Microplastic: the deadly consequence of plastic/synthetic materials

Early last century a chemist (L. Baekeland) officially invented synthetic plastic, and called it Bakelite. Since then plastic has taken over the world; literally because the world is choking on it. Manufacturing output is expected to reach 500 million tonnes by this year (2025).
This versatile, light, durable…durable…so durable material that it takes thousands of years to degrade in landfill while it sheds toxic chemicals and takes up valuable land space.
What plastic can easily do is to break down into microscopic particles (microplastics and nanoparticles) creating an even greater environmental problem: polluting air, water, food chain, existing in the form of beads, fragments, pellets, fibres.
The dangers to the health of humans and animals is being the subject of serious scientific studies. Toxic injury to internal organs, to the brain in particular, one of the greatest concerns.

Microplastics getting into our ocean and waterways
Washing machine filters:
Synthetic fabrics are one of the biggest source of shedding: they shed while they are being manufactured, worn, disposed of, and most of all when they are washed.
Fitting filters in washing machines has been a project taken up in most western countries (Australia has announced that filters will be required in commercial and residential washers by 2030).

Biomimetic (study to mimic how nature copes and finds solutions).
The European Research Council has funded studies into designing washing machine filters based on the ability of giant fish to separate water from food especially tiny plankton by making use of the thin long prongs in their mouth to act like sieves. It could reduce microplastic shedding in our laundries by 90%.

The question remains: how to dispose of microplastic waste?
When those filters get cleaned where does the trapped MP go?
Landfill: like the plastic it came from it doesn’t degrade for thousands of years taking up valuable land space and releasing toxic chemicals.
Incinerators: generate dioxins which are very harmful to humans and animals.
Gasification and Pyrolysis: can turn plastic trash into energy conveyors. Both require high capital cost, high temperatures and energy consumption. Both are very low value for capital investments.

An encouraging discovery:
From an article in ‘theconversation’.

'But scientists recently discovered a strain of bacteria that can literally eat the plastic used to make bottles, and have now improved it to make it work faster. The effects are modest – it’s not a complete solution to plastic pollution – but it does show how bacteria could help create more environmentally friendly recycling? …
…It is relatively unusual to be able to engineer enzymes to work better than they have evolved through nature. Perhaps this achievement reflects the fact that the bacteria that use PETase are only recently evolved to survive on this man-made plastic. This could give scientists an exciting opportunity to overtake evolution by engineering optimised forms of PETase.’

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) came to us in 1973 an invention by N. Wyeth. Light weight, unbreakable, it’s the plastic bottle par excellence. Billions of PET bottles end up in our oceans degrading into microplastics.

I find it encouraging that nature is defending itself by developing bacteria which is able to destroy some form of plastic.
There’s hope yet :pray::blush:

11 Likes

Great topic and post @Gaby … no idea what the solution is except to try buying non plastic “stuff”. Just the other day I went throughmy wardrobe with a view to sending a bunch of stuff to a charity store, and 99% of it is plastic. Poly/cotton seems to be the best I can do on my limited income. I tried Temu clothing but that all seems to be plastic if its women’s gear. Probably men’s gear too. But local stores are no better, just cost more.

7 Likes

My concern is they are finding microplastics in all parts of the human body and environment.

For the body, the easiest way to be exposed is through airborne dust. Synthetic materials, especially those used in clothing, shed airborne microplastics all the time. I wonder if synthetic fabrics are a major source for that being found in humans.

4 Likes

Yes, it is quite invasive, getting in the food chain poses a great risk too.

4 Likes

The more that is asked the fewer answers there are. More informed research needed. We don’t know enough:-

How many informed scientific answers likely in the near future, the centre of much of the planets informed scientific and medical research appears to be headed for a long sabbatical.

Closer to home one might look to our research facilities and the CSIRO. One depends on significant international support, the other progressively on profit driven reward rather than government (the public purse) sponsorship.

3 Likes

Not sure if this will be paywalled or not, article on peer review of 7,000 studies on microplastics.

3 Likes

When I started to look into the microplastic pollution problem I really did feel overwhelmed, it’s a frightening, invasive, seemingly unstoppable, danger to life on our planet. And the most frustrating aspect is that it doesn’t seem to be much we can do about it. At the moment ‘Limit’ seems to be the only feasible thing we can do.

A few tips:

  • Use a glass water bottle; bottled water is a big source of MPs for humans.
  • Don’t microwave in plastic containers, heat makes it release harmful chemicals, use ceramic or glass.
  • Clean using soda bicarbonate or vinegar.

In the laundry:

  • look for natural fibres when buying linen, clothing etc..
  • Use cold or lower temperatures.
  • Use milder detergents.
  • Don’t wash too often.
  • Line dry.


Any tips welcome :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

I think I’ve heard that before – because although the cycle is gentler, it’s longer?

Edit: No, it turned out to be due to the volume of water used. Gentle cycle = far more water.

4 Likes

The key to success with clothing is to buy it at second-hand shops. Generally, it is more likely to be made of 100% cotton (or other natural fibres), and you know that it has survived at least one owner, so it is better quality than the current fast-fashion rubbish.

4 Likes

Is Nature fighting back? :crossed_fingers:


—————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————-

2 Likes

@Gaby, those articles look interesting! Could you attach the relevant URLs to the images, please?

2 Likes

https://earth.org/plastic-eating-mushroom-of-the-amazon-and-ecuadors-development-dilemma
I’ll post one about the interesting mushrooms that can live in landfills.
Will need time to look up others as I’ve deleted history…
Some are just headlines of protected papers like The Washington Post

I found those by googling: plastic eating bacteria :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

So you’re saying I should wash everything more often?! (although I do wash the bed linen weekly)

Wax Worms

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33127-w

PET and E Coli

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad6359

1 Like

(Courtesy of @grahroll :slightly_smiling_face:)

1 Like

Microplastic fibres which are shed in the wash go into waste water>treatment facilities and end up in rivers and seas. The suggestion that we do a washing load less often than we usually do is aimed at reducing such microplastics pollution. How often we change our bed linen etc is a personal decision, and how we can contribute to limit the damage MPs do is our choice, but every little bit helps.:slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

Or for the estimated 1in10 homes, premises, facilities that are not connected to reticulated waste collection networks (sewage) firstly into the backyard. There after who knows to where? To suggest once fine enough moved on through ground water seepage, and in the interim some/most trapped by natural filtration. Above ground dispersal at risk of loss to local waterways through overland flows with rain events.

Thought provoking to consider in our instance 12-14 neighbours mostly with septic systems and grease traps or AWT systems with above ground dispersal draining subsequently to our backyard!

3 Likes

Then there is the shedding of micro and nano plastics without the involvement of water. The abrasion of fibres as we wear polymer fabrics such as nylon, polyester and similar, UV breakdowns of exposed plastics, abrasion by sand and other abrasive materials wherever plastic is exposed to them, mechanical breakdown.

Nanoplastic is respirable, microplastic is usually classified as inhalable.

Some nanoparticles when they are breathed in are so small they pass into the bloodstream and end up in all our organs same as if they had been ingested through the gut. Some so small they pass through our dermal layer (skin), some we use even in cosmetics.

Water dispersal is possibly only the tip of the iceberg (yeah I can see the pun :grinning:).

3 Likes

I get the feeling you didn’t read my reply. I was jokingly pointing out that your quoted suggestion about reduced laundry seemed excessively frequent. Why would we need to wash everything so often? (and release more microplastics etc) I’m trying to imagine how often the person who wrote the suggestion washes their towels. Every day?

1 Like