Chris Woodford talks to PIR….

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged 1 Comment

This month we are upping the bar with an article that’s well written  and wildly informative. Yes we have a guest post……

While trawling through the internet I stumbled across the fantastic website www.explainthatstuff.com written by Chris Woodford. It is all more than good but there was an article on plastic so pleasing that I had to ask if I could reproduce it. Didn’t I just fall off my chair with excitement when he offered to write something for the blog? So I thought I would ask all the questions that troubled me about plastic and see what he thought.

But before we begin… let me introduce the man:

Chris Woodford is a British science writer. He has  an MA in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University and  specialized in physics (he  studied at the Cavendish Laboratory) and experimental psychology. Other skills include chemistry, crystallography, materials science, and math. He had his first magazine article published  in 1980  and he went on to write, amongst  others, the( best-selling), how-it-works books

 Cool Stuff 2.0 (The Gadget Book), and Cool Stuff Exploded (all published worldwide by Dorling Kindersley/DK).
Now onto the questions and the first seems kind of easy but I had never really considered it before the boycott.

 

What is plastic anyway?

 The first thing to note is there’s no such thing as “plastic”; it’s not one thing, it’s many. Plastics are many different kinds of synthetic chemicals. What they have in common is that they’re polymers. They’re mostly made of carbon and hydrogen atoms linked into basic building blocks (molecules), which then repeat themselves over and over again. That’s what a polymer is: a molecule that repeats itself. A polymer looks like a coal train made of dozens of identical trucks all joined together, often in long chains. Each identical truck is one molecule and it’s joined to similar trucks on either side.

Is there anything remotely good about plastics?

Absolutely! The clue’s in the name, really. Plastic means “nasty stuff you can’t get rid of”, but it also means flexible–and that’s the good thing about plastics. They can do all kinds of useful things for us. From the moment you’re jolted awake by a plastic alarm clock, to the moment you brush your teeth with a nylon toothbrush and get back in bed again, plastic fills your every waking moment. I’m wearing a polyester fleece right now made from old plastic bottles, typing on a plastic computer keyboard, listening to music through plastic headphones and thinking occasionally about the dirty breakfast dishes sitting in the plastic washing-up bowl.

So what’s the downside?

Everything that’s good about plastic has a downside. There are dozens of different kinds of plastics, which is great if you’re a product manufacturer and you need to find something that does a very specific job. You use quite different plastics to make water bottles and milk bottles, for example, and plastic bags are made from something different again. That’s not so good if you’re a local council with the job of collecting plastics and trying to recycle them, because they pretty much all have to be recycled in different ways. Plastics are very cheap, which means we can use them for virtually anything. But the drawback there is that we now rely far too much on disposable things that benefit no-one except the people who make and sell them. And because plastics are essentially synthetic chemicals–ones we’ve dreamed up in laboratories–there aren’t really natural mechanisms that break them down. Animals and insects don’t eat plastics. Those long chains of molecules just sit there. And they go on sitting there–potentially for hundreds of years.

Hundreds of years?!

Hundreds of years! A plastic bottle can take 500 years to break down. That’s not a timescale we can readily appreciate. A human might live 80 years, so a plastic bottle lives six times longer. Or we could think of it in a completely different way. Imagine you come across an old plastic bottle someone’s thrown into your front garden. Now if plastic lasts 500 years, that bottle could have been thrown there by King Henry VIII

Henry VIII of England, who devised the Statute...

Image via Wikipedia

on his way back from the pub! It could be older than everything in your street–all the trees, the houses, the cars, the people… everything. Now of course that’s not actually true because plastics weren’t invented in 1511. But roll the clock forward five hundred years from now, to 2511, and it’s quite possible that the person living in what’s now your house will dig up the garden and find bits of plastic you left behind. Or that a 25th-century Tony Robinson will make archaeology programmes on TV about sifting through all the random bits of plastic in a 21st-century landfill.

But  we’re recycling so much more plastic now?

Or are we? Over 90 percent of the plastic stuff we buy still ends up in a landfill. That’s bad for all kinds of reasons. Landfill is just a more polite word for litter; it’s litter on a grand scale! Not only that, it’s such a waste. Most plastic comes from petroleum–and we know oil is going to run out sooner or later. Apparently, something like 200,000 barrels of oil a day are used to make plastic for packaging, just in the USA–a huge waste, and most of it going to landfill in a matter of days or weeks. There’s also the question of energy. It takes far more energy to make disposable plastic things than it does to use the same things over and over again. Recycled plastic is much better than brand new plastic: it saves about two thirds of the energy used in manufacturing. But, quite frankly, recycling is only a little bit better than throwing things away. It’s far better not to use plastic at all than to recycle it. It’s much better, for example, to have a reuseable aluminium water bottle that you fill up from the tap each day than to buy plastic bottles of water and then very conscientiously recycle them. Where do they go after you’ve recycled them? It takes a lot of energy to transport them, melt them down, and turn them into new plastic products that may (or may not) be recycled. Far better to eliminate the plastic completely if you can.

Do plastics have to be so bad for the environment?

Absolutely not. The thing to remember about plastics is that humans created them. Chemists in laboratories engineered pretty much all these polymers and designed them to do very specific jobs. There’s nothing random or accidental about it, so why should there be anything random or accidental about how we dispose of them? In other words, there’s no reason why chemists can’t engineer plastics that can be disposed of more easily. In fact, they’re already doing just that. We’ve had biodegradable plastics for several decades and now the industry buzzword is “bioplastics”: plastics made from more natural ingredients that break down much faster when we dispose of them.

That sounds brilliant! How do they work?

A really good example is the kind of packaging you now find on many sandwich containers. Go back ten or twenty years and take-away sandwiches always came in plastic triangles that you simply threw away. Who knows what happened to them? Well most of them–hundreds of millions of them–are sitting in landfills under our feet. What a waste! And what a disgrace! Buy yourself some sandwiches today and it’s a very different story. You’re probably going to get a cardboard container (which is easy to compost or recycle) with a thin window made of what looks like ordinary, thin plastic. But it’s more likely to be a bioplastic based on corn starch (the stuff you put in sauces to thicken them up). The bioplastic has these little chunks of cornstarch embedded in it. As it picks up moisture, the starch swells up (just like your sauce thickens) and cracks the plastic into tiny fragments that break down more quickly–typically in just a few months. Things like greetings cards are now being packed in the same stuff. Other bioplastics (ones that don’t use cornstarch) are designed to be broken down by sunlight, water, or high temperatures.

Does bioplastics have any drawbacks?

It would be great if all the plastic we couldn’t avoid using was either reused in some way or recycled. Realistically, though, that’s never going to happen: most bioplastic is going to end up in a landfill, just like ordinary plastic. So we still need to think about that very carefully. Some bioplastics disappear very cleanly in landfills. Because they’re made from plants, they absorbed carbon dioxide when they grew in the first place and they release that carbon dioxide again when they break down–so effectively, ignoring the energy used in manufacturing, they’re carbon neutral: they don’t add to global warming. Other bioplastics break down and release methane, which is a really powerful greenhouse gas (much worse than carbon dioxide). That’s a serious issue. Some also leave a toxic residue in the landfill, which could cause water pollution or soil contamination. Another problem is that bioplastics can’t be recycled the same way as ordinary plastics so if they all get mixed in together in a recycling container, you can end up with a huge pile of unprocessable waste that has to go to a landfill. There are other issues too. Some bioplastics are described as “compostable”, but they only compost in the kind of high-temperature digesters operated by councils, not on your average, low-temperature, home compost heap.

So not really a complete solution?

Definitely not. You have to go back to what we were saying right at the beginning–about how many different kinds of plastic we use and in how many different ways. You can’t really make a plastic washing up bowl from bioplastic–it would slowly disintegrate before your eyes! But what else are you going to make it out of? And if you accept that it’s not something you’re going to keep forever, what happens to it when you throw it away? Ditto with a toothbrush: it’s something you have to throw away and replace (if you want to keep your teeth).

What’s the answer to that?

The way to look at these things is always reduce, reuse, recycle–in that order. So you first have to ask do I really need a plastic washing-up bowl? Can I wash up in the sink, which is what people always used to do until about the 1960s and 1970s. If I have to throw it out, can I do anything useful with it? Can I use it in the garden to collect weeds, perhaps? Can I clean it up and use it for storage? If I really have to get rid of it, can I possibly recycle it?

But for disposable packaging…?

Well, there bioplastics definitely have a big part to play. If you bear in mind that plastic bags have an average useful life of 12 minutes, but live on in landfills for 500 years, you can see there’s a real value in having plastic food packaging that disappears very quickly. Especially for things like sweets and crisps, where there’s a high chance that any packaging is going to end up as litter. But bioplastics aren’t the only solution–and they may not even be the best one. Another option is to turn the problem back on the manufacturers. The main reason we have plastic packaging is to extend the shelf life of foods so that big corporations can make more money. Okay, fine, so let them accept some of the responsibility for the “plastic monster” they’ve created. Eco groups like Surfers Against Sewage have been campaigning on this for some time, encouraging people to post rubbish they find on beaches (80% of it is plastic, incidentally) back to the companies who produced it. (They call it “Return to Offender”!) Packaging is relatively easy to trace back to the people who made it–it’s stamped with their name. So how about councils being able to fine manufacturers for litter as well as the people who drop it? We’re hearing now that the cost of litter collection in the UK is soon going to hit a billion pounds a year. Let the people who profit from packaging pay some of the costs. Then they’d put a bit more effort into educating people about disposing of waste, using less packaging, and developing more eco-friendly plastics.

What’s the one thing people should take away from all this?

King Henry VIII! Remember how long plastic lasts and what it costs the environment (in resources, energy, and litter). Use as little of it as you can. When you get rid of plastic things, try to give them another life first (use your old toothbrush for cleaning your bike, or whatever) and recycle them if you can’t. There’s no excuse for plastic litter–and throwing away plastic is almost as bad

Find out more about related matters on

And loads of other interesting stuff at www.explainthatstuff..com

You can buy Chris’s books from

 

post

Weee / Electronic Waste

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged ,
 Between now and the end of 2020, WRAP estimates that electronic products purchased in the UK will total around 10 million tonnes. A quarter of this will comprise of IT equipment, consumer electronics and display screens. This 10 million tonnes will include precious metals, such as 20 tonnes of gold, 400 tonnes of silver and 7 tonnes of Platinum Group Metals. These have a total estimated market value of £1.5 billion [Dec 13].Waste on line

According to DEFRA figures, white goods make up 5% of household waste. 7 WEEE analysis shows that the average person will consume 3.3 tonnes of electronic waste in their lifetime, or on average around 0.016 tonnes (16 kg) per year. http://www.weeeman.org/html/impact/couple.html

Most of the components of electronic waste are recyclable, a fridge may contain as much as 95% recoverable material, whereas 96% of an old television could be made into new televisions.  do the green thing.

Wee waste has to be specially disposed of….

The directors of Warrington-based Daniels Recycling, who pleaded guilty last week to illegally exporting electrical waste to West Africa, have criticised the Environment Agency for its handling of the case.

Daniels Recycling Ltd is run by married couple Mark Daniels, 51, and Lynn Gallop, 52. At Warrington Crown Court last week, the pair pleaded guilty to illegally exporting 187 tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) to Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Tanzania, Gambia and Togo between 2011 and 2015. They were ordered by the court to pay fines and costs totalling £130,000.

post

Yummy yummy hormone like chemicals

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged

leaching into your food………

The researchers bought more than 450 plastic items from stores including Walmart and Whole Foods. They chose products designed to come in contact with food — things like baby bottles, deli packaging and flexible bags, says George Bittner, one of the study’s authors and a professor of biology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Then CertiChem, a testing company founded by Bittner, chopped up pieces of each product and soaked them in either saltwater or alcohol to see what came out.

The testing showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals that acted like estrogen. And that was before they exposed the stuff to real-world conditions: simulated sunlight, dishwashing and microwaving,

read more here

post

Bad plastic – Introduction

by Posted in 1 ABOUT PLASTIC 16 Comments

Most plastics are oil derived and non biodegradable. Which means plastics last for decades, centuries possibly forever. We are using this everlasting product to make items that are used once and then discarded. Items that end up as litter.

This is an introduction to the darker side of plastic with links to more information on the following. Read on or jump to your subject of interest via the menu on the right.

Bad Plastic-  An Introduction

Over the past few years it has been growing on me an ever-increasing hatred of plastic. This may seem an unreasonable reaction to a product that is strong, lightweight and waterproof all at once, that houses my computer and stops the electricity from running out of my plugs. O.k. I don’t hate all plastic what I actually hate is the abuse of plastic. I hate the way this incredibly versatile product is used to make stupid trashy one use items that quickly become everlasting rubbish.

 What is plastic?

Most plastics (and we are talking millions of tons each year) are distilled from oil.

Ethane (one of main ingredients of plastic) can also be obtained from coal, gas and plants as well as oil.
Naptha and ethane derived plastic are non-biodegradable plastics.

There are (a very small percentage of) other plastics with different qualities but most plastics are oil derived and non biodegradable.

Read more here…

How much rubbish?

Because oil derived plastics are cheap, plentiful and versatile we use them for just about everything including one use throwaway objects and packaging. In the UK alone we generate 3 million tonnes of plastic waste annually, 56% of which is used packaging, three-quarters of which is from households. (waste on line)

We, all of us, are creating huge amounts of rubbish which is extremely expensive to dispose of.

Everlasting trash

Because most plastics  do not biodegrade plastic lasts for a long time  possibly for ever. It cannot be composted or left to rot where it is dropped or dumped like organic rubbish. Every bit of plastic rubbish has to be collected up and specially disposed of… and this isn’t easy.

Burning it at best adds to global warming, at worst can release extremely toxic chemicals. It has to be done with care.
Put it in landfills and it just sits there.
Recycling is not always an option and it comes at a cost

Read more here

 Plastic Litter

We use plastic for fast food packaging, sweet wrappers and disposable cups – things that are used for minutes before being discarded. Things that end up as litter… but because it is made out of plastic, has a  huge life span. We have created everlasting litter that is increasing exponentially with distressing consequences.

Planet trashed 

Perhaps the most obvious problem with plastic is our plastic trashed planet looks extremely ugly. Visit our gallery of world-wide plastic pollution to see the evidence.

Planet Damaged
This everlasting litter is not just a visual blight but dangerous too.Plastic pollution is damaging our world.

  • Drainage systems get blocked with plastic causing flooding,
  • layers of plastic trash choke grasslands and lakes
  • rivers and waterways get clogged with plastic debris.


Sea of rubbish 
Since the ocean is downstream, much of the plastic trash generated on land ends up there. ” It has been estimated that 6.4 million tons of debris end up in the world’s oceans every year and that some 60 to 80 percent of that debris, or 3.8 to 5 million tons, is improperly discarded plastic litter “. Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Marine debris, a polite term for mostly plastic trash, is already a huge and troubling problem.

  • Everyday tons of trash gets washed ashore and cleaning beaches is increasingly expensive.
  • 70 percent of discarded plastic sinks to the bottom, smothering the sea bed and the bottom feeders who live there.
  • Fish and sea birds ingest plastic which can kill them.
  • Read more here

 Micro pollution

Traditional plastics degrade rather than biodegrade, which means they simply break up and fall apart into smaller pieces. The plastic has not changed its structure as such – merely fragmented. And it seems the process can continue indefinitely. Particles of plastic of 20 microns in diameter (a width thinner than a human hair) have been identified.

Sources of micro plastics are
Degraded plastic – larger plastic products breaking down into smaller pieces
Cosmetic products that  contain tiny plastic beads which are washed off and washed out to sea.
Synthetic clothing that release thousands of plastic fibres every wash.
Read more here

Killer Plastic

Plastic in the environment presents a danger to animals in a number of ways.They eat plastic trash mistaking it for food which causes internal damage and blockages.Even if the plastic doesn’t kill them outright a diet of plastic is nutrition free. Animals that eat plastic are underdeveloped and underweight.The chemicals in plastic can poison them.Many get tangled in plastic twine and ghost fishing nets and starve to death.

Find details and reports here.

Plastic Poisons.

The first stage in plastic production, the polymerisation of raw material.
Then substances such as fillers and chemicals (sometimes called monomeric ingredients), are added to give color, texture and a whole range of other qualities.

Manufacturers are not obliged to reveal what they use in their plastic mixes. So while the polymers used in base plastics are mostly considered to be harmless, the potential toxicity of the additives is often unknown.

It is claimed that many of the additives used have not been passed as fit for human consumption and that more research needs to be done on the safe handling and ultimate disposal of these plastics.

More worrying still they leach from plastic into us.

Other plastics like PVC will, when burnt, release dioxin one of the most powerful carcinogens known.

Plastic particles attract persistent organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are a small set of toxic chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods and accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals. Bottom feeders eat the plastic pellets and so the POPs enter the food chain.

Costs

To add insult turns out plastic isn’t even that cheap!

To conclude

So while plastic is a fantastic product with many wonderful applications, it has a dark side. Using to make one use disposable and short-life items that quickly end up as everlasting rubbish seems incredibly foolhardy. Which is why I cut unnecessary plastic from my life.

Plastic Costs A Lot

According to some "the environmental cost, including carbon pollution released during production [of plastic], is staggering ...
Read More

Toothpaste With Added Plastic

What's in your commercial toothpaste? For starters ther may be plastic micro beads!Did you know ...
Read More

Bring back real litter!

Since the introduction of plastic, litter has been hijacked and turned into something unsustainable. I want to ...
Read More

Plastic Chemicals & Food

Plastic packed food is unappealing in many ways. For me the most immediate problem is ...
Read More

Micro-plastics & pollution

Micro plastics are microscopic or very small pieces of plastic that can be found in ...
Read More

Dirty Beaches, Polluted Sea

Most plastics are oil derived and non biodegradable. Which means plastics last for decades, centuries ...
Read More

Chemicals & Additives In Plastic

The first stage in plastic production, the polymerisation of raw material. Then substances such as ...
Read More

Everlasting Litter

Because plastic is so cheap we use it for just about everything. The world’s annual ...
Read More

Wasting away – how much rubbish do we create?

Whats new in the bin - check back here for updated rubbish factoids. "Discarding many ...
Read More

Plastic Trash By Country

Statistics can be wobbly and there will be discrepancies between reports but even bearing that ...
Read More

Foil Card and Paper, Plastic lined

Paper & Card Paper and card are made from natural fibres and is biodegradable. Both ...
Read More

Plastic kills and injures animals

Plastic in the environment presents a danger to animals in a number of ways. First ...
Read More

Dioxins & Burning plastic

So, is it safe to burn plastic? Well most plastics don't  burn easily - it melts and ...
Read More

post

Metal Lids With Plastic Linings

by Posted in 1.2 Plastic The Product Tagged , ,

Back in the early days of the boycott I didn’t think of glass jars as an issue – after all they weren’t  plastic so it wasn’t a problem. Of course it was you numbskull.

Look at the lids – that white sticky stuff – the seal? That’s plastic that is…

Googling around and I found this from the containers and packaging site

“Plastisol liners are one method that helps seal metal closures onto containers. Plastisol is a PVC gasket that is used in metal continuous thread and lug (sometimes called twist) closures. It is normally applied to metal lids in a ring shape on the inside of the lid at the point where it will match up with the landing of the bottle.

Plastisol material starts out as a solid. After being heated properly, Plastisol becomes liquidus and forms around the landing of the container that is being sealed. When the material cools it begins to cure, or solidifies, which then creates a tight vacuum seal.”

PVC? Not sure I like that idea.There’s lots more information here on the poison that is  PVC. And despite the industry claiming it is perfectly safe, research is being done into alternatives.  Why you might ask – and so do I. Answers? I have none but”The environmentalist group Greenpeace has advocated the global phase-out of PVC because they claim dioxin is produced as a byproduct of vinyl chloride manufacture and from incineration of waste PVC in domestic garbage.”

 

One alternative could be this from k-online

The development of PVC-free compounds for lug-type twist closures and the corresponding production processes took place before the background of the 4th Amendment 2007/19/ EC of the Plastics Directive 2002/72/EC, which no longer permits the use of some phthalates as plasticisers in PVC-based seals of closures that come into contact with food. This marked an end to the exceptions with which EU and national authorities made allowances for the industry’s difficulties in finding solutions to the migration problems. Accordingly, manufacturers of metal lug closures, food producers, bottlers and retailers are under a great deal of pressure to bring products to market that are environmentally friendly, user-friendly and, above all, comply with statutory regulations.

This TPE is free of plasticisers and PVC and is useable with a wide range of lug-type twist caps (from 38 to 82 mm in diameter). Besides those properties that are indispensible in a sealant – good processability, pasturisability, compliance with the law – this new PVC-free compound ensures compliance with the valid migration thresholds even for oily foods with longer shelf-lives (e.g., antipasti). This was confirmed * in multiple individual tests. Thus vacuum twist seals with sealant compounds by Actega DS are the preferred solution for low-migration food storage and help food industry customers keep their products from becoming entangled in the problems associated with unhealthy packaging. Moreover, the new product also addressed the need to maintain a reliable vacuum until the closure is first opened and user-friendly resealability.

So I try not to use jars.

Look here for other sneaky plastic.

post

Tin Cans, Plastic Liners & Health

by Posted in 1.4 Additives Fact Sheets Tagged , , , 15 Comments

So you think, no that you’ve given up plastic but at least you can buy stuff in tins. At least I did for a while. But sadly for me no most tins are plastic lined either with a polymer (plastic) coating or epoxy resin (also plastic) And this is tru for food, drink and even cosmetics.

Linings

Drinks
Aluminium drinks cans have a polymer plastic lining. It’s there to stop acids in the beverage from corroding the metal which is not good for the can or the flavor of the contents. If you don’t believe me, Check out this experiment, as done by Steve Spangler,

Food
Nearly all tin cans are plastic lined with epoxy resin.
Epoxy resins, are used because of their “exceptional combination of toughness, adhesion, formability and chemical resistance. These coatings make it possible for food products to maintain their quality and taste, while extending shelf life.
In tins the liner can be white or yellow or transparent in which case it is  undetectable.  In most cases it is best to assume that your can has a plastic liner.
It helps to prevent canned foods from becoming tainted or spoiled by bacterial contamination.

Read more “Metal food and beverage cans have a thin coating on the interior surface, which is essential to prevent corrosion of the can and contamination of food and beverages with dissolved metals UK FSA, 2002).”

Cosmetics
Tins used to store cosmetics are also lined with epoxy resin this time to prevent corrosion.

Recycling

You might wish to know that when the can is recycled, the liner is burnt off.

History

“The History of the Liner – Technicians at the American Can Company, even before Prohibition, began toying with the idea of putting beer in a can. As early as 1929, Anheuser-Busch and Pabst experimented with the canning process. Schlitzeven proposed a can design that looked like a small barrel.

The major problem the early researchers were confronted with, however, was not strength, but the can’s liner. Several years and most of the early research funds were spent to solve this perplexing problem. Beer has a strong affinity for metal, causing precipitated salts and a foul taste. The brewers called the condition “metal turbidity”.

The American Can Company produced the flat or punch top can in 1934. The lining was made from a Union Carbide product called “Vinylite”, a plastic product which was trademarked “keglined” on September 25, 1934.”

Bad for you?

You might not want to know that the lining contains Bisphenol A (BPA) a chemical building block that is used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins.
So what?? To cut a long story short it would seem that BPA is toxic and does leach from plastic liners into the food.

The Bisphenol A Organisation argues that it is in such small amounts as to be negligible.

Based on the results of the SPI study, the estimated dietary intake of BPA from can coatings is less than 0.00011 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day. Stated another way, an average adult consumer would have to ingest more than 230 kilograms (or about 500 pounds) of canned food and beverages every day for an entire lifetime to exceed the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

It is true that several scientific panels including the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Food, the National Toxicology Program and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have concluded that the claims that low doses of BPA affect human health have not (yet ), been substantiated. While accepting that animal testing has produced adverse results, they can find no concrete evidence that humans will react the same way.

BUT BPA is now considered by many to be  a hormone disruptor, a chemical that alters the body’s normal hormonal activity. There are many counter claims on the internet and in the media  that BPA  is lethal. You can read all the arguments  here

Why  use BPA at all  you might ask ? Here’s some information from the bishenol-a.org

It must also be noted that  despite claims that BPA is as safe as safe, research is  ongoing into alternatives. And maybe they have found one. According to Food Production Daily

“Researchers in the United States have developed a chemical derived from sugar with the potential to replace bisphenol A (BPA) in a number of products, including the lining of food cans. The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) said Professor Michael Jaffe had received a US patent for an epoxy resin based on isosorbide diglycidyl ether that could make consumer products safer.

“The patent will enable us to create a family of isosorbide-based epoxy resins that have the potential to replace bisphenol A in a number of products including food can linings”, Jaffe told FoodProductionDaily.com.

Note  the statement by Food Production Daily that this will  make consumer products safer. And I hardly need say that the creators of this new product are clear in their statements that BPA is not a good thing.

Hmmm – the choice is yours. As for me I boycott nearly all tins and cans – tonic, tomatoes, coconut milk, tomato puree and baked beans are the exceptions. I don’t like the plastic or the BPA.

Related Articles

You can find more reports, studies and media scares on BPA here

And how to make epoxy resin here

post

BPA

by Posted in 1.4 Additives Fact Sheets Tagged , , , 1 Comment

Bisphenol A or BPA is it is known to its chums is used in

  • some thermal paper products such as till receipts.
  • the epoxy plastic liners found in many cans and tins,
  • polycarbonate plastics used to make hard plastic for CDs, cell phones, car parts, medical devices, safety goggles
  • Plastic microwave oven ware, eating utensils and  bottles (including baby bottles).
  • Plastics  labelled with the number “7” identification code. HOWEVER not all plastics labelled with the number “7” contain BPA. The number “7” code is assigned to the “Other” category, which includes all plastics not otherwise assigned to categories 1-6.

The chemical was invented in the 1930s during the search for synthetic estrogens.  Diethylstilbestrol was found to be a more powerful estrogen, so bisphenol A was put to other uses. It was polymerized to form polycarbonate plastic and used to make a wide range of products including those listed above.

Over the years there have been an increasing number of claims that the polymer  is not stable. That, over time, BPA breaks down over time and releases hormones into whatever product it comes into contact with.  Research has indeed proved that  BPA can leach into food from the epoxy linings in cans or from polycarbonate bottles, and that the rate increases if the containers are heated i.e. babies bottle being sterilised or a tin being heated.

However additional studies are now suggesting that the ingestion of leached BPA could be harmful. In March 1998 for example a study in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) found that BPA simulates the action of estrogen when tested in human breast cancer cells. A more recent study published in EHP shows a significant decrease of testosterone in male rats exposed to low levels of BPA. The study concludes that the new data is significant enough to evaluate the risk of human exposure to BPA.

BPA is now considered by many to be  a hormone disruptor, a chemical that alters the body’s normal hormonal activity.

In the last 10-15 years that concerns have been raised over its safety, particularly during pregnancy and for young babies.

In April 2008, the United States Department of Health and Human Services expressed concerns about it.

The Canadian government have just banned listed it a toxic substance and banned it from being used in baby bottles.

The following chart was taken from the very informative and interesting Wikkipedia article but you can find the same information all over the internet

Low dose exposure in animals

Dose (µg/kg/day) Effects (measured in studies of mice or rats,descriptions (in quotes) are from Environmental Working Group)[104][105] Study Year
0.025 “Permanent changes to genital tract” 2005[106]
0.025 “Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens” 2005[107]
1 long-term adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects 2009[76]
2 “increased prostate weight 30%” 1997[108]
2 “lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus.” 2002[109]
2.4 “Decline in testicular testosterone” 2004[110]
2.5 “Breast cells predisposed to cancer” 2007[111]
10 “Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer” 2006[112]
10 “Decreased maternal behaviors” 2002[113]
30 “Reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior” 2003[114]
50 Adverse neurological effects occur in non-human primates 2008[44]
50 Disrupts ovarian development 2009[77]

 

So why the hell is BPA still being used  you might ask – between  nervously checking your genital tract and belting the kids.

‘BPA is such an easy chemical to make and it’s so useful,’ explains Tamara Galloway, a professor in ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter, UK.  ‘It is made from very cheap ingredients – acetone and phenol – and it makes a nice, clear, rigid polycarbonate and is really useful for making epoxy resins. ” Via Chemistry World .

According toPlasticsEurope, an association representing European plastic manufacturers, polycarbonate technology contributed €37 billion to the EU in 2007. And they state that more than 550,000 jobs in the EU depend – either directly or indirectly – on the production and use of polycarbonate. Via Chemistry World .

Also the science is by no means conclusive. It has become something of a cause with consumer and green groups who are vociferous in their opposition. Media  reporting tends to concentrate on the negative aspects of any new reports. Yet several scientific panels, including the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Food, the National Toxicology Program and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, have all concluded that the claims that low doses of BPA affect human health have not (yet ), been substantiated. While accepting that animal testing has produced adverse results they can find no concrete evidence that humans will react the same way.

And even if they do, the amounts of BPA we ingest are so minimal as to be negligible.

In Europe, the tolerable daily intake for BPA is set at 0.05 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. This value is an estimate of the amount of a substance that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable risk. The figure was calculated in 2006 by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), who at the same time stated that intakes of BPA through food and drink, for adults and children, were well below this value.Via Chemistry World .

The current U.S. human exposure limit set by the EPA is 50 µg/kg/day.

Which means, as the BPA industry’s voice over at to bishenol-a.org puts it

“Based on the results of the SPI study, the estimated dietary intake of BPA from can coatings is less than 0.00011 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day. This level is more than 450 times lower than the maximum acceptable or “reference” dose for BPA of 0.05 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Which means an adult would have to eat  230 kilograms  of canned food and beverages every day of their life to exceed the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

As the toxicologists love to say – it’s not the poison but the dose…..

However, what is certain  is that  BPA is a $6 billion plus global industry. According to the National Institute of Health, approximately 940,000 tons of BPA are produced in the U.S. per year. About 21% is used in epoxy resins and most of the rest goes to polycarbonate.

want to know more – this is another good read.

You can find reports, studies and media scares on BPA here

More bad BPA news

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged ,

Could sterilising plastic bottles in hot water do more harm than good? Scott Belcher and his colleagues at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio have found that polycarbonate plastic bottles release up to 55 times more bisphenol A (BPA) after they’ve been washed in boiling water.

BPA is found in many plastic food and drink containers and has been linked to breast and prostate cancer. Because they are often reused, Belcher wanted to test whether old containers leached BPA into their contents faster than new ones. His team filled new and used polycarbonate plastic bottles with water and kept them at room temperature for a week. They found that the rate of BPA release into the water by new and used bottles was an average of 0.49 nanograms an hour.

But when the team mimicked sterilisation by filling the bottles with boiling water and leaving them to cool, they found that the average rate of BPA release jumped to 18.67 nanograms per hour. This continued even after the bottles had cooled and been rinsed out (Toxicology Letters, DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.11.001).

While the levels of released BPA fall within safe limits as currently defined by the European Food Safety Authority, Belcher suggests switching to bottles made of high-density polyethylene as a precaution.

As reported in new scientist

Meanwhile Canada has already banned BPA in babaies bottles an American lawmakers are discussing banning BPA in childrens food products

More

“As staunch supporters of the anti-BPA campaign we were very pleased to see coverage in the British media last Friday of a new report linking BPA to breast cancer. The Daily Mail and the BBC both featured articles about Professor Anna Soto, an expert in cancer development ar the University of Ulster, who has recently carried out research on BPA . She is warning that BPA can trigger toxins which lead to cancer after discovering that foetal and neonatal exposure to the chemical increases the likelihood of development of malignant tumours later in life.

To read this artice in full including up to date reports from the BBC go to baby born free of baby born free feeding bottles. to quote the website “BornFree’s award winning leak proof BPA-Free baby bottles come in plastic (PES) or glass and feature an anti-colic vent designed for comfortable and safe feeding.”

More

In 1998, Dr. Patricia Hunt of Case Western University in Ohio discovered that damaged or worn or warm plastics made from polycarbonate resin can leach biphenyl. She is still studying the subject. You can read about her here….

More

Interesting article here

Teeguarden says that pM levels of BPA ought not to be a concern for us. This is because if the hypothesis that BPA causes harm by mimicking oestrogen is correct, then the dose of the chemical your average person receives everyday is 100 to 10,000 times lower than those needed to activate the hormone receptors. He also makes the point that the term ‘low dose’ has become somewhat debased in the BPA literature. When he looked at 130 animal studies using that term, the vast majority used BPA levels many times higher than a person would ever encounter in their diet. He says that this is more than just an academic point as it has contributed to confusion among toxicologists, epidemiologists and the general public.

More

B.P.A. Soup thats gross.

Heinz ‘committed’ to cutting health scare chemical BPA | News | The Grocer.

I am so glad I boycott tin cans

More

Find out more about BPA “here

post

domestic waste created in the US in 2008

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged
Material Weight Generated Weight Recovered Recovery as Percent of Generation
Paper and paperboard 77.42 42.94 55.5%
Glass 12.15 2.81 23.1%
Metals
Steel 15.68 5.29 33.7%
Aluminum 3.41 0.72 21.1%
Other nonferrous metals† 1.76 1.21 68.8%
Total metals 20.85 7.22 34.6%
Plastics 30.05 2.12 7.1%
Rubber and leather 7.41 1.06 14.3%
Textiles 12.37 1.89 15.3%
Wood 16.39 1.58 9.6%
Other materials 4.50 1.15 25.6%
Total materials in products 181.14 60.77 33.5%
Other wastes
Food, other‡ 31.79 0.80 2.5%
Yard trimmings 32.90 21.30 64.7%
Miscellaneous inorganic wastes 3.78 Negligible Negligible
Total other wastes 68.47 22.10 32.3%
Total municipal solid waste 249.61 82.87 33.2%

Taken from  http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/index.htm

Microplastics Reports

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged 2 Comments

Rachid Dris, Johnny Gasperi, Mohamed Saad, Cécile Mirande, Bruno Tassin, Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment?, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Available online 17 January 2016, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X16300066)

Abstract: Sources, pathways and reservoirs of microplastics, plastic particles smaller than 5 mm, remain poorly documented in an urban context. While some studies pointed out wastewater treatment plants as a potential pathway of microplastics, none have focused on the atmospheric compartment. In this work, the atmospheric fallout of microplastics was investigated in two different urban and sub-urban sites. Microplastics were collected continuously with a stainless steel funnel. Samples were then filtered and observed with a stereomicroscope. Fibers accounted for almost all the microplastics collected. An atmospheric fallout between 2 and 355 particles/m2/day was highlighted. Registered fluxes were systematically higher at the urban than at the sub-urban site. Chemical characterization allowed to estimate at 29% the proportion of these fibers being all synthetic (made with petrochemicals), or a mixture of natural and synthetic material. Extrapolation using weight and volume estimates of the collected fibers, allowed a rough estimation showing that between 3 and 10 tons of fibers are deposited by atmospheric fallout at the scale of the Parisian agglomeration every year (2500 km2). These results could serve the scientific community working on the different sources of microplastic in both continental and marine environments.

Keywords: Microplastics; Urban environment; Atmospheric fallout; Microplastic sources; Synthetic fibers

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X16300066_In_Press_Corrected_Proof.pdf

Note to users:

Corrected proofs are Articles in Press that contain the authors’ corrections. Final citation details, e.g., volume and/or issue number, publication year and page numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.

Although corrected proofs do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI , as follows: author(s), article title, Publication (year), DOI. Please consult the journal’s reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.

When the final article is assigned to volumes/issues of the Publication, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published volumes/issues of the Publication. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.

Maria Cristina Fossi, Letizia Marsili, Matteo Baini, Matteo Giannetti, Daniele Coppola, Cristiana Guerranti, Ilaria Caliani, Roberta Minutoli, Giancarlo Lauriano, Maria Grazia Finoia, Fabrizio Rubegni, Simone Panigada, Martine Bérubé, Jorge Urbán Ramírez, Cristina Panti, Fin whales and microplastics: The Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Cortez scenarios, Environmental Pollution, Volume 209, February 2016, Pages 68-78, ISSN 0269-7491, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.022.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749115301822)

Abstract: The impact that microplastics have on baleen whales is a question that remains largely unexplored. This study examined the interaction between free-ranging fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and microplastics by comparing populations living in two semi-enclosed basins, the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California, Mexico). The results indicate that a considerable abundance of microplastics and plastic additives exists in the neustonic samples from Pelagos Sanctuary of the Mediterranean Sea, and that pelagic areas containing high densities of microplastics overlap with whale feeding grounds, suggesting that whales are exposed to microplastics during foraging; this was confirmed by the observation of a temporal increase in toxicological stress in whales. Given the abundance of microplastics in the Mediterranean environment, along with the high concentrations of Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) chemicals, plastic additives and biomarker responses detected in the biopsies of Mediterranean whales as compared to those in whales inhabiting the Sea of Cortez, we believe that exposure to microplastics because of direct ingestion and consumption of contaminated prey poses a major threat to the health of fin whales in the Mediterranean Sea.

Keywords: Microplastics; Baleen whales; Plastic additives; PBT chemicals; Mediterranean Sea; Sea of Cortez

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0269749115301822.pdf

Scott Lambert, Martin Wagner, Characterisation of nanoplastics during the degradation of polystyrene, Chemosphere, Volume 145, February 2016, Pages 265-268, ISSN 0045-6535, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.078.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653515304094)

Abstract: The release of plastics into the environment has been identified as an important issue for some time. Recent publications have suggested that the degradation of plastic materials will result in the release of nano-sized plastic particles to the environment. Nanoparticle tracking analysis was applied to characterise the formation of nanoplastics during the degradation of a polystyrene (PS) disposable coffee cup lid. The results clearly show an increase in the formation of nanoplastics over time. After 56 days’ exposure the concentration of nanoplastics in the PS sample was 1.26 × 108 particles/ml (average particles size 224 nm) compared to 0.41 × 108 particles/ml in the control.

Keywords: Nanoplastics; Microplastics; Polystyrene; Degradation; Environment; Nanoparticle tracking analysis

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653515304094/pdfft?md5=a269e36a0f6530b3682cbae250ba1827&pid=1-s2.0-S0045653515304094-main.pdf

Charlene Boucher, Marie Morin, L.I. Bendell, The influence of cosmetic microbeads on the sorptive behavior of cadmium and lead within intertidal sediments: A laboratory study, Regional Studies in Marine Science, Volume 3, January 2016, Pages 1-7, ISSN 2352-4855, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2015.11.009.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352485515300025)

Abstract: Concentrations of microplastics within two geographically distinct urban locations within Burrard Inlet, British Columbia (BC), and the influence of facial scrub microbeads on lead and cadmium sorption within intertidal sediments were determined. Bulk intertidal sediment sampled from Cates Park (CP) located within the protected part of the inlet contained greater concentrations of microplastics (5560/kg wet sediment) as compared to Horseshoe Bay (HSB) (3120/kg wet sediment) located on the exposed open part of the inlet. Of the recovered microplastics ca. 75% were characterized as microbeads. Laboratory controlled microcosm experiments in which microbeads separated from a commercial facial scrub were added to bulk sediments collected from CP at ambient and 10-fold ambient (high) concentrations indicated that the microbeads acted as sorption sites. At ambient concentrations, less lead was recovered from pore water and surface water of treatment as compared to control microcosms. At high concentrations, the microbeads acted as a contaminant source to the microcosms, notably cadmium. Sorption of lead to microbeads has important implications for the potential role of microplastics, in this case microbeads acting as a yet quantified link in aquatic food webs.

Keywords: Microbeads; Lead; Cadmium; Intertidal sediments; Flood tide; Ebb tide

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S2352485515300025.pdf

Pedro Ferreira, Elsa Fonte, M. Elisa Soares, Felix Carvalho, Lúcia Guilhermino, Effects of multi-stressors on juveniles of the marine fish Pomatoschistus microps: Gold nanoparticles, microplastics and temperature, Aquatic Toxicology, Volume 170, January 2016, Pages 89-103, ISSN 0166-445X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2015.11.011.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166445X15300941)

Abstract: Knowledge on multi-stressors effects required for environmental and human risk assessments is still limited. This study investigated the combined effects of gold nanoparticles (Au-NP), microplastics (MP) and temperature increase on Pomatoschistus microps, an important prey for several higher level predators, including some species edible to humans. Four null hypotheses were tested: H01: P. microps juveniles do not take up Au-NP through the water; H02: Au-NP (ppb range) are not toxic to juveniles; H03: the presence of MP do not influence the effects of Au-NP on juveniles; H04: temperature increase (20–25 °C) does not change the effects of the tested chemicals on juveniles. Wild juveniles were acclimated to laboratory conditions. Then, they were exposed to Au-NP (≈5 nm diameter) and MP (polyethylene spheres, 1–5 μm diameter), alone and in mixture, at 20 °C and 25 °C, in semi-static conditions. After 96 h of exposure to Au-NP, fish had gold in their body (0.129–0.546 μg/g w.w.) leading to H01 refusal. Exposure to Au-NP alone caused a predatory performance decrease (≈−39%, p < 0.05) leading to H02 refusal. MP did not change the Au-NP toxicity leading to H03 acceptance. Temperature rise significantly increased the concentration of gold in fish exposed to Au-NP (≈2.3 fold), and interacted with chemical effects (e.g. glutathione S-transferases activity) leading to H04 refusal. Thus, the results of this study highlight the importance of further investigating the effects of multi-stressors on marine fish, particularly the effects of temperature on the uptake, biotransformation, elimination and effects of nanoparticles and microplastics, either alone or in mixture. This knowledge is most important to improve the basis for environmental and human risk assessments of these environmental contaminants of high concern.

Keywords: Pomatoschistus microps; Temperature; Gold nanoparticles; Microplastics; Predatory performance; Biomarkers

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0166445X15300941.pdf

Sascha B. Sjollema, Paula Redondo-Hasselerharm, Heather A. Leslie, Michiel H.S. Kraak, A. Dick Vethaak, Do plastic particles affect microalgal photosynthesis and growth?, Aquatic Toxicology, Volume 170, January 2016, Pages 259-261, ISSN 0166-445X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2015.12.002.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166445X15301168)

Abstract: The unbridled increase in plastic pollution of the world’s oceans raises concerns about potential effects these materials may have on microalgae, which are primary producers at the basis of the food chain and a major global source of oxygen. Our current understanding about the potential modes and mechanisms of toxic action that plastic particles exert on microalgae is extremely limited. How effects might vary with particle size and the physico-chemical properties of the specific plastic material in question are equally unelucidated, but may hold clues to how toxicity, if observed, is exerted. In this study we selected polystyrene particles, both negatively charged and uncharged, and three different sizes (0.05, 0.5 and 6 μm) for testing the effects of size and material properties. Microalgae were exposed to different polystyrene particle sizes and surface charges for 72 h. Effects on microalgal photosynthesis and growth were determined by pulse amplitude modulation fluorometry and flow cytometry, respectively. None of the treatments tested in these experiments had an effect on microalgal photosynthesis. Microalgal growth was negatively affected (up to 45%) by uncharged polystyrene particles, but only at high concentrations (250 mg/L). Additionally, these adverse effects were demonstrated to increase with decreasing particle size.

Keywords: Primary production; Plastic pollution; Microplastics; Nanoplastics; Polystyrene particles; PAM assay

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0166445X15301168.pdf

Fares John Biginagwa, Bahati Sosthenes Mayoma, Yvonne Shashoua, Kristian Syberg, Farhan R. Khan, First evidence of microplastics in the African Great Lakes: Recovery from Lake Victoria Nile perch and Nile tilapia, Journal of Great Lakes Research, Available online 11 November 2015, ISSN 0380-1330, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2015.10.012.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133015002105)

Abstract: Microplastic contamination in the African Great Lakes is currently unreported, and compared to other regions of the world little is known about the occurrence of microplastics in African waters and their fauna. The present study was conducted in the Mwanza region of Tanzania, located on the southern shore of Lake Victoria. The gastrointestinal tracts of locally fished Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) were examined for plastics. Plastics were confirmed in 20% of fish from each species by Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. A variety of polymer types were identified with likely sources being urban waste and consumer use. Although further research is required to fully assess the impact of plastic pollution in this region, our study is the first to report the presence of microplastics in Africa’s Great Lakes and within the fish species that inhabit them.

Index words: Plastic ingestion; Lates niloticus; Oreochromis niloticus; Lake Victoria; East Africa; ATR-FTIR analysis

Note to users: Corrected proofs are Articles in Press that contain the authors’ corrections. Final citation details, e.g., volume and/or issue number, publication year and page numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.

Although corrected proofs do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI , as follows: author(s), article title, Publication (year), DOI. Please consult the journal’s reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.

When the final article is assigned to volumes/issues of the Publication, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published volumes/issues of the Publication. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0380133015002105_In_Press_Corrected_Proof.pdf

https://usresponserestoration.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/on-the-hunt-for-shipping-containers-lost-off-california-coast/

On the Hunt for Shipping Containers Lost off California Coast

December 16, 2015 by Office of Response and Restoration

On December 11, 2015, the Matson container ship M/V Manoa was en route to Seattle from Oakland, California, when it lost 12 large containers in heavy seas. At the time of the spill, the ship was maneuvering in order to allow the San Francisco Bay harbor pilot to disembark.

The containers, which are 40 feet long and 9 feet wide, are reported as empty except for miscellaneous packing materials, such as plastic crates and packing materials such as Styrofoam. Luckily there were no hazardous materials in the cargo that was spilled.

The accident occurred about eight miles outside of the Golden Gate Bridge in the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Three containers have come ashore, two at or near Baker Beach, just south of the Golden Gate Bridge, and one at Mori Point near Pacifica, California. The search continues for the others.

http://www.albieandphil.com

Who are Albie and Phil?

Albie Cross (young Albatross) and Phil (crab with a  bad sense of humour) have come into your world to help explain the damaged caused by plastic pollution and make us think twice about our disposable society and behaviour of consuming plastic bottles.

They would like you to join their movement and help raise awareness that the 200 billion plastic bottles consumed per year is not just killing them by ultimately will threaten the entire eco system of this planet, wildlife and us.

Be inspired to change your decision to consume plastic bottles and make the choice to be the leader in your family, school, at work, at your social club or gym, down the pool, at the beach, walking in the park, on the TV, on a photo shoot, in the paper or anytime you take a drink of water.

It’s simple, Albie and Phil ask you to just think before you drink to help reduce your plastic footprint.

http://plastinography.org

Welcome to your first plastinography lesson

You have probably heard there’s lots of plastic in the ocean. But how does it get there? Why is it bad? And what can you do? In six lessons, we’ll take you through the basics of plastics in the ocean: plastinography.

Let’s take a look at where the plastic problem starts. Close this screen and start exploring by clicking on the circles.

Once you’ve clicked on all the circles, go to the next lesson. Or use the navigation button in the top left to move through all the lessons.

Dear colleagues,

Since nothing was sent during the period from 16 September to 14 December, please find below the articles published in volumes 99 (15 October 2015) and 100 (15 November 2015) of the Marine Pollution Bulletin.

Kind regards,

Fabiano

Weiwei Zhang, Xindong Ma, Zhifeng Zhang, Yan Wang, Juying Wang, Jing Wang, Deyi Ma, Persistent organic pollutants carried on plastic resin pellets from two beaches in China, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 October 2015, Pages 28-34, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.002.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15005068)

Abstract: Microplastics provide a mechanism for the long-range transport of hydrophobic chemical contaminants to remote coastal and marine locations. In this study, plastic resin pellets were collected from Zhengmingsi Beach and Dongshan Beach in China. The collected pellets were analyzed for PAHs, PCBs, HCHs, DDTs, chlordane, heptachlor, endosulfan, aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. The total concentration of PCBs ranged from 34.7–213.7 ng g−1 and from 21.5–323.2 ng g−1 in plastic resin pellets for Zhengmingsi Beach and Dongshan Beach respectively. The highest concentrations of PCBs were observed for congeners 44, 110, 138, 155 and 200. The total concentration of PAHs ranged from 136.3–1586.9 ng g−1 and from 397.6–2384.2 ng g−1 in the plastic pellets, whereas DDTs concentration ranged from 1.2–101.5 ng g−1 and from 1.5–127.0 ng g−1 for the two beaches. The elevated concentrations of pollutants appear to be related to extensive industrial development, agricultural activity and the use of coal in the area.

Keywords: Microplastics; PCBs; PAHs; OCPs

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15005068.pdf

Lincoln Fok, P.K. Cheung, Hong Kong at the Pearl River Estuary: A hotspot of microplastic pollution, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 October 2015, Pages 112-118, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.050.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15004701)

Abstract: Large plastic (>5 mm) and microplastic (0.315–5 mm) debris were collected from 25 beaches along the Hong Kong coastline. More than 90% consisted of microplastics. Among the three groups of microplastic debris, expanded polystyrene (EPS) represented 92%, fragments represented 5%, and pellets represented 3%. The mean microplastic abundance for Hong Kong was 5595 items/m2. This number is higher than international averages, indicating that Hong Kong is a hotspot of marine plastic pollution. Microplastic abundance was significantly higher on the west coast than on the east coast, indicating that the Pearl River, which is west of Hong Kong, may be a potential source of plastic debris. The amounts of large plastic and microplastic debris of the same types (EPS and fragments) were positively correlated, suggesting that the fragmentation of large plastic material may increase the quantity of beach microplastic debris.

Keywords: Marine debris; Microplastics; Abundance; Beach survey; Hong Kong; Pearl River Estuary

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15004701.pdf

Imogen E. Napper, Adil Bakir, Steven J. Rowland, Richard C. Thompson, Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 October 2015, Pages 178-185, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1500449X)

Abstract: Cosmetic products, such as facial scrubs, have been identified as potentially important primary sources of microplastics to the marine environment. This study characterises, quantifies and then investigates the sorptive properties of plastic microbeads that are used as exfoliants in cosmetics. Polyethylene microbeads were extracted from several products, and shown to have a wide size range (mean diameters between 164 and 327 μm). We estimated that between 4594 and 94,500 microbeads could be released in a single use. To examine the potential for microbeads to accumulate and transport chemicals they were exposed to a binary mixture of 3H-phenanthrene and 14C-DDT in seawater. The potential for transport of sorbed chemicals by microbeads was broadly similar to that of polythene (PE) particles used in previous sorption studies. In conclusion, cosmetic exfoliants are a potentially important, yet preventable source of microplastic contamination in the marine environment.

Keywords: Microplastic; Exfoliating microbeads; Polyethylene; Ocean pollution; Contaminant

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X1500449X.pdf

Andrea Stolte, Stefan Forster, Gunnar Gerdts, Hendrik Schubert, Microplastic concentrations in beach sediments along the German Baltic coast, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 October 2015, Pages 216-229, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.022.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15004427)

Abstract: The contamination with microplastic particles and fibres was evaluated on beaches along the German Baltic coast. Sediments were sampled near the Warnow and Oder/Peene estuaries, on Rügen island and along the Rostock coast to derive possible entry pathways. Seasonal variations were monitored along the Rostock coast from March to July 2014. After density separation in saline solution, floating particles were found to be dominated by sand grains. Water surface tension is shown to be sufficient to explain floatation of grains with sizes less than 1.5 mm. Selecting intensely coloured particles and fibres, we find lower limits of the microplastic concentrations of 0–7 particles/kg and 2–11 fibres/kg dry sediment. The largest microplastic contaminations are measured at the Peene outlet into the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea Jade Bay. City discharges, industrial production sites, fishing activity and tourism are the most likely sources for the highest microplastic concentrations.

Keywords: Microplastics; Marine debris; German Baltic coast; Abundance; Spatial distribution; Seasonal variation

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15004427.pdf

Elena Gorokhova, Screening for microplastic particles in plankton samples: How to integrate marine litter assessment into existing monitoring programs?, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 October 2015, Pages 271-275, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.056.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15004762)

Abstract: Microplastics (MPs) are a newly recognized type of environmental pollution in aquatic systems; however no monitoring of these contaminants is conducted, mostly due to the lack of routine quantification. In the net samples collected with a 90-μm WP2 net, pelagic MP abundance was quantified by light microscopy and evaluated as a function of inshore–offshore gradient, depth, and season; the same samples were used for zooplankton analysis. The MP abundance was ∼102–104 particles m−3, with no significant inshore–offshore gradient during summer but increasing offshore in winter. MP abundance in deeper layers was positively affected by zooplankton abundance in the upper layers and significantly lower during winter compared to summer. These findings indicate heterogeneity of MP distribution due to biotic and abiotic factors and suggest that samples collected for other purposes can be used for quantification of MPs in the Baltic Sea, thus facilitating integration of MP assessment into existing monitoring schemes.

Keywords: Pelagic microplastics; Marine litter; Zooplankton monitoring; Vertical distribution; Baltic Sea; Copepods

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15004762.pdf

Diogo Neves, Paula Sobral, Tânia Pereira, Marine litter in bottom trawls off the Portuguese coast, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 99, Issues 1–2, 15 October 2015, Pages 301-304, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.044.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15004646)

Abstract: Benthic marine litter along the Portuguese coast, was recorded in 14 trips on stern trawlers covering a distance of 2117 km and an area of 56.2 km2, average depth range 90–349 m. 2034 items of marine litter were registered, 76% were plastics and 38.6% were originated from fishing related activities. Plastic was present in all the trawls and had the highest average density of all litter categories, 50 items km−2.

The highest density of marine litter (178.9 ± 64.0 items km−2) was found in the proximity of the Tagus river mouth, probably related to the high population density in the Lisbon metropolitan area.

This study highlights the need to raise fishermen awareness for the adoption of good environmental practices that will contribute to the reduction of marine litter.

Keywords: Bottom marine litter trawls; Plastics; Fishing gear; Portugal

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15004646.pdf

Kristina Enders, Robin Lenz, Colin A. Stedmon, Torkel G. Nielsen, Abundance, size and polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥ 10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled vertical distribution, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 100, Issue 1, 15 November 2015, Pages 70-81, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.027.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15300370)

Abstract: We studied abundance, size and polymer type of microplastic down to 10 μm along a transect from the European Coast to the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (NASG) using an underway intake filtration technique and Raman micro-spectrometry. Concentrations ranged from 13 to 501 items m− 3. Highest concentrations were observed at the European coast, decreasing towards mid-Atlantic waters but elevated in the western NASG. We observed highest numbers among particles in the 10–20 μm size fraction, whereas the total volume was highest in the 50–80 μm range. Based on a numerical model size-dependent depth profiles of polyethylene microspheres in a range from 10–1000 μm were calculated and show a strong dispersal throughout the surface mixed layer for sizes smaller than 200 μm. From model and field study results we conclude that small microplastic is ubiquitously distributed over the ocean surface layer and has a lower residence time than larger plastic debris in this compartment.

Keywords: Small microplastic; Continuous monitoring; Horizontal distribution; Size-selective vertical distribution; Model

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15300370.pdf

Robin Lenz, Kristina Enders, Colin A. Stedmon, David M.A. Mackenzie, Torkel Gissel Nielsen, A critical assessment of visual identification of marine microplastic using Raman spectroscopy for analysis improvement, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 100, Issue 1, 15 November 2015, Pages 82-91, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.026.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15300424)

Abstract: Identification and characterisation of microplastic (MP) is a necessary step to evaluate their concentrations, chemical composition and interactions with biota. MP ≥ 10 μm diameter filtered from below the sea surface in the European and subtropical North Atlantic were simultaneously identified by visual microscopy and Raman micro-spectroscopy. Visually identified particles below 100 μm had a significantly lower percentage confirmed by Raman than larger ones indicating that visual identification alone is inappropriate for studies on small microplastics. Sixty-eight percent of visually counted MP (n = 1279) were spectroscopically confirmed being plastic. The percentage varied with type, colour and size of the MP. Fibres had a higher success rate (75%) than particles (64%). We tested Raman micro-spectroscopy applicability for MP identification with respect to varying chemical composition (additives), degradation state and organic matter coating. Partially UV-degraded post-consumer plastics provided identifiable Raman spectra for polymers most common among marine MP, i.e. polyethylene and polypropylene.

Keywords: Small microplastics; RAMAN; Spectroscopy; Photodegradation

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15300424.pdf

Melissa B. Phillips, Timothy H. Bonner, Occurrence and amount of microplastic ingested by fishes in watersheds of the Gulf of Mexico, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 100, Issue 1, 15 November 2015, Pages 264-269, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.041.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X15300060)

Abstract: Ingestion of microplastics by fishes could be an emerging environmental crisis because of the proliferation of plastic pollution in aquatic environments. Microplastics in marine ecosystems are well documented, however only one study has reported percent occurrence of microplastics in freshwater fishes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the occurrences and types of microplastics ingested by fishes within several freshwater drainages of the Gulf of Mexico and an estuary of the Gulf of Mexico. Among 535 fishes examined in this study, 8% of the freshwater fishes and 10% of the marine fishes had microplastics in their gut tract. Percentage occurrence of microplastics ingested by fishes in non-urbanized streams (5%) was less than that of one of the urbanized streams (Neches River; 29%). Percent occurrence of microplastics by habitat (i.e., benthic, pelagic) and trophic guilds (herbivore/omnivore, invertivore, carnivore) were similar. Low but widespread occurrences among drainages, habitat guilds, and trophic guilds indicate proliferation of plastic pollution within watersheds of the Gulf of Mexico, but consequences to fish health are unknown at this time.

Keywords: Plastic pollution; Texas rivers; Habitat guilds; Trophic guilds; Urbanized and non-urbanized streams

http://www.globalgarbage.org.br/mailinglist/S0025326X15300060.pdf

Camels & Plastic

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged 5 Comments

Every year hundreds of camels die each year from ingesting plastic bags.

“Every day we have a camel that has died in a camel camp. One in every two camels dies from plastic,” Dr. Ulrich Wernery, scientific director at the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory in Dubai told English-language daily Gulf News.

Rocks of calcified plastic weighing up to 60 kilograms are found in camel stomachs every day, said Wernery, whose clinic conducts hundreds of post-mortems on camels, gazelles, sheep and cows.

Wernery said the curious animals nibble on plastic bags that are thrown from car windows or dumped in the desert by campers and day-trippers.

The veteran animal doctor told Gulf News that the animals ingest plastic bags and ropes which then calcify in their stomach. The heavy rocks or balls fill up the stomach and make it impossible for the animals to eat, causing them to eventually die of starvation.

“Camel calves are the worst affected because they are so curious,” he added.

Calling for an end to the “fatal pollution,” Wernery said residents must stop polluting the desert with plastic.

“I’ve been here for twenty years and first noticed this about fifteen years ago,” said Wernery, adding that the situation is getting worse by the year.

Wernery said he was shocked after a recent visit to a desert area in the northern UAE emirate of Ras Al Khaimah, where owners had dumped the bodies of animals that had died from plastic ingestion.

“I counted more than 30 carcasses and I named the place ‘Death Valley’,” he said.

Taken fromalarabiya

Lots more on plastic in animals here

Whales & Dolphins

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged

The Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust took various skin and blubber samples and removed the stomach for further study by the Scottish Agricultural College. On initial removal it was found that the entrance to the stomach was completely blocked with a cylinder of tightly packed shredded black plastic binliner bags and fishing twine.

It is believed that this made it difficult for the animal to forage and feed effectively. This would have a biologically significant impact on the animal’s ability to survive. Full analysis of the stomach contents is currently being undertaken. Cuviers Beaked whales usually prey on squid and catch their prey through the action of suction. It is believed that Cuviers Beaked whales mistake plastic bags in the water column for their prey species squid and ingest them.

In previous years a number of Cuviers Beaked whales stranded in Scotland have been found to have plastic bags in their stomachs. For any more details on this case please contact the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust at 28 Main Street. Tobermory. Isle of Mull. Scotland. PA75 6NU. 01688 302620. email info@hwdt.org”

More reports

*Harbour Porpoise (Walker and Coe. 1990) 

Pygmy Sperm Whale (Tarpley. 1990)

In April 2002 a dead Minke whale washed up on the Normandy coast. An investigation found its stomach contained 800g of plastic bags and packaging including two English supermarket plastic bags (GECC. 2002).

More

More reports on other animal deaths can be found here