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

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

post

Elephants & Plastic

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies Tagged 3 Comments

Wild life vet Jerry Haigh writes “Meanwhile three elephants in Chobe National Park died after eating trash from the Chobe landfill.”

A senior Wildlife Biologist, Mr Keagapetse Mosugelo said the elephants died as a result of plastics they ate in the landfill.

“The situation at the landfill is not good for animals,”

he said, adding that the electric fence that has been installed is not sufficient as birds will still flying in to eat waste.

Chobe, which is a fascinating park that lies right in the north of Botswana, is one of the areas on the continent where elephants have created their own min-deserts as they are so abundant that have almost eaten themselves out of house and home.

El morgo s photo rubbish elephants illustrates the point. This is why I boycott plastic.

 

Birds & Plastic

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

Black footed Albatross (Sileo et al 1990)

Northern Fulmar (van Franeker. 1985. 2003. 2005)

Herring Gull Great Black-backed Gull (Day et al. 1985)

A large Sugar Gum tree branch fell down in the local school over summer. I had a look and in the branches was a dead magpie and a nest. There was plastic tangled around the magpie’s foot. It looks as though the parents used some plastic in the building of the nest. When the youngster grew up he became tangled and couldn’t fly. He must have starved to death, hanging upside down by his foot.

words and photo Originally uploaded by Geoffmo

Brown Booby, the commonest of the boobies alon...

Brown Booby, the commonest of the boobies along Panama’s coasts. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jennifer L. Lavers, Jarrod C. Hodgson, Rohan H. Clarke, Prevalence and composition of marine debris in Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster) nests at Ashmore Reef, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 77, Issues 1–2, 15
December 2013, Pages 320-324, ISSN 0025-326X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.09.026

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X13005778)
Abstract: Anthropogenic debris is ubiquitous in the marine environment
and has been reported to negatively impact hundreds of species globally.
Seabirds are particularly at risk from entanglement in debris due to
their habit of collecting food and, in many cases, nesting material off
the ocean’s surface. We compared the prevalence and composition of
debris in nests and along the beach at two Brown Booby (Sula
leucogaster) colonies on Ashmore Reef, Timor Sea, a remote area known to
contain high densities of debris transported by ocean currents. The
proportion of nests with debris varied across islands (range 3–31%),
likely in response to the availability of natural nesting materials.
Boobies exhibited a preference for debris colour (white and black), but
not type. The ephemeral nature of Brown Booby nests on Ashmore Reef may
limit their utility as indicators of marine pollution, however
monitoring is recommended in light of increasing demand for plastic
products.
Keywords: Brown Booby; Marine debris; Nesting ecology; Plastic
pollution; Sula leucogaster; Timor Sea

 

 

More

More reports on other animal deaths can be found here

post

Plastics & Birds

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

Click here for the slide show

A Dutch study in the North Sea of fulmar seabirds concluded 95 per cent of the birds had plastic in their stomachs. More than 1600 pieces were found in the stomach of one bird in Belgium.

Since his first encounter with the gyre in 1997, Moore created the Algalita Marine Research Foundation to help study the problem. Canadian filmmaker Ian Connacher joined Moore last year to film the garbage patch for his documentary, I Am Plastic.

“The most menacing part is those little bits of plastic start looking like food for certain animals, or the filter feeders don’t have any choice, they just pick them up,” noted Connacher.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is hiding beneath the surface of the islands of garbage. Greenpeace reports that about 70 per cent of the plastic that makes it to the ocean sinks to the bottom, where it then smothers marine life on the ocean floor. Dutch scientists have found 600,000 tons of discarded plastic on the bottom of the North Sea alone.

A study by the Japanese geochemist Hideshige Takada and his colleagues at Tokyo University in 2001 found that plastic polymers soak up the resilient poisons such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls. The researchers found that non-water-soluble toxic chemicals can be found in plastic in levels as high as a million times their concentration in water. As small pieces of plastic are mistaken for fish eggs and other food by marine life, these toxins end up at the dinner table. But even without the extra toxins, eating plastic is hazardous to health.

see http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/are-there-reall.html

 

Find  plastic free products with the >>>A-Z<<< plastic free index

post

Clothes hangers

by Posted in 2.1 reports, stats and studies, 3.1 House, Office & Garden, 3.1.7 wear Tagged 7 Comments

Plastic coat hangers? I hate them. They are rubbish, break easily and are bad for your clothes.
They are usually given away with a purchase of clothing..
Even if you refuse the hanger don’t fondly think it is automatically going to be reused. Many clothes now are bought, ready- hung from the manufacturer. They are not hung in store.
Some of the larger coat hangers may be reused at home but there is a limit to how many coat hangers you need.

And if you are talking knickers vests and the like, those hangers are little more than one-use disposables. Unless you have a strange fetish for them, you don’t keep them and the stores certainly don’t reuse them.

The amount of waste created by these disposable hangers in phenomenal. It is claimed the USA alone they get through 8 billion plastic /wire hangers a year . – enough to fill the empire states building 4 times over. You can  find a lot more statistics on hanger abuse here.

And no recycling is not the answer!

Saying NO to plastic coat hangers

Refuse – I try to buy un-hung clothes when ever possible. That means clothes that are not displayed on hangers.

  1. What To Do With Plastic Hangers

    Reuse – but if you do end up with unwanted hangers you can try giving them away.  Charity shops sometimes need more coat hangers and you can often get rid of them them via  free cycle.

    Return I don’t have many clothes that need dry cleaning, but when I do get that done, I return the hanger.

    Plastic Free Alternatives

    At Home

    Wooden Hangers At home I hang my clothes on wooden hangers. I buy mine from wherever I see them (including Ikea).

    In Shops

    If you are a shop owner or dry cleaner and you really need a disposable hanger – here’s are some addresses for cardboard hangers you can recycle.

    U.K Hangers Of London

    Defenda are made in the U.K.

    If you are questioning your use of plastic or wire coat hangers, due to the environmentally devastating effect their disposal has on landfill each year, you will be delighted to know that an alternative exists.

    DEFENDA Green Hangers Are Environmentally Friendly Corrugated Cardboard Clothes Hangers / Coat Hangers.
    UK Manufactured For Reduced Import Miles

    These Strong ECO-FRIENDLY Corrugated Alternatives To Plastic & Metal Wire Coat Hangers Are Produced From Recycled Corrugated Board & Are 100% Recyclable. They Are Ideal For Commercial Or Domestic Use i.e. Dry Cleaning Companies, Laundrettes, Clothes Shops / Retailers etc

    They Are Also A Safer Option For Organisations Where Safety Is a Concern Such As: HM Prison Services, Mental Health Facilities, Care & Nursing Homes & Many Other Institutions Where Metal Or Plastic Hangers Can Be Used As Weapons Or Allow For Self-Harming Among Patients.

    SUPPLIED TO UK & EUROPEAN COUNTRIES – CALL COVENTRY 02476 422000 FOR INFORMATION

    Or these Normn Hangers

    The Solid Board that the hangers are made from is 100% recycled. The hangers too are 100% recyclable after you are done using them. So when its time for fresh ones, you can just pop the old ones into the paper recycling and they’ll re-surface perhaps as a paper cup, stationary or maybe even into a new, cool sustainable hanger. PLUS our hangers are printed with vegetable-based inks – they do absolutely no harm to nature.

    Sustainability in manufacturing

    All our hangers are produced by our exclusive partner Smurfit Kappa. They are one of the world’s largest integrated manufacturers of paper-based packaging products. They have also won several sustainability awards. We continuously work closely with Smurfit Kappa to research and develop new models of perfectly crafted, sustainable hangers.

    Abroad

    USA 

    This company are promoting a solution; a fibre board biodegradable hanger and a campaign against the plastic hanger . Here is their promotional material

    Plastic hanger facts
    Approximately 85% of plastic retail hangers no reused or recycled
    90% of America’s clothes now imported
    30-40 billion clothes come into the United States on plastic hangers
    85% of 30-40 billion is 25. > 34 billion hangers into landfills every year.
    34 billion landfilled hangers would fill almost 20 Empire State Buildings
    40 billion hangers end to end would stretch 8 million miles, far beyond the orbit of the moon—every year.
    Polystyrene hangers off-gas benzene in clothing and leaches benzene into the ground water.
    Polycarbonate hangers leach bisphenol-a into ground water.
    Plastic hangers take over 1,000 years to break down in an anerobic landfill. All for a one-time use.
    Why so many hangers?
    Growing industry trend of one-use plastic hangers
    Garments on Hangers (GOH) – hangers are put on clothing overseas by clothing manufacturer and shipped to store already on hanger
    Each hanger is one-use and garment replacing sold product has it’s own hanger.
    Hanger is now outsourced to clothing manufacturer who includes the price of the hanger into their Cost of Goods (COG)
    Its cheaper for the clothing retailer to use one-use hangers but plastic is a poor material to make any product that is one-use, especially one with so much plastic in it.
    Companies who use Garment on Hangers are Wal-Mart, Old Navy, C&A, Target, Kmart, Coles and most department stores.
    Aren’t plastic hangers recyclable?
    Cheaper to landfill than to recycle
    Cheaper to make new plastic hangers than recycle
    Multiple materials (metal hook and clips, rubber or vinyl no-slip pads, 7 different types of plastic) make recycling impractical if not impossible.
    Where do plastic hangers go if I don’t take them after I buy clothing? Answer: in a box under the counter then out to the back.
    How much waste per store?
    One clothing company’s flagship store in San Francisco that uses the GOH system said
    They throw away approximately 95% of their plastic hangers every day.
    They replace from 8,000 to 28,000 garments everyday
    That means they throw away from 7,600 to 26,600 hangers every day.
    Why do companies that say they are green use such a wasteful system where up to 19.5 Empire State Buildings of plastic hangers landfilled?
    Because hangers are invisible to the consumer
    The wire hanger was patented in 1890
    The plastic retail hanger was invented in the 60’s
    There’s been no innovation, so the hangers have become invisible
    They are so prevalent that no one sees them anymore
    Hanger companies and retail clothing companies are very quiet about this extreme waste stream
    Hanger companies stay in business
    Retailers save by using one-use GOH plastic hangers

    What’s the solution?
    Tell your local retailer that you do not like plastic hangers in stores that you buy at.
    that up to 34 billion of those plastic retail hangers go into your municipal landfill.
    that they are not green if they use plastic hangers – even recycled plastic hangers.
    Tell them that 85% of all plastic hangers end up in landfills.
    Tell them to use a sustainable material such as paper fiberboard hangers that can be recycled at the store or at consumer curbside pickups
    Join the Anti Plastic Hanger Movement and stop the 36 billion plastic hangers that get thrown into local landfills everyyear to save retail companies money!

    You can see all our posts on clothing, fabrics and the plastic-free wardrobe here.