.com/product/full-spectrum-delta-8-thc-oil-30mg-ml/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NuLeaf Naturals Full Spectrum Delta 8 THC Oil</a> is made from organic hemp and organic virgin hemp seed extract. It's available in a 150 mg bottle and a 450 mg bottle, which both provide 15 mg of Delta 8 THC per serving. This formula is also available in a soft gel.</p>
$20
Botany Farms Delta-10 THC Vape Cartridge
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzNjE2Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2OTcwNTgzM30.opm4l5-rSqV1HfvrbVE16EEVZvqxI42xgqnsQfL9p2M/img.jpg?width=980" id="2c749" width="400" height="400" data-rm-shortcode-id="a678e76d8cd5e13bae95d9c3ae664b85" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />botanyfarms.com
<p>The <a href="https://www.botanyfarms.com/product/delta-10-thc-vape-cartridge/?aff=14" target="_blank">Botany Farms Delta-10 THC Vape Cartridge</a> actually contains both Delta-10 and Delta-8 THC.This is designed to provide the desired effects of Delta-8 THC but without the drowsiness. They also offer a vape cartridge with a 1:1 concentration of <a href="https://www.botanyfarms.com/product/delta-10-delta-8-thc-vape-cartridge/?aff=14" target="_blank">Delta-8 THC</a> and Delta-10 THC. Note that while vape products can be used to aid in smoking cessation, we do not recommend vaping or smoking because of the negative health effects they can cause.</p>
$60
Read More
Show Less
Close-up of white plastic bag with yellow smiley slowly drifting under surface of water with school of tropical fish. Andrey Nekrasov / Barcroft Media / Getty Images
By Alexandra McInturf and Matthew Savoca
Trillions of barely visible pieces of plastic are floating in the world's oceans, from surface waters to the deep seas. These particles, known as microplastics, typically form when larger plastic objects such as shopping bags and food containers break down.
<p>
Researchers are concerned about microplastics because they are minuscule, widely distributed and easy for wildlife to consume, <a href="https://theconversation.com/bait-and-switch-anchovies-eat-plastic-because-it-smells-like-prey-81607" target="_blank">accidentally or intentionally</a>. We study <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uo1sSBwAAAAJ&hl=en" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">marine science</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8Gb9COIAAAAJ&hl=en" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">animal behavior</a>, and wanted to understand the scale of this problem. In a newly published study that we conducted with ecologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mI9gJxIAAAAJ&hl=en" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Elliott Hazen</a>, we examined how marine fish – including species consumed by humans – are ingesting synthetic particles of all sizes.
</p><p>
In the broadest review on this topic that has been carried out to date, we found that, so far, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.15533" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">386 marine fish species are known to have ingested plastic debris</a>, including 210 species that are commercially important. But findings of fish consuming plastic are on the rise. We speculate that this could be happening both because detection methods for microplastics are improving and because ocean plastic pollution continues to increase.
</p>
<script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154634/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9505047d89044ee1f864347e5cd5997b"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LiH3f6AKFbc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Solving the Plastics Puzzle
<p>It's not news that wild creatures ingest plastic. The first scientific observation of this problem came <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/4083505" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">from the stomach of a seabird in 1969</a>. Three years later, scientists reported that fish off the coast of southern New England were <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4062.749" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">consuming tiny plastic particles</a>.</p><p>Since then, well over 100 scientific papers have described plastic ingestion in numerous species of fish. But each study has only contributed a small piece of a very important puzzle. To see the problem more clearly, we had to put those pieces together.</p><p>We did this by creating the largest existing database on plastic ingestion by marine fish, drawing on every scientific study of the problem published from 1972 to 2019. We collected a range of information from each study, including what fish species it examined, the number of fish that had eaten plastic and when those fish were caught. Because some regions of the ocean have more plastic pollution than others, we also examined where the fish were found.</p><p>For each species in our database, we identified its diet, habitat and feeding behaviors – for example, whether it preyed on other fish or grazed on algae. By analyzing this data as a whole, we wanted to understand not only how many fish were eating plastic, but also what factors might cause them to do so. The trends that we found were surprising and concerning.</p><img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" lazy-loadable="true"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY0NTkxMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTQ0OTcxM30.SU0WtFPvuGnQkcP6p80w2-L4Hh6I8q0V0xMYokXK0TA/img.jpg?width=980"
id="06de1"
width="1000"
height="667"
data-rm-shortcode-id="b735a6f5c19aaf3af33e66e123875111" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Leopard sharks swim past plastic debris in shallow water off southern California. Ralph Pace / CC BY-ND
A Global Problem
<p>Our research revealed that marine fish are ingesting plastic around the globe. According to the 129 scientific papers in our database, researchers have studied this problem in 555 fish species worldwide. We were alarmed to find that more than two-thirds of those species had ingested plastic.</p><p>One important caveat is that not all of these studies looked for microplastics. This is likely because finding microplastics requires specialized equipment, like microscopes, or use of more complex techniques. But when researchers did look for microplastics, they found five times more plastic per individual fish than when they only looked for larger pieces. Studies that were able to detect this previously invisible threat revealed that plastic ingestion was higher than we had originally anticipated.</p><p>Our review of four decades of research indicates that fish consumption of plastic is increasing. Just since an international <a href="http://www.gesamp.org/publications/microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2" target="_blank">assessment conducted for the United Nations in 2016</a>, the number of marine fish species found with plastic has quadrupled.</p><p>Similarly, in the last decade alone, the proportion of fish consuming plastic has doubled across all species. Studies published from 2010-2013 found that an average of 15% of the fish sampled contained plastic; in studies published from 2017-2019, that share rose to 33%.</p><p>We think there are two reasons for this trend. First, scientific techniques for detecting microplastics have improved substantially in the past five years. Many of the earlier studies we examined may not have found microplastics because researchers couldn't see them.</p><p>Second, it is also likely that fish are actually consuming more plastic over time as ocean plastic pollution <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increases globally</a>. If this is true, we expect the situation to worsen. Multiple studies that have sought to quantify plastic waste project that the amount of plastic pollution in the ocean will <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3656" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">continue to increase</a> over the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/%2010.1126/sciadv.1700782" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">next several decades</a>.</p><p><iframe id="vmUzZ" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/vmUzZ/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
Risk Factors
<p>While our findings may make it seem as though fish in the ocean are stuffed to the gills with plastic, the situation is more complex. In our review, almost one-third of the species studied were not found to have consumed plastic. And even in studies that did report plastic ingestion, researchers did not find plastic in every individual fish. Across studies and species, about one in four fish contained plastics – a fraction that seems to be growing with time. Fish that did consume plastic typically had only one or two pieces in their stomachs.</p><p>In our view, this indicates that plastic ingestion by fish may be widespread, but it does not seem to be universal. Nor does it appear random. On the contrary, we were able to predict which species were more likely to eat plastic based on their environment, habitat and feeding behavior.</p><p>For example, fishes such as sharks, grouper and tuna that hunt other fishes or marine organisms as food were more likely to ingest plastic. Consequently, species higher on the food chain were at greater risk.</p><p>We were not surprised that the amount of plastic that fish consumed also seemed to depend on how much plastic was in their environment. Species that live in ocean regions known to have a lot of plastic pollution, such as the Mediterranean Sea and the coasts of East Asia, were found with more plastic in their stomachs.</p><div id="37886" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="417dc0a21a8c48e0a4f97abd03a71ecc"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1339067730306031618" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">WATCH: People are ingesting plastic from drinking water but also through foods like shellfish, which tends to be ea… https://t.co/cKgzBYx2CF</div> — Reuters (@Reuters)<a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters/statuses/1339067730306031618">1608093600.0</a></blockquote></div>
Effects of a Plastic Diet
<p>This is not just a wildlife conservation issue. Researchers don't know very much about the effects of ingesting plastic on fish or humans. However, there is evidence that that microplastics and even smaller particles called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0437-7" target="_blank">nanoplastics</a> can move from a fish's stomach to its <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134625" target="_blank">muscle tissue</a>, which is the part that humans typically eat. Our findings highlight the need for studies analyzing how frequently plastics transfer from fish to humans, and their potential effects on the human body.</p><p>Our review is a step toward understanding the global problem of ocean plastic pollution. Of more than 20,000 marine fish species, only roughly 2% have been tested for plastic consumption. And many reaches of the ocean remain to be examined. Nonetheless, what's now clear to us is that "out of sight, out of mind" is not an effective response to ocean pollution – especially when it may end up on our plates.<br></p><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexandra-mcinturf-1205082" target="_blank">Alexandra McInturf</a> is a PhD Candidate in Animal Behavior at the University of California, Davis. <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-savoca-313547" target="_blank">Matthew Savoca</a> is a Postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University.</em></p><p><em>Disclosure statement: Alexandra McInturf is affiliated with <a href="https://theethogram.com/" target="_blank">The Ethogram</a>. Matthew Savoca receives funding from The National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation.</em></p><p><em style="">Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/hundreds-of-fish-species-including-many-that-humans-eat-are-consuming-plastic-154634" target="_blank" style="">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Whale Dies After Swallowing 88 Pounds of Plastic Bags - EcoWatch ›
- Ocean Plastic Smells Like Food to Sea Turtles, Study Finds ... ›
- One Third of Freshwater Fish Face Extinction, New Report Warns ›
- Cuttlefish Found Capable of Delayed Gratification, a First for Invertebrates - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Pexels
By Alex Truelove
We're all culprits in the plastic pollution crisis — and that's by design.
I was reminded of this recently when I ordered a set of carbon filters for my countertop compost bin. (Like most people, I don't care for smelly kitchens.) The package arrived in a layered-plastic bubble envelope. Inside I found another clear plastic bag encasing the filters. Finally, adding insult to injury, each filter was wrapped individually in plastic. That made at least three layers of plastic for each filter.
<p>Frustratingly, in an effort to reduce waste, I had created more. And I'm not alone. A recent <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/44/eabd0288" target="_blank">landmark study</a> confirmed that the United States is the most plastic-polluting country in the world. Every 16 hours Americans throw away enough plastic to fill a football stadium.</p>
<p>Adding to my frustration was a sense of helplessness. There was no way I could have known or changed the fact that these products were shrouded in layer upon layer of disposable plastic packaging.</p><p>I know millions of Americans feel the same way. We want to reduce our waste, particularly our use of disposable plastic, but we're rarely given the opportunity. Even when sustainable products are minimally packaged or designed for reuse, they often must be purchased online (delivered in more packaging, often disposable) or at specialty stores (rarities). Countless times I've wished that I could have avoided buying things that created so much trash.</p><p>But what if, in demanding better of ourselves, we're missing the point? The companies that design our products and packaging to be disposable not only created this system but are rewarded by it. Waste equals profit through cost avoidance.</p><p>Disposable products are cheap for industry, but costly to the rest of us. As taxpayers we have to pay for trash collection and recycling. As citizens we're exposed to pollutants from excessive manufacturing and <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/humans-consume-equivalent-credit-card-worth-plastic-week/story?id=63687144" target="_blank">microplastics</a> shed from disposable products into our drinking water and food.</p><p>Meanwhile our oceans and waterways are being bombarded with millions of tons of plastic every year, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/world/asia/whale-plastics-philippines.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">killing wildlife</a> and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/plastic-junk-coral-disease/551495/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">spreading disease</a>.</p>
<img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" lazy-loadable="true"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTI2OTIwNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzc3MzYxNH0.kQGHaYiDU54NGFkKJbaUkkXzq5HxSm05sAx7Iib1cDQ/img.jpg?width=980"
id="11268"
width="800"
height="538"
data-rm-shortcode-id="5aad3970ebb02ff9ade0879834d92959" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Marine litter on a remote stretch of Norway coastline. Bo Eide / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
<p>The cost to the companies making these wasteful products? Zero. In a shareholder profit-maximizing world, making disposable junk wins every time.</p><p>But what if these companies were held responsible for their products? Would it prevent the onslaught of plastic junk filling up our landfills and too often ending up in the ocean? History suggests manufacturers would design products to be more reusable, repairable and resilient, because they'd want to limit the waste they would have to manage.</p><p>Which brings us to an idea known as producer responsibility.</p><p>Producer responsibility programs have existed around the world for decades and have successfully increased collection, recycling and reuse for the products they cover. For the most part these programs regulate hazardous, hard-to-dispose-of products such as batteries, paint, mercury thermostats, carpet, pesticides, tires and pharmaceuticals. Dozens of states already have programs in place for these items.</p><p>For example, thermostat makers are required to finance and sometimes run convenient recycling programs to keep mercury, a potent neurotoxin, from escaping and causing damage. Not all programs require producers to collect their own trash, but they all require adequate financing for safe collection. Producers that redesign their products to be less dangerous or more reusable can often avoid higher fees.</p><p>Unfortunately we don't have programs in place for single-use packaging and foodware, despite the fact that those products are <em>also </em>hazardous and hard to dispose of. That's why <a href="https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/break-waste-cycle" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">we need to create them</a>. British Columbia has already implemented producer responsibility legislation, and a handful of U.S. states — from Washington to Maine — are <a href="https://www.wastedive.com/news/epr-extended-producer-responsibility-maine-new-york-trends-plastic/587623/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">considering similar programs</a>. If implemented, these programs would create jobs, generate revenue streams for local municipalities to further reduce waste and, in the long run, improve human health and help fight climate change.</p><p>With support and pressure from residents, we could see laws pass as early as 2021, forcing our product-makers to either be better or pay out.</p><p>The idea is even gaining support <a href="https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/news/press-releases/udall-lowenthal-merkley-clark-unveil-landmark-legislation-to-break-free-from-plastic-pollution" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at the federal level</a>, as members of Congress respond to growing calls from constituents to address the plastic pollution crisis. Even the remote possibility of a federal program may push states to establish their own programs first.</p><p>Perhaps unsurprisingly, industry groups that represent manufacturers of these products have <a href="https://time.com/5790656/fixing-recycling-in-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">already opposed</a> efforts to hold their clients responsible, which is why we must continue to push our legislators to support these programs now and into the future. In other words, the jig is up — but only if we say so.</p><p><em>The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of</em> The Revelator<em>, the Center for Biological Diversity or their employees.</em></p><p><em><a href="https://therevelator.org/author/alextruelove/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alex Truelove</a> is United States Public Interest Research Group's director of zero waste campaigns.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/plastic-producer-responsibility/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Microplastics Weathered by Water Are More Likely to Infiltrate an Animal’s Cells
14 December 2020
Animals
A new study finds microplastic particles exposed to freshwater or saltwater environments are more likely to be taken up into an animal's cells. Tunatura / Getty Images
By Kasra Zarei
Microplastic particles exposed to freshwater or saltwater environments are more likely than original, non-exposed particles to be taken up into an animal's cells, according to new research.
<p>The study offers new evidence that certain microplastics have more potential to infiltrate animals' bodies than previously thought – and this could be of particular concern for aquatic animals.</p><p>Microplastics, or tiny pieces of plastic, are everywhere, including <a href="https://www.ehn.org/plastic-pollution-mount-everest-2648990943.html" target="_blank">Mount Everest</a>. Over time, plastics discarded by humans break down into small pieces and spread across the environment, especially marine and freshwater ecosystems, and are consumed by organisms including <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18678044/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mussels</a> and <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b00183?casa_token=tfRj5tB4tZMAAAAA:_gvjll0GmT_DD0IqEO1t9bCcqha--I2aEeo2oFP3jEKC2u3MIkzVsacT4uZqstweQ-bVdQJ37bDZc8U" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">zebrafish</a>.</p><p>But so much about microplastics has not been studied, including whether particles can enter the cells of different animals and organisms and cause health risks, or affect the environment.</p><p>"There are plenty of knowledge gaps," Christian Laforsch, professor of animal ecology at the University of Bayreuth and senior author of the study, told EHN. "For instance, microplastics go from the digestive tract into the tissue [of certain aquatic organisms], but no one knows exactly why."</p><p>In the new study, Laforsch and colleagues found that microplastics exposed to freshwater or saltwater for several weeks are around 10 times more likely to enter the cells of mice compared to pristine particles. While the study was only done using mice cells, it's possible that a similar relationship could be observed in aquatic animals that encounter such non-pristine microplastics on a regular basis, which could also have further unknown implications for their predators (including humans).</p>
<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/microplastics-in-ocean" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe>
<p>These microplastic particles develop a coating of other molecules and microorganisms – acting somewhat like a "Trojan horse": other cells are more likely to engulf the coated microplastic particles (compared to pristine, uncoated particles), which can then potentially infiltrate an organism's circulatory system.</p><p>However, the results don't necessarily suggest that microplastics exposed to freshwater or saltwater pose a greater health risk to human or other organisms – that still needs to be studied further.</p><p>"We can't make direct conclusions about the health effects [of the microplastics studied]," Holger Kress, a professor of biological physics at the University of Bayreuth who was also involved in the study, told EHN.</p><p>While there is research about the <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/pm-human-health.html#:~:text=Health%20studies%20have%20shown%20a,as%20asthma%20attacks%20and%20bronchitis." target="_blank">health risks of inhaling particulate matter</a>, little is known about the health effects of microplastics. Still, the new research adds one piece to a big puzzle.</p>
<p>Many physical and biological properties – for instance, the texture, charge, or size – of a particle may be responsible for the environmental and health effects of microplastics. And understanding which properties are responsible is a step-by-step scientific process.</p><p>"It [the field of microplastics] is such a complex topic, but you have to start somewhere," Laforsch said. "If we know what plastic properties might be toxic, we can design properties that might not harm the environment."</p><p>Furthermore, pristine particles have been primarily used in microplastic-related toxicological studies to date. But plastic particles in nature are often far from pristine.</p><p>"A lot of plastics spend time spiraling through the environment, and the watershed is an active vector to transport them to an aquatic environment," Janice Brahney, an assistant professor of watershed sciences at Utah State University who was not involved in the study, told EHN.</p>
<p>Brahney, who recently <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1257" target="_blank">published a study</a> showing how many microplastic particles accumulate in isolated areas of the United States, notes that the microplastics she has observed through her previous work have in fact not been pristine.</p><p>She adds that because the plastics are so long-lived, "it's very plausible that most environmental plastics will have some aquatic lifetime."</p><p>Pristine microplastics are not very representative of those found in the environment, both in terms of physical properties and how likely they are to get absorbed by an organism. And this may cause scientists to reconsider how they study microplastics in the laboratory going forward.</p><p>"The laboratory studies that only use pristine particles may strongly underestimate the strength of interaction between an organism's cells and the particles," Kress said.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.ehn.org/microplastics-in-water-2649475744.html" target="_blank">EHN</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- People Eat 50,000+ Microplastics Every Year, New Study Finds ... ›
- Microplastics Are Raining Down on Cities - EcoWatch ›
- 15.5 Million Tons of Microplastics Litter Ocean Floor ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A team of scientists found microplastics in every snow sample taken from Mount Everest. Mariusz Potocki / National Geographic
Apparently, there ain't no mountain high enough to keep away the twin pressures of plastic pollution and the climate crisis.
<p>A series of newly-published studies based on a National Geographic expedition to Mount Everest in 2019 provide a shocking picture of how human activity is impacting the highest point from sea level on Earth. One of the studies even found <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" target="_self">microplastics</a> just below the summit, at 8,440 meters (approximately 27,690 feet).</p><p>"Mt. Everest is somewhere I have always considered remote and pristine," University of Plymouth scientist and National Geographic Explorer Dr. Imogen Napper, who was the lead author on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> study, told EcoWatch in an email. "To know we are polluting near the top of the tallest mountain on earth is a real eye opener – we need to protect and care for our planet."</p>
<h3>Microplastics at the Top of the World</h3><p>Napper's study, published in the journal <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30550-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>One Earth</em></a> Friday, found microplastics in every snow sample taken from Mount Everest. The findings join a growing body of research showing the extent of microplastic pollution in even the most remote corners of the planet.</p><p>"These are the highest microplastics currently ever discovered," Napper told EcoWatch. "Although it sounds exciting, this means that microplastics have been discovered from the depths of the ocean all the way to the highest mountain on earth."</p><p>There has been growing awareness in recent years of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/china-mount-everest-trash-2629508814.html?share_id=4408439" target="_self">buildup of trash</a> on Mount Everest left behind by tourists and climbers. In 2019, the Tibet Autonomous Region Sports Bureau said it removed 9.3 tons of waste, and China closed its Everest base camp to tourists to prevent more pollution. Some media outlets have even begun to refer to the mountain as the "world's highest garbage dump."</p><p>However, Napper's study is the first to focus on the accumulation of microplastics on the mountain specifically. Microplastics are plastics less than five millimeters in length that typically slough off of larger plastics as they degrade. Their small size means they are easily ingested by animals by mistake and are also extremely difficult to clean up.</p>
<p>Napper's team found more microplastics collected near the base camp, where climbers tend to congregate. But they still found five microfibers at the mountain's "balcony," the highest point they studied. Those fibers numbered one clear acrylic fiber, one red polyester fiber and three blue polyester fibers.</p><p>In general, many of the microplastics found on Everest were fibers that could have been brought by climbers.</p><p>"Samples collected on the mountain and in the valley below it revealed significant quantities of polyester, acrylic, nylon, and polypropylene fibres," Napper told EcoWatch. "The materials are increasingly being used to make the high performance outdoor clothing commonly used by climbers, as well as the tents and climbing ropes used in attempts to climb the mountain."</p>
<p>However, other studies have shown that microplastics can be carried to remote environments by the atmosphere. A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-arctic-snow-ice-2639834233.html" target="_self">2019 study</a> found that plastics were being lifted in the air and deposited as snow in the Arctic and the Alps. Napper said similar mechanisms could be bringing the plastics to Everest.</p><p>"[T]he microplastics may have been transported from lower altitudes by the extreme winds which regularly impact the mountain's higher slopes," Napper said.</p><p>So how can we keep Everest, and other remote environments, plastic free? Napper argued that, while reducing plastic use and improving recycling were both important, it is also crucial to develop new materials. This is particularly the case for the kind of specialized gear used to explore remote areas.</p><p>"There are a lot of promising developments in industry at the moment. We need to keep up the momentum, and ensure that athletic gear is tested and evaluated before use," Napper told EcoWatch. "Solutions need to deliver a positive account, not create future issues."</p>
<h3>Glaciers Melting Into Air</h3><p>Napper's article was just one of at least 16 that came out of the 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition. That expedition brought 10 research teams including 34 international and Nepali scientists to Everest from April and June of last year in order to study the impacts of human activity on the mountain.</p><p>In addition to the accumulation of microplastics, studies focused on the impacts of the climate crisis on the mountain. One, <a href="https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(20)30915-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">published in iScience</a>, detailed how global warming is actually increasing the oxygen available to human climbers as warmer temperatures have increased air pressure. Another, published in <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30549-2" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">OneEarth</a>, documented how Everest's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glaciers%5D" target="_self">glaciers</a> have thinned by more than 100 meters (approximately 328 feet) since the 1960s. Not only that, but the ice loss is accelerating, and glaciers are losing mass even at high altitudes.</p><p>Study leader and University of St. Andrews glaciologist Dr. Owen King said the melting of the higher glaciers was the "biggest surprise" from the results. His team measured thinning at the 5,700 meter (approximately 18,702 foot) Khumbu icefall and the 6,000 meter (approximately 19,685 foot) Rongbuk and Rongbuk East glaciers.</p><p>"The conditions found at this altitude are usually considered ideal for snow and ice accumulation, but our data suggest that they have now become more susceptible to ice melt," King said in an email to EcoWatch.</p>
<p>The melting of mountain glaciers is a big deal, because they are an important source of water to surrounding communities.</p><p>"Continued and, as we have shown, accelerating ice loss raises concerns about the sustainability of the supply of glacial meltwater, particularly at times of the year when monsoon rainfall cannot provide a backup, or in times of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought" target="_self">drought</a>," King said.</p><p>Understanding how climate change will impact mountain glaciers is the ultimate goal of the Perpetual Planet expeditions, of which the Everest trip was the first.</p><p>"The 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition was selected as a fantastic opportunity to support ground breaking research that fills a critical data gap in our understanding of how mountain systems are changing," Nicole Alexiev, vice president of science and innovation at the National Geographic Society, told EcoWatch in an email. "High mountain glaciers serve as the world's water towers, storing and providing water resources for 1/5 of the global populations. Despite the importance of high mountain systems, there is very little research conducted above 5,000m [approximately 16,404 feet] – especially interdisciplinary research – so we were excited to support this expedition which aimed to examine the world's highest mountain and its glaciers using expertise from the disciplines of biology, geology, glaciology, meteorology, and mapping."</p><p>Future expeditions will explore the Andes and western Canada, where mountain glaciers supply water to Santiago, Chile and the Columbia and Fraser river watersheds.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Antarctica's Food Chain for First Time ... ›
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Things to Know About Plastic Pollution and How to Stop It - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Bottle-Fed Babies May Consume Millions of Microplastic Particles a Day
20 October 2020
Health + Wellness
New research finds baby bottles may release millions of microplastic particles with each feeding. Beeki / Needpix
The process of preparing and mixing a baby bottle formula seems innocuous, but new research finds this common occurrence is actually releasing millions of microplastic particles from the bottle's lining, Wired reported.
<p><br>Microplastics are particles that are smaller than five millimeters long. Sterilizing and mixing formula may also release trillions of nanoplastic particles, which are billionths of a meter long, Wired reported.</p><p>The new <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> published in <em>Nature Food</em> found that the amount of microplastic babies consume is much larger than previous estimates. "We were absolutely gobsmacked," study co-author John Boland told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/19/bottle-fed-babies-swallow-millions-microplastics-day-study" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "A study last year by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated adults would consume between 300 and 600 microplastics a day — our average values were on the order of a million or millions."</p><p>"The numbers are, well, frightening," Deonie Allen, who studies microplastics at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, but wasn't involved in the research, told Wired. "They're bigger than any exposure tests that have been done before for human uptake."</p>
<p>The researchers examined the amount of formula that infants up to a year old consumed in 48 global regions. They discovered that, on average, bottle-fed babies were exposed to 1.6 million microplastic particles a day, The Guardian reported.</p><p>"We have to start doing the health studies to understand the implications," Boland told The Guardian. "We're already working with colleagues to look at what buttons in the immune system these particles begin to press."<br></p><p>The researchers explained their methodology and results in <a href="https://theconversation.com/bottle-fed-babies-may-consume-millions-of-microplastic-particles-our-research-suggests-148350" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. They used common polypropylene baby bottles, and followed the WHO's 2007 <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/PIF_Bottle_en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">guidelines</a> for preparing baby formula. This involved cleaning, sterilizing and mixing formula. The results were that bottles released up to 16 million particles per liter of water heated to 158 degrees F. The number of particles jumped to 55 million at 203 degrees F.</p>
<p>Not only does hotter water shed more microplastics, but so does shaking the bottle, which is a common practice for reconstituting formula.</p><p>However, the researchers also created a simple four-step method for reducing microplastic exposure, detailed in The Conversation:</p><ol><li>Rinse sterilized feeding bottles with cool, sterile water.</li><li>Always prepare formula in a non-plastic container.</li><li>After formula has cooled to room temperature, transfer it into the cooled, sterilized feeding bottle.</li><li>Avoid rewarming prepared formula in plastic containers, especially with a microwave oven.</li></ol><p>The last step resonated with Boland. He told Wired, "I think the important learning is never, ever, ever use a microwave oven to heat anything with a plastic container. Because what happens is you get in fact the local heating of the plastic and the water together, which gives enhanced levels of microplastic generation. And so that combination we think is particularly potent."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Raining Down on Cities - EcoWatch ›
- People Eat 50,000+ Microplastics Every Year, New Study Finds ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Study Finds Synthetic Clothes Contributed 4,000 Metric Tons of Plastic Microfibers in California
19 October 2020
Climate
These microfibers, smaller than five millimeters, are shed when synthetic clothes are washed. Cris Cantón / Getty Images
A new study from the University of California at Santa Barbara has found that synthetic clothes released about 4,000 metric tons of plastic microfibers into California's environment in 2019.
<p><br/></p>
<p>For context, that's about 80 million plastic rubber ducks in California, or 130,000 times as many stars as there are in the Milky Way galaxy, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/16/plastic-waste-microfibers-california-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. The Guardian received exclusive access to this study, although it has not been peer-reviewed or published.</p><p>These microfibers, smaller than five millimeters, are shed when synthetic clothes are washed, including "yoga pants, stretchy jeans and fleece jackets" the Guardian reported.</p><p>To determine how many microfibers are shed in a given year, researchers calculated how many synthetic materials consumers bought with how many loads of laundry people did. The data also calculated how many microfibers were released in each wash. Researchers combined those numbers with public data on sludge and wastewater management in California to reach 4,000 metric tons. These microfibers then make their way into the state's water and land, The Guardian reported.</p>
<p>Those numbers might alarm consumers. According to <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/study-finds-huge-pollution-from-microfibers-in-californias-oceans/amp/" target="_blank">The New York Post</a>, a recent study in <em><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194970" target="_blank">PLoS One</a></em> found that the average person inadvertently consumes more than 5,800 microfiber particles — every year.</p><p>While wastewater plants have the ability to prevent microfibers from entering waterways, they are ultimately delaying the process. Wastewater treatment facilities tend to combine what they capture with treated sewage, which is eventually spread on agricultural fields. The microfibers then run off back into the waterways, The Guardian reported.</p><p>"So we're changing it from an ocean problem to a land problem," Roland Geyer, an industrial ecologist at UC Santa Barbara who collaborated on the report, told The Guardian. "Rather than removing the fibers, we've just moved their location."</p>
<p>Studies that quantify microplastics in the environment help play a vital role in regulating them. For example, <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/06/16/california-becomes-first-state-to-define-microplastics-in-water-1293744" target="_blank">Politico</a> reported that California's State Water Resources Control Board recently approved a decision to make it the first state to define microplastics. The board will propose testing methods by July 2021; it will require water suppliers to report their microplastic levels for four years once a testing protocol is agreed upon.</p><p>Global production of synthetic fibers around the world is predicted to triple by 2050, The New York Post reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microfibers: The New Plastic Pollution That Threatens Our Waters ... ›
- What You Can Do to Make Your Clothing Ocean Safe - EcoWatch ›
- Hudson River Dumps 300 Million Microfibers Into Atlantic Ocean Daily ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
3 Major UK Retailers Are Banning Glitter This Christmas Over Environmental Concerns
16 October 2020
Business
The UK retailer John Lewis store in Sloane Square, London during Christmas of 2009. William Hook / CC BY-SA 2.0
Glitter may add sparkle to the holiday season, but its afterlife is decidedly less shiny.
<p>The festive coating and arts-and-crafts staple is actually another type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" target="_self">microplastic</a> — those pesky <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> five millimeters or less in diameter that end up everywhere from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-arctic-snow-ice-2639834233.html" target="_self">Arctic ice</a> to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/shark-plastic-stomach-2646956951.html" target="_self">bellies of sharks</a>.</p><p>"Glitter might look lovely but, because it's plastic, it sticks around long after the sparkle has gone – often in the stomachs of fish and birds," campaigner David Innes told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/24/glitter-sales-ban-supermarkets-microplastics?CMP=fb_gu" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> in 2019.</p><p>That's why three major UK retailers have decided to eliminate glitter from their Christmas merchandise this year. Morrisons, Waitrose and John Lewis have all announced that their store brand holiday products will be glitter free for 2020, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54545428" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">BBC News reported</a>.</p>
<p>Morrisons <a href="https://www.morrisons-corporate.com/media-centre/corporate-news/morrisons-goes-completely-glitter-free/" target="_blank">said in a statement</a> it had gotten rid of glitter on all of its greeting cards, wrapping paper, florist items and all other seasonal products. The policy will remain in place through the new year for store brand cards and gift bags. In addition, the store also pledged to remove single-use plastic toys from its Christmas crackers and reduce plastic wrap on cards and other decorations.</p><p>"Every time a cracker is pulled, or a card is opened, plastics have been used ... but just the once. So, we've taken glitter and plastic out of our festive range this year – so that our customers can enjoy their festivities without worrying about the environmental impact," Morrisons home director Christine Bryce said in a statement. "This means that we're now 100 percent glitter free across all our own brand ranges which is an important step in the fight against <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>."</p>
<p>John Lewis and Waitrose are also excising glitter from their seasonal products.</p><p>"All own-brand cards, crackers, wrapping paper, gift bags are now 100% glitter-free," the stores said in a statement reported by BBC News.</p><p>The movement against glitter has been growing alongside awareness of the dangers of microplastics. Waitrose is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glitter-ban-2623422922.html" target="_self">following up on a pledge</a> it first made two years ago to phase out holiday glitter by 2020. At the time, it was the first major UK retailer to set this goal.</p><p>Other UK stores are working to reduce glitter and other plastics this holiday season, BBC News reported. The pharmacy chain Boots will stop wrapping Christmas presents in single-use plastic packaging; supermarket Tesco will only use edible glitter; and supermarket Sainsbury's is eliminating glitter from cards, wrapping paper and gift bags and reducing it for decorations, crackers and festive bouquets.</p>
<p>The retailers' moves follow public demand. Boots said searches for ecologically-friendly products on its website had increased by nearly a third in a year. And Innes was part of a group behind a March 2019 petition asking the UK government to ban glitter altogether, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/glitter-waitrose-morrissons-john-lewis-christmas-b1041490.html" target="_blank">The Independent reported</a>.</p><p>The anti-glitter campaign has not caught on across the pond, however, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/business/glitter-ban-christmas.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. Major U.S. companies like Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS and Costco did not return requests for comment on whether they were working to reduce the glitter on their holiday merchandise this year. The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> also did not respond to a request for comment on whether there was any momentum for a U.S. glitter ban or what impact such a ban would have.</p><p>Independent scientists said the answer was unclear. On the one hand, it is possible that glitter's sparkle comes from metal or other harmful additives above and beyond what is contained in the average microplastic, Robert C. Hale, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary, told The New York Times. On the other hand, glitter accounts for much less than one percent of the microplastics in the environment, which usually slough off larger plastics or synthetic fabrics.</p>
<p>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Division chief scientist Amy V. Uhrin said that glitter was only one of many microplastic pollutants, but did say that certain studies had found large concentrations of glitter in soils or in wastewater sludge.</p><p>"It is difficult to say what impact a glitter ban would have," she told The New York Times.</p><p>Back in the UK, environmentalists said the Christmas glitter bans were a step in the right direction, but that the UK government ultimately needed to eliminate single-use plastic altogether.</p>"[W]e must go much further to end the scourge of plastic pollution," <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a> campaigner Tony Bosworth told BBC News.
From Your Site Articles
- Why Glitter Must Be Banned - EcoWatch ›
- Major UK Supermarket to Ban Glitter From Own-Brand Products ... ›
- 9 Eco-Friendly Gift Wrapping Ideas ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A new study has found that the ocean floor contains nearly 15.5 tons of microplastics. Tunatura / Getty Images
Microplastics can be found everywhere from Antarctica to the Pyrenees. A significant amount of plastic waste ends up in the ocean, but very little has been known about how much ends up on the ocean floor — until now.
<p>A new study has found that the ocean floor contains nearly 15.5 tons of microplastics, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/world/microplastics-oceans-14-million-metric-tons-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>Researchers from Australia's government science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), examined microplastics on the ocean floor near the Great Australian Bight, a large expanse that comprises the bulk of the country's southwest coastline.</p><p>The researchers used a robotic submarine to gather and analyze samples taken from six locations up to 236 miles off the coast, and up to almost 10,000 feet deep, reported CNN.</p>
<p>The results, which were published Monday in <em><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.576170/full#B54" target="_blank">Frontiers in Marine Science</a></em>, revealed about 35 times more plastic at the bottom of the ocean than floating at the surface. In 51 samples taken between March and April 2017, researchers found an average of 1.26 microplastic pieces per gram of sediment, a concentration that's up to 25 times greater than any previous deep-sea study, CNN reported.</p><p>"Plastic pollution that ends up in the ocean deteriorates and breaks down, ending up as microplastics," Justine Barrett from CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere, who led the study, said in a statement in CNN. "The results show microplastics are indeed sinking to the ocean floor."</p><p>Dr. Denise Hardesty, a principal research scientist at CSIRO and a co-author of the research, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/more-than-14m-tonnes-of-plastic-believed-to-be-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that finding microplastics in such remote locations and depths reveals the extent of global plastic pollution.</p>
<p>"This means it's throughout the water column. This gives us pause for thought about the world we live in and the impact of our consumer habits on what's considered a most pristine place," Dr. Hardesty told The Guardian. "We need to make sure the big blue is not a big trash pit. This is more evidence that we need to stop this at the source."</p><p>The World Economic Forum has estimated that an<a href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf" target="_blank"> entire garbage truck full of plastic</a> is dumped into the ocean every minute, every day, <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/10/05/micro-plastics-ocean-floor/" target="_blank">The New Daily</a> reported.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics in Oceans Outnumber Stars in Our Galaxy by 500 Times ›
- Paint: The Big Source of Ocean Microplastics You Didn't Know About ›
- First-of-Its Kind Study Offers Blueprint for Ocean Protection ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Tyre Collective's patent-pending technology captures tire wear right at the wheel. The James Dyson Award
This year, the UK National James Dyson Award went to a team of student designers who want to reduce the environmental impact of car tires.
<p><a href="https://www.jamesdysonaward.org/2020/project/the-tyre-collective/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Tyre Collective</a> designed a simple device that collects microplastics as they fly off a car tire. As the group of designers explains it, their device helps on the path toward zero emissions by using electrostatic and airflow around the tire to capture the microplastics and other small particles that are shed over the lifetime of a tire.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/james-dyson-award-given-device-reduces-tyre-emissions" target="_blank">Autocar</a> in the UK reported, the team says that their design is capable of catching up 60 percent of the particles shed by tires, which is significant considering that tires are one of the largest sources of ocean microplastics, according to a study in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17201-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Nature Communications</a></em>. That study found that tiny particles shed by tires and brake pads account for roughly 550,000 tons of microplastics that pollute the oceans annually. From that, over 80,000 tons rain down on remote areas covered in ice and snow, which helps accelerate the rate of melting, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/device-to-curb-microplastic-emissions-wins-james-dyson-award" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Everyone focuses on air pollution being directly from the engines themselves and coming out of the exhaust pipe but what people don't necessarily recognize is that tire wear is a huge contributor to that," said Hugo Richardson, one of the members of The Tyre Collective, as <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/years-dyson-award-winner-car-110041877.html" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p><p>Richardson is one of a team of four students from Imperial College London and the Royal College of Art who make up The Tyre Collective. Richardson and the three other students, Siobhan Anderson, Hanson Cheng and M. Deepak Mallya, say they share a passion to use design in a way that advances environmental causes, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"As a team, our strength lies in our diversity," said Richardson, as The Guardian reported. "We come from all four corners of the globe and bring with us a wealth of knowledge in mechanical engineering, product design, architecture and biomechanics."</p>
<p>As the world moves toward more renewable energy and the technology of electric vehicles improves, a device like this may play an important role in making cars more environmentally friendly. That's due to the fact that electric vehicles do not solve the problem of tire pollution. In fact, they may make it worse since electric vehicles are usually heavier than cars with internal combustion engines, according to Autocar.</p><p>"We were unanimously drawn to The Tyre Collective for their creative innovation around this urgent issue of microplastic shedding from tires," said Sophie Thomas, one of the judges of the James Dyson award, according to Autocar. "This collaborative, multidisciplinary team questioned and challenged, building an approach that demonstrates the crucial role of design and enquiry when we search for solutions to these global problems."</p><p>The tiny particles that the designers created can be recycled to make new tires, ink or other materials, according to Autocar. Right now, the design is just a prototype, but the team hopes to use its £2,000 (approximately $2600) reward toward finding a way to scale up its product sustainably.</p><p>"In the future it could be integrated into the wheel arch or even into the mud flap behind the wheel," said Siobhan Anderson from the The Tyre Collective team, as Reuters reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Humans Eat More Than 100 Plastic Fibers With Each Meal - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Raining Down on Cities - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Wafting in on the Sea Breeze - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
There has been very little focus on the fact that unless paint residuals are collected during surface preparation and the maintenance process, they will largely end up in the ocean as microplastics. DisobeyArt / Getty Images
By Declan McAdams and Tore Angelskår
Until recently, microplastics that enter the ocean from paint have not received a lot of attention. There has been very little focus on the fact that unless paint residuals are collected during surface preparation and the maintenance process, they will largely end up in the ocean as microplastics.
Uncertain Emission Estimates
<p><a href="https://www.iucn.org/content/primary-microplastics-oceans" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The most quoted source of data on how much microplastics from paint enters the ocean each year</a> gives a figure of 60,000 tons per annum. While this is still a big figure – the equivalent of six billion empty plastic bottles being dumped in the ocean every year – it falls short of the real size of the problem. This is because:</p><ul><li>It only includes marine coatings, <a href="https://www.coatingsworld.com/issues/2019-08-01/view_features/asia-pacific-coatings-market/" target="_blank">representing 4% of all paint volume, and does not include Industrial Maintenance (IM) and Protective Coating (PC) which represent another 11% of all global paint volumes sold</a>;</li><li><a href="http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2009)24&doclanguage=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">It works with the 2009 OECD estimate</a> that assumes 1 % of paint applied falls off each year (meaning an average paint life of 100 years), while industry experience shows that, in fact, industrial and marine paints have an average life of approximately 20 years or about 5% of paint falls off each year.</li></ul><p>For these reasons, the real level of paint microplastics entering the environment and ocean each year could be much, much higher than 60,000 tons. <a href="https://www.miljodirektoratet.no/publikasjoner/2015/februar/sources-of-microplastic-pollution-to-the-marine-environment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Other reports also conclude that paint is the second-largest source of microplastics in the ocean</a>.</p><img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" lazy-loadable="true"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzc5MzE4OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjY4Mjk3MH0.pULOH7bUGNRCQmRFP159WDrAKdJaBA5vm7Z-I1PH5V0/img.png?width=980"
id="e3376"
width="800"
height="491"
data-rm-shortcode-id="2c1f836719a2540ee37a56a2266ae7df" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The pathway by which plastic enters the world's oceans. Our World in Data
<p>Let's look at it another way and see what happens to all of the paint on steel assets. It is estimated that more than six million tons of paint are applied to industrial and marine steel structures every year.</p><img
class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" lazy-loadable="true"
data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzc5MzI0OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjcwMjcxNH0.6ZCAppekuA9BN2iE2lxcIeZDnYkLbxKfzpcEufCgehI/img.png?width=980"
id="2ee97"
width="768"
height="457"
data-rm-shortcode-id="f0ce88aea0f20bad0216e5e6007c5482" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
*Coatings World, **assuming 1-1.2 kg per liter of paint and 40-50% plastic content, ***assuming 50-75% of the paint residuals are not collected.
<p>Therefore, based on the actual level of paint applied to industrial and marine steel assets each year, it is estimated that the real level of paint microplastics emissions to the ocean every year could be as high as 1.5-2.25 million tons. This is based on the assumption that 50-75% of the paint residuals are not collected. Given we know that open blasting without collection holds a higher market share of surface maintenance than this, the actual level of emissions is probably at the higher upper end of the range.</p><p>Putting these new figures in context, they are a very meaningful percentage of the 8 million tons of plastic that enters the oceans each year. In addition, it can also help us better understand where some of the estimated 12-21 million tons of microplastics in the Atlantic Ocean, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as highlighted in a recent study</a>, have come from.</p><p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What are the risks from all of these paint microplastics?</a> Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals – from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides – that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate further up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of the soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fworldeconomicforum%2Fvideos%2F725096201608820%2F&show_text=0&width=476" width="476" height="476" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe><p>Harmful open sandblasting and water jetting are the predominant methods of surface maintenance. These are used at an industrial scale worldwide with various, but very limited, degrees of waste collection and recycling. There is a certain level of collection inside controlled environments like shipyards. Offshore, however, on oil rigs, ocean wind farms and ships, and in many situations on-shore, such as bridges, there is considerably less waste collection.</p><p>Using innovative solutions in surface maintenance, such as circular sandblasting, can reduce the emissions of microplastics to zero. In addition, the zero-emission, circular solution also recycles the blasting material, reducing grit consumption by 80-90%, which generates significant reductions in CO2 emission.</p>
<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/microplastics-in-ocean?year=latest" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe><p>Microplastics in the surface ocean, 1950-2050. Our World in Data</p>
The Need for Regulatory Awareness and Enforcement
<p>We need greater awareness of this problem on the part of environmental regulators, and a willingness to enforce existing anti-pollution laws. There should be a requirement to collect the used blasting material, with its heavy metals and other toxic components, and most importantly, the rust and paint residuals as they are blasted off the steel assets. Otherwise, they will largely find their way, directly or indirectly, into the ocean.</p><p>Even though there is considerable uncertainty regarding the extent of emissions of microplastics from paint into the ocean, one thing is very clear: it is a significant problem that deserves a lot more research and regulatory and policy-maker attention, so action can be taken to solve it as soon as possible.</p>From Your Site Articles
- People Eat 50,000+ Microplastics Every Year, New Study Finds ... ›
- Microplastics Are Wafting in on the Sea Breeze - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Increasing in Our Lives, New Research Finds ... ›
- New Study: 15.5 Million Tons of Microplastics Litter Ocean Floor - EcoWatch ›
- This White Paint Could Reduce the Need for Air Conditioning - EcoWatch ›
- Ohio Paint Factory Explosion Injures Eight ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less