Lisbon, Jun 27 (EFE).- Upcoming Superhero film Aquaman 2 will show the impact of pollution and global warming on oceans, US movie star and ocean activist Jason Momoa said Monday at the United Nations Ocean Conference in Lisbon.
A staunch defender of recycling and limiting the use of plastics, Momoa, who plays Aquaman, made his remarks after he was appointed the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) advocate for Life Below Water.
Momoa, accompanied by his children Lola and Nakoa-Wolf, said we have to stop talking and start acting in the fight against climate change and ocean pollution.
On Sunday, the 42-year-old actor told a youth event at Carcavelos beach on the outskirts of Lisbon that the “time now is to act.”
“Our ocean is in trouble. If we combine ambition, dedication and hope we can change the outcomes,” he added.
Over 7,000 people are participating in the Lisbon conference with delegations from nearly 150 countries.
It will be held until July 1 with the aim to gather proposals to halt the deterioration of the oceans.EFE
Viruses survive in fresh water by ‘hitchhiking’ on plastic, study finds
Intestinal viruses such as rotavirus were found to be infectious for up to three days by attaching to microplastics, research shows
Dangerous viruses can remain infectious for up to three days in fresh water by hitchhiking on plastic, researchers have found.
Enteric viruses that cause diarrhoea and stomach upsets, such as rotavirus, were found to survive in water by attaching to microplastics, tiny particles less than 5mm long. They remain infectious, University of Stirling researchers found, posing a potential health risk.
Prof Richard Quilliam, lead researcher on the project at Stirling University, said: “We found that viruses can attach to microplastics and that allows them to survive in the water for three days, possibly longer.”
While previous research had been carried out in sterile settings, this is the first research into how viruses behave in the environment, Quilliam said. However, he used standard laboratory methods to determine whether viruses found on microplastics in water were infectious.
“We weren’t sure how well viruses could survive by ‘hitchhiking’ on plastic in the environment, but they do survive and they do remain infectious,” he said.
The findings, part of a £1.85m project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council looking at how plastics transport bacteria and viruses, concluded that microplastics enabled pathogen transfer in the environment.The paper is published in the journal Environmental Pollution.
“Being infectious in the environment for three days, that’s long enough to get from the wastewater treatment works to the public beach,” Quilliam said.
Wastewater treatment plants were unable to capture microplastics, he said. “Even if a wastewater treatment plant is doing everything it can to clean sewage waste, the water discharged still has microplastics in it, which are then transported down the river, into the estuary and wind up on the beach.”
These plastic particles are so tiny that they could be swallowed by swimmers. “Sometimes they wash up on the beach as lentil-sized, brightly coloured pellets called nurdles that children might pick up and put in their mouths. It doesn’t take many virus particles to make you sick,” Quilliam said.
While the impact of microplastics on human health remains uncertain, “if those bits of microplastics are colonised by human pathogens, then that could well be a significant health risk,” said Quilliam.
The researchers tested two types of viruses – those with an envelope around them, “a kind of lipid coat”, such as the flu virus, and those without – enteric viruses such as rotavirus and norovirus. They found that in those with a coating, the envelope quickly dissolved and the virus died, whereas those without an envelope successfully bound to the microplastics and survived.
“Viruses can also bind to natural surfaces in the environment,” said Quilliam, “but plastic pollution lasts a lot longer than those materials.”
The researchers tested the viruses for three days, but aim to study how long they might remain infectious in future research.
Another study by Quilliam’s team last month discovered levels of faecal bacteria on wet wipes and cotton buds washed up on beaches posed a health risk. They first found sewage bacteria “hitchhiking” on plastic pellets on Scottish beaches in 2019.
A recent study conducted at the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station confirmed microplastic pollution in Flathead Lake, which can be traced back to various types of human activity. The study, while not the first to identify microplastics in Flathead Lake, made important findings surrounding how much microplastic pollution is in the lake and where it originates. The research was led by FLBS visiting researcher Dr. Xiong Xiong from the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Hydrobiology.
According to the study, which was recently published in the journal Environmental Pollution, Flathead Lake carries microplastic pollutants at levels similar to or higher than other lakes in similarly populated areas. Although the levels remain low in comparison to more populated regions, such pollution should still be of concern for residents of the area who drink, bathe and recreate in the water, researchers say. While microplastic levels are not yet high enough to indicate immediate human danger, the new findings are a sign of a growing problem that could have lasting implications for the Flathead’s ecosystems.
The National Ocean Service defines microplastics as “small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.” Once ingested by fish and other animals, they can carry toxins into the aquatic food chain and human food products. Significant concentrations of microplastics have also been found in drinking water systems. In the Flathead’s wide-ranging bodies of water, these pollutants have many origins.
Landfills and plastic waste disposal sites are the largest source of microplastic contamination at the mouth of the Flathead River. Microplastics are often picked up from these sites by water particles and carried into the water system. In addition to waste disposal, the researchers found that the everyday laundry cycle is dumping microplastics into the lake. Much of today’s clothing is made of synthetic fabrics that break into microscopic plastics in the wash. These plastics are transported into the water supply through home septic drain fields and community water treatment plants. Human activities in the water that involve plastic boats, ropes, floats and fishing line can also be cause for concern. Many of these recreational supplies are prone to degrading, adding further microplastics to the water.
“Plastics are a part of our daily lives and they’re embedded in all of the things that we do—in our economy, in our lifestyle. A consequence of that—because plastics don’t degrade—is that they show up everywhere we look,” UM Flathead Lake Biological Station director Jim Elser told the Beacon.
Despite these concerning findings, the researchers say there are many actions that can be taken to remedy increasing levels of pollution.
On an individual scale, adopting in-line washing machine filters, reducing one’s consumption of synthetic fiber materials and limiting single-use plastics can help decrease pollution. The study also suggests larger reforms such as improving plastic waste disposal procedures, strengthening education on the dangers of plastic pollution and improving wastewater treatment systems.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Interior Department announced that it will phase out single-use plastics at national parks and other public lands over the next ten years, a move that will curb plastic consumption in Northwest Montana. While the announcement addresses certain pollution sources mentioned in the FLBS research, the policy is limited to enforcement on federal lands.
To ultimately see larger scale changes, Elser said, “we need to start switching away and using less plastic.”
A recent study conducted at the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station confirmed microplastic pollution in Flathead Lake, which can be traced back to various types of human activity. The study, while not the first to identify microplastics in Flathead Lake, made important findings surrounding how much microplastic pollution is in the lake and where it originates. The research was led by FLBS visiting researcher Dr. Xiong Xiong from the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Hydrobiology.
According to the study, which was recently published in the journal Environmental Pollution, Flathead Lake carries microplastic pollutants at levels similar to or higher than other lakes in similarly populated areas. Although the levels remain low in comparison to more populated regions, such pollution should still be of concern for residents of the area who drink, bathe and recreate in the water, researchers say. While microplastic levels are not yet high enough to indicate immediate human danger, the new findings are a sign of a growing problem that could have lasting implications for the Flathead’s ecosystems.
The National Ocean Service defines microplastics as “small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.” Once ingested by fish and other animals, they can carry toxins into the aquatic food chain and human food products. Significant concentrations of microplastics have also been found in drinking water systems. In the Flathead’s wide-ranging bodies of water, these pollutants have many origins.
Landfills and plastic waste disposal sites are the largest source of microplastic contamination at the mouth of the Flathead River. Microplastics are often picked up from these sites by water particles and carried into the water system. In addition to waste disposal, the researchers found that the everyday laundry cycle is dumping microplastics into the lake. Much of today’s clothing is made of synthetic fabrics that break into microscopic plastics in the wash. These plastics are transported into the water supply through home septic drain fields and community water treatment plants. Human activities in the water that involve plastic boats, ropes, floats and fishing line can also be cause for concern. Many of these recreational supplies are prone to degrading, adding further microplastics to the water.
“Plastics are a part of our daily lives and they’re embedded in all of the things that we do—in our economy, in our lifestyle. A consequence of that—because plastics don’t degrade—is that they show up everywhere we look,” UM Flathead Lake Biological Station director Jim Elser told the Beacon.
Despite these concerning findings, the researchers say there are many actions that can be taken to remedy increasing levels of pollution.
On an individual scale, adopting in-line washing machine filters, reducing one’s consumption of synthetic fiber materials and limiting single-use plastics can help decrease pollution. The study also suggests larger reforms such as improving plastic waste disposal procedures, strengthening education on the dangers of plastic pollution and improving wastewater treatment systems.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Interior Department announced that it will phase out single-use plastics at national parks and other public lands over the next ten years, a move that will curb plastic consumption in Northwest Montana. While the announcement addresses certain pollution sources mentioned in the FLBS research, the policy is limited to enforcement on federal lands.
To ultimately see larger scale changes, Elser said, “we need to start switching away and using less plastic.”
Scientists have found that microplastics have the potential to cause harm to animals through pathways including replacing food and leaching added chemicals into their bodies. However, it’s unclear how much these effects are currently occurring in the environment.
Our recently published study explores how microplastics move within coastal marine food webs. We found that smaller animals feeding lower in the food web might be at greater risk from microplastic exposure than larger predatory animals.
Pollutants and food webs
Food webs are tangled networks of organisms feeding on each other. Where an animal is feeding within this tangled network is called its trophic position and may determine its exposure to pollutants.
During the summer of 2018, we collected individuals — including clams, mussels, sea cucumbers, crabs, sea stars and fishes — across a food web from several sites around southern Vancouver Island.
A beach seine conducted to collect fish for the study. We found that most individuals had up to two microplastic particles in each of their guts and that the particles were mostly fibres. (Kieran Cox), Author provided
We then determined the concentrations of microplastics found in the guts of the animals and the liver of the fishes and related these concentrations to each animal’s place in the food web.
The species of aquatic animals we analyzed for microplastic content and positions in the food web. (Garth Covernton), Author provided
Animals higher in the food web did not contain greater concentrations of microplastics than animals lower in the food web, suggesting that biomagnification was not occurring.
Some of our past work has also shown a lack of evidence for biomagnification of microplastics. In that work, we compared microplastic concentrations in fish guts, reported in the scientific literature, with estimates of their place within food webs.
Some species might be at greater risk
Although we didn’t find evidence of biomagnification, we did find that concentrations of microplastics were higher for certain smaller species when compared to their body weight.
Microplastics did not increase at higher trophic levels — higher positions in the food web — according to a literature review. (Garth Covernton), Author provided
This included filter feeding animals like clams, mussels and certain sea cucumbers, as well as a type of fish, the shiner surfperch. These fish might be ingesting more microplastics because the particles are similar in size and shape to their preferred food — small aquatic microorganisms like zooplankton and other small invertebrates.
However, the numbers of microplastics we found in all animals were less than two particles per individual on average. While this could mean that health risks to these animals are low, we have yet to understand how long-term exposure to low concentrations of microplastics could affect their health.
In our research, we were limited to studying particles greater than 100 microns in size — about the width of a human hair — as particles smaller than this are very difficult to study using a regular microscope. However, emerging methods may make them easier to investigate in the future. These smaller particles are potentially more toxic and we can’t rule out biomagnification at this scale, even if it’s not occurring for larger particles.
How are microplastics affecting aquatic food webs?
As microplastics pollution of the environment increases, we need to understand its possible effects to avoid potential ecosystem disasters in the future.
An aerial view of a lake with experimental enclosures where microplastics research is being conducted at the IISD-ELA, northwestern Ontario. Studying microplastics in natural freshwater labs will advance our understanding of how they might affect aquatic food webs. (Garth Covernton), Author provided
Freshwater ecosystems, for example, are often more directly exposed to microplastics and can contain higher concentrations.
This work, alongside the work of other researchers, should advance our understanding of how microplastics can affect aquatic ecosystems, especially the effects on the small animals at the base of food webs that might be ingesting more of these particles.
Instead of focusing solely on ramping up recycling, the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act would require companies to cut the amount of plastic in their packaging—and nudge them toward reusable alternatives.
If a bill currently under consideration passes in California, any large brand that sells products in plastic packaging will have to start planning to eliminate some of that plastic—including by switching to some reusable and refillable packaging options.
advertisement
advertisement
“We’ve got massive challenges on our hands with regards to plastic pollution,” says State Senator Ben Allen, who introduced the bill, known as SB 54, or the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act. As the amount of plastic packaging has grown, it’s created not only huge environmental challenges—and potential health challenges, as plastic starts to show up in living humans—but also new costs for cities trying to manage all of that waste.
“The cost of waste management has skyrocketed because of the amount of plastic that’s being pushed out into the economy,” Allen says. “It’s becoming a real problem at the local level, for local governments that are now being asked to spend more and more of their meager dollars on just managing this. And the thing is, so much of it’s unnecessary. So much of the packaging gets used literally just once. And then [it’s] tossed out with long-term consequences.”
The bill “would be the strongest plastic legislation you’ve ever seen in the United States,” says Anja Brandon, U.S. plastic policy analyst at the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, who contributed to the bill text. A few other states, beginning with Maine, have recently put in place “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) laws that require brands to pay to help recycle the packaging they create.
advertisement
advertisement
The California bill goes a step further, saying that producers will also have to cut the amount of plastic packaging and foodware by 25% over the next decade. As much as 10% of the packaging will have to be eliminated without being replaced by a different material, forcing companies to adopt new models like reusable packaging.
“This source reduction piece is really precedent setting,” Brandon says.
Still, some other environmental groups argue that the bill doesn’t quite go far enough; it doesn’t ban polystyrene foam packaging, for example. (It does require a 20% polystyrene recycling rate by 2025, which the Ocean Conservancy says would create a de facto ban since recycling programs for the material are limited.) Other advocates are pushing for a ballot measure instead, which would ban foam packaging and could give the state more control over the whole program. If the ballot measure moves forward, Californians will vote on it in November.
advertisement
The bill is ambitious, Allen says, noting, “The whole idea is that we are not going to be able to recycle our way out of this problem. Recycling is an important part of the conversation. But at the end of the day, it’s much better for us to reduce the amount of unnecessary plastics out in the market in the first place than try to find a way to get them collected, sorted, recycled, and turned into something else.
“It’s a process that is expensive, time consuming, energy intensive, and imperfect even under the best of circumstances,” Allen continues. For the products that need plastic packaging, he adds, “we do want to find a way to ensure that they’re collected and recycled. But there’s a lot out there that’s unnecessary.”
The bill is designed to nudge companies to find better alternatives to single-use plastic. “Through these mandates, and through the EPR requirements, we know that producers are going to have to take a step back and actually evaluate all of their packaging and packaging decisions, and update them to be part of a circular economy,” Brandon says.
The bill would require companies to measure the amount of plastic packaging they’re currently using, and work with other producers to make a plan that is approved by CalRecycle, the branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency that handles recycling. Producers would also have to help fund recycling infrastructure, and would pay an additional $500 million per year over the next 10 years to help clean up plastic pollution in the environment and in disadvantaged communities.
Any single-use plastic packaging that’s still produced will have to be either recyclable with current systems or compostable.
advertisement
“That’s huge—we know that so many of the plastics on the market right now are not only not recyclable but sometimes actively hinder recycling, if we’re thinking about films, or multi-material plastics, things like that,” Brandon says. “So this will force a huge redesign in how we package materials.”
Producers will also have to meet a 65% recycling rate for plastic by 2032. (Right now, the overall plastic recycling rate in the U.S. is around 5% to 6%.)
Ocean Conservancy scientists estimate that the bill, if passed, would reduce 23 million tons of plastic in the state over the next decade, or nearly 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge. It could also begin to influence policy in other areas. Advocates are pushing for a vote before June 30, which is also the deadline for deciding whether the ballot measure moves forward.
advertisement
“If successful,” Brandon says, “this model of EPR plus source reduction would establish a new baseline for policies moving forward.”
Instead of focusing solely on ramping up recycling, the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act would require companies to cut the amount of plastic in their packaging—and nudge them toward reusable alternatives.
If a bill currently under consideration passes in California, any large brand that sells products in plastic packaging will have to start planning to eliminate some of that plastic—including by switching to some reusable and refillable packaging options.
advertisement
advertisement
“We’ve got massive challenges on our hands with regards to plastic pollution,” says State Senator Ben Allen, who introduced the bill, known as SB 54, or the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act. As the amount of plastic packaging has grown, it’s created not only huge environmental challenges—and potential health challenges, as plastic starts to show up in living humans—but also new costs for cities trying to manage all of that waste.
“The cost of waste management has skyrocketed because of the amount of plastic that’s being pushed out into the economy,” Allen says. “It’s becoming a real problem at the local level, for local governments that are now being asked to spend more and more of their meager dollars on just managing this. And the thing is, so much of it’s unnecessary. So much of the packaging gets used literally just once. And then [it’s] tossed out with long-term consequences.”
The bill “would be the strongest plastic legislation you’ve ever seen in the United States,” says Anja Brandon, U.S. plastic policy analyst at the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, who contributed to the bill text. A few other states, beginning with Maine, have recently put in place “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) laws that require brands to pay to help recycle the packaging they create.
advertisement
advertisement
The California bill goes a step further, saying that producers will also have to cut the amount of plastic packaging and foodware by 25% over the next decade. As much as 10% of the packaging will have to be eliminated without being replaced by a different material, forcing companies to adopt new models like reusable packaging.
“This source reduction piece is really precedent setting,” Brandon says.
Still, some other environmental groups argue that the bill doesn’t quite go far enough; it doesn’t ban polystyrene foam packaging, for example. (It does require a 20% polystyrene recycling rate by 2025, which the Ocean Conservancy says would create a de facto ban since recycling programs for the material are limited.) Other advocates are pushing for a ballot measure instead, which would ban foam packaging and could give the state more control over the whole program. If the ballot measure moves forward, Californians will vote on it in November.
advertisement
The bill is ambitious, Allen says, noting, “The whole idea is that we are not going to be able to recycle our way out of this problem. Recycling is an important part of the conversation. But at the end of the day, it’s much better for us to reduce the amount of unnecessary plastics out in the market in the first place than try to find a way to get them collected, sorted, recycled, and turned into something else.
“It’s a process that is expensive, time consuming, energy intensive, and imperfect even under the best of circumstances,” Allen continues. For the products that need plastic packaging, he adds, “we do want to find a way to ensure that they’re collected and recycled. But there’s a lot out there that’s unnecessary.”
The bill is designed to nudge companies to find better alternatives to single-use plastic. “Through these mandates, and through the EPR requirements, we know that producers are going to have to take a step back and actually evaluate all of their packaging and packaging decisions, and update them to be part of a circular economy,” Brandon says.
The bill would require companies to measure the amount of plastic packaging they’re currently using, and work with other producers to make a plan that is approved by CalRecycle, the branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency that handles recycling. Producers would also have to help fund recycling infrastructure, and would pay an additional $500 million per year over the next 10 years to help clean up plastic pollution in the environment and in disadvantaged communities.
Any single-use plastic packaging that’s still produced will have to be either recyclable with current systems or compostable.
advertisement
“That’s huge—we know that so many of the plastics on the market right now are not only not recyclable but sometimes actively hinder recycling, if we’re thinking about films, or multi-material plastics, things like that,” Brandon says. “So this will force a huge redesign in how we package materials.”
Producers will also have to meet a 65% recycling rate for plastic by 2032. (Right now, the overall plastic recycling rate in the U.S. is around 5% to 6%.)
Ocean Conservancy scientists estimate that the bill, if passed, would reduce 23 million tons of plastic in the state over the next decade, or nearly 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge. It could also begin to influence policy in other areas. Advocates are pushing for a vote before June 30, which is also the deadline for deciding whether the ballot measure moves forward.
advertisement
“If successful,” Brandon says, “this model of EPR plus source reduction would establish a new baseline for policies moving forward.”
Microplastics are a menace. They’ve been found everywhere from the top of Mount Everest to melted Antarctic snow. Microplastics have even been found circulating in human blood. But perhaps the place where they are having the worst impact is in Earth’s oceans. Plastic is the single most common debris in the sea—often breaking down over time into tiny bits that are consumed by fish and capable of wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems.
That’s why scientists have been working on a new method of getting rid of them for good: fish-shaped robots that can actually clean up the oceans while swimming.
In a study published Wednesday in the journal Nano Letters, researchers at Sichuan University in China created a fish-bot made of a light-activated material that can absorb microplastics as it swims in water. The team believes the new bot could be used to transport pollutants to another location where they can be collected and properly disposed of. It could also be used for detecting and monitoring microplastics in harsher environments that humans can’t explore easily like the frigid waters of the arctic.
“The proof-of-concept robot is demonstrated to emphasize its maximum swimming speed of 2.67 body length per second, whose speed is comparable to that of plankton,” the study authors wrote, adding that the speed outperforms similar soft robots.
The fish-bot is made of a composite material that’s safe for marine environments and physically reacts when a near-infrared light laser is pointed at it. Blinking the laser on and off can cause the robot’s “tail” to flap back and forth, allowing it to mimic a real fish and swim. As it moves, microplastic material sticks to its body, much like suckerfish do to whales and sharks. On top of that, the material the Sichuan University researchers used can repair itself when cut—which means it’s effectively self-healing.
While we’re still a long ways away from schools of fish-bots roaming the seas, this is still an innovative solution to the persistent problem of microplastics in our polluted oceans. It could one day provide a novel way of ridding some areas of the pollutant—just don’t eat one if you catch it on your line.
Scientists unveil bionic robo-fish to remove microplastics from seas
Tiny self-propelled robo-fish can swim around, latch on to free-floating microplastics and fix itself if it gets damaged
Scientists have designed a tiny robot-fish that is programmed to remove microplastics from seas and oceans by swimming around and adsorbing them on its soft, flexible, self-healing body.
Microplastics are the billions of tiny plastic particles which fragment from the bigger plastic things used every day – water bottles, car tires, synthetic T-shirts. They are one of the 21st century’s biggest environmental problems because once they’re dispersed into the environment through the breakdown of larger plastics they are very hard to get rid of, making their way into drinking water, produce, and food, harming the environment and animal and human health.
“It is of great significance to develop a robot to accurately collect and sample detrimental microplastic pollutants from the aquatic environment,” said Yuyan Wang, a researcher at the Polymer Research Institute of Sichuan University and one of the lead authors on the study. Her team’s novel invention is described in a research paper in the journal Nano Letters. “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of such soft robots.”
Researchers at Sichuan University have revealed an innovative solution to track down these pollutants when it comes to water contamination: designing a tiny self-propelled robo-fish that can swim around, latch on to free-floating microplastics, and fix itself if it gets cut or damaged while on its expedition.
The robo-fish is just 13mm long, and thanks to a light laser system in its tail, swims and flaps around at almost 30mm a second, similar to the speed at which plankton drift around in moving water.
The researchers created the robot from materials inspired by elements that thrive in the sea: mother-of-pearl, also known as nacre, which is the interior covering of clam shells. The team created a material similar to nacre by layering various microscopic sheets of molecules according to nacre’s specific chemical gradient.
This made them a robo-fish that is stretchy, flexible to twist, and even able to pull up to 5kg in weight, according to the study. Most importantly, the bionic fish can adsorb nearby free-floating bits of microplastics because the organic dyes, antibiotics, and heavy metals in the microplastics have strong chemical bonds and electrostatic interactions with the fish’s materials. That makes them cling on to its surface, so the fish can collect and remove microplastics from the water. “After the robot collects the microplastics in the water, the researchers can further analyse the composition and physiological toxicity of the microplastics,” said Yuyan.
Plus, the newly created material also seems to have regenerative abilities, said Yuyan, who specialises in the development of self-healing materials. So the robot fish can heal itself to 89% of its ability and continue adsorbing even in the case it experiences some damage or cutting – which could happen often if it goes hunting for pollutants in ruthless waters.
This is just a proof of concept, Wang notes, and much more research is needed – especially into how this could be deployed in the real world. For example, the soft robot currently only works on water surfaces, so Wang’s team will soon be working on more functionally complex robo-fish that can go deeper under the water. Still, this bionic design could offer a launchpad for other similar projects, Wang said. “I think nanotechnology holds great promise for trace adsorption, collection, and detection of pollutants, improving intervention efficiency while reducing operating costs.”
Indeed, nanotechnology will be one of the most important players in the fight against microplastics, according to Philip Demokritou, the director of the Nanoscience and Advanced Materials Research Center at Rutgers University, who was not involved in this study.
Demokritou’s lab also focuses on using nanotechnology to get rid of microplastics from the planet – but instead of cleaning them up, they are working on substituting them. This week, in the journal Nature Food, he announced the invention of a new plant-based spray coating, which can serve as an environmentally-friendly alternative to plastic food wraps. Their case study showed that this starch-based fibre spray can fend off pathogens and guard against transportation damage just as well, if not better, than current plastic packaging options.
“The motto for the last 40 to 50 years for the chemical industry is: let’s make chemicals, let’s make materials, put them out there and then clean the mess 20, or 30 years later,” said Demokritou. “That’s not a sustainable model. So can we synthesise safer design materials? Can we derive materials from food waste as part of the circular economy and turn them into useful materials that we can use to address this problem?”
This is low-hanging fruit for the field of nanotechnology, Demokritou said, and as research into materials gets better so will the multi-pronged approach of substituting plastic in our daily lives and filtering out its microplastic residue from the environment.
“But there’s a big distinction between an invention and an innovation,” Demokritou said. “Invention is something that nobody has thought about yet. Right? But innovation is something that will change people’s lives, because it makes it to commercialisation, and it can be scaled.”
Canada is banning the manufacture and importation of single-use plastics by the end of the year, the government announced on Monday, in a major effort to combat plastic waste and address climate change.
The ban includes checkout bags, cutlery, straws and food-service ware made from or containing plastics that are hard to recycle, with a few exceptions for medical reasons.
It will come into effect in December 2022, and the sale of those plastic items will be prohibited as of December 2023, the government said.
Restaurants and grocery stores worry about a supply of alternative products as the government announces details of its ban on single-use plastics. in Toronto. June 20, 2022.
Steve Russell | Toronto Star | Getty Images
Canada is banning the manufacture and import of single-use plastics by the end of the year, the government announced on Monday, in a major effort to combat plastic waste and address climate change.
The ban will cover items like checkout bags, cutlery, straws, and food-service ware made from or containing plastics that are hard to recycle, with a few exceptions for medical reasons. It will come into effect in December 2022, and the sale of those items will be prohibited as of December 2023 to provide businesses in Canada enough time to transition and to deplete existing stocks, the government said.
Single-use plastics make up most of the plastic waste found on Canadian shorelines. Up to 15 billion plastic checkout bags are used each year and approximately 16 million straws are used every day, according to government data.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who vowed in 2019 to phase out plastics, said the ban will eliminate more than 1.3 million tons of plastic waste over the next decade — the equivalent of 1 million garbage bags of trash.
Restaurants and grocery stores worry about a supply of alternative products as the government announces details of its ban on single-use plastics. in Toronto. June 20, 2022.
Steve Russell | Toronto Star | Getty Images
“We promised to ban harmful single-use plastics, and we’re keeping that promise,” Trudeau wrote in a tweet on Monday.
Canada will also prohibit the export of those plastics by the end of 2025 to address international plastic pollution.
“By the end of the year, you won’t be able to manufacture or import these harmful plastics,” said Steven Guilbeault, the federal minister of environment and climate change. “After that, businesses will begin offering the sustainable solutions Canadians want, whether that’s paper straws or reusable bags.”
“With these new regulations, we’re taking a historic step forward in reducing plastic pollution, and keeping our communities and the places we love clean,” Guilbeault said.
More from CNBC Climate:
Canada’s effort comes as countries begin to impose bans to combat the problem of plastics, which are made from petroleum and can take hundreds of years to decompose.
Sarah King, head of Greenpeace Canada’s oceans and plastics campaign, said in a statement that Canada’s ban is a critical step forward, but “we still aren’t even at the starting line.”
“The government needs to shift into high gear by expanding the ban list and cutting overall plastic production,” King said. “Relying on recycling for the other 95% is a denial of the scope of the crisis.”
