The study demonstrates for the first time that plastic particles are bioavailable for uptake into the human bloodstream, posing potential public health risks.
The study detected four different types of plastic polymers in the blood of 22 healthy volunteers.
The four types of polymers were:
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Polyethylene (PE)
Polymers of styrene (this includes a sum parameter of polystyrene, expanded polystyrene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, etc.)
Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)
Summary of The Study
Objective and Methodology
The study aimed to measure plastic particles of size ≥700 nm in human blood.
It employed a sensitive sampling and analytical method using double shot pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
The research involved 22 healthy volunteers.
Key Findings
Four high production volume polymers were identified and quantified in human blood for the first time.
Polypropylene was also analyzed but was below the limits of quantification.
The average concentration of these plastic particles in blood was 1.6 µg/ml.
Significance
This study is the first to provide a measurement of the mass concentration of plastic particles in human blood.
It underscores the bioavailability of plastic particles for uptake into the human bloodstream.
The findings indicate potential public health risks and highlight the need for further research into the implications of microplastic pollution in humans.
Published In: Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health
In: Feb 2019
Key Takeaways:
This paper is a review – it compiles and discusses findings from various studies on the presence, sources, and potential health implications of microplastics in drinking water.
Reports of microplastics (MPs) in tap water and bottled water have been confirmed since 2017.
Studies have detected MPs in tap water globally, with variations in concentration levels between countries. Developed countries reported higher concentrations compared to less-developed ones.
MPs enter drinking water sources through various pathways, including environmental degradation of plastic, industrial spills, washing machine effluents, and wear and tear of plastic items in use.
Review Paper Summary
The research paper titled “Microplastics in Drinking Water: A Review and Assessment” presents a comprehensive analysis of the presence, sources, and potential human health implications of microplastics in drinking water. Here’s a summary of the key findings and discussions in the paper:
Evidence of Microplastics in Drinking Water (DW)
Reports of microplastics (MPs) in tap water and bottled water have been confirmed since 2017.
Studies have detected MPs in tap water globally, with variations in concentration levels between countries. Developed countries reported higher concentrations compared to less-developed ones. The majority of these particles were fibers.
Bottled water also contains MPs, with the highest average particle counts found in samples from reusable plastic bottles. Particle sizes were predominantly small.
Water treatment plants show varied concentrations of MPs in raw and treated water. Different methodologies have been used to identify and quantify these particles.
Sources and Pathways for Contamination
MPs enter drinking water sources through various pathways, including environmental degradation of plastic, industrial spills, washing machine effluents, and wear and tear of plastic items in use.
Surface waters near urban areas are commonly contaminated with MPs. Atmospheric transport is also suggested as a potential route for MPs to enter water sources.
Wastewater treatment plants can remove a significant portion of MPs, but still, a considerable amount can enter the aquatic environment through effluents and sludge.
Implications for Human Health
The risk characterization of MPs to humans via drinking water is not yet adequately determined due to gaps in exposure and hazard assessments.
There is potential exposure to chemicals sorbed to MPs in drinking water. However, the contribution of MPs in drinking water to total dietary intake of environmental contaminants and additives is relatively small.
Particle toxicity of MPs in the human body is a concern. Size, shape, and chemical composition of MPs may influence toxicological risk.
The potential for smaller particles to translocate across the gut layer and cause tissue damage is an area requiring further investigation.
Published In: Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health
In: Feb 2018
Key Takeaways:
Air samples were taken from indoor (two apartments and one office) and outdoor locations (two locations on the roofs of buildings).
Microplastics were found in samples from all areas in the study. The study reported that concentrations of fibers, including microplastics, were present in both indoor and outdoor air.
The indoor concentrations ranged between 1.0 and 60.0 fibers per cubic meter, while outdoor concentrations were significantly lower, ranging between 0.3 and 1.5 fibers per cubic meter.
Research Paper Summary
The study “Microplastics in air: Are we breathing it in?” focuses on the presence and potential health impacts of airborne microplastics, particularly fibrous microplastics (MPs), in various environments. Here are the main points:
Increasing Production of Plastic Textile Fibers: The study notes the significant increase in plastic textile fiber production, which contributes to the generation of fibrous microplastics. These fibers are found in atmospheric fallout and both indoor and outdoor environments.
Inhalation and Health Risks: There’s concern that some fibrous microplastics can be inhaled. While many are likely cleared by the body’s mucociliary clearance mechanisms, some may persist in the lungs, particularly in individuals with compromised clearance mechanisms. This persistence can cause biological responses like inflammation.
Contaminants: Fibrous microplastics can carry contaminants like Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and additives from plastics (e.g., dyes, plasticizers), which could lead to health effects like reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity.
Occurrence and Characteristics in the Environment: The study reviews findings on the occurrence of fibrous MPs in the air and their characteristics. It discusses their size, composition, and concentration levels in different environments, including the differences found in indoor and outdoor air.
Human Exposure: The potential for human exposure to fibrous MPs through inhalation and accumulation in the human body is addressed. The study suggests that fibrous MPs are durable and likely to persist in the lung.
Occupational Health Risks: The study highlights specific health risks for workers in industries that handle synthetic fibers, such as increased respiratory irritation and interstitial lung disease.
Potential Mechanisms of Toxicity: The study explores the potential mechanisms by which fibrous MPs could cause harm, including inflammation, secondary genotoxicity due to the formation of reactive oxygen species, and possible links to fibrosis and cancer.
Recommendations: The authors call for more research to better understand the human health impacts of fibrous MPs, emphasizing the need for collaboration across various scientific disciplines and recommending specific approaches for monitoring and reporting.
This study assessed the extent of microplastic pollution in the road dust of Chennai, a major metropolitan city by collecting samples and using Raman spectroscopy, and conduct SEM-EDS (Scanning Electron Microscopy-Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy) for elemental analysis of the microplastics.
The study found variations in microplastic abundance across different locations in Chennai. The majority of these microplastics were fragments (92.46%), with fibers constituting only 7.54%.
Research Paper Summary
The research paper “Microplastics in City Dust” presents the following key findings:
Assessment of Microplastic Pollution in Chennai
This study, the first of its kind reported from India, assessed the extent of microplastic pollution in the road dust of Chennai, a major metropolitan city. “Street dust” is defined as dust accumulated on the ground in various locations around the city. The collection process involved sweeping the ground with a small paintbrush within a quadrat of 1 square meter at each sampling location.
The average microplastic abundance was estimated to be 227.94 ± 91.37 particles per 100 grams of street dust. The paper doesn’t provide information on whether these amounts are considered high low.
The authors sampled sixteen different locations across the city and found microplastics in all of their samples.
Objectives of the Study
The main objectives were to estimate the abundance of microplastic particles in street dust, identify the polymers in these microplastics using Raman spectroscopy, and conduct SEM-EDS (Scanning Electron Microscopy-Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy) for elemental analysis of the microplastics.
Findings on Microplastic Abundance and Composition
The study found variations in microplastic abundance across different locations in Chennai. The majority of these microplastics were fragments (92.46%), with fibers constituting only 7.54%. This contrasts with other studies, such as one conducted in Bushehr city, Iran, where the majority of microplastics were fibers.
Microplastic Pollution as a Widespread Concern
The presence of microplastics in substantial quantities in street dust is indicative of the pervasive nature of microplastic pollution in urban environments. This study adds another dimension to the understanding of microplastic pollution, which is not only confined to aquatic environments but also prevalent in urban settings like street dust.
Implications and Future Research Directions
The study emphasizes the need for increased awareness and surveillance on the fate of plastic waste in Chennai, especially being a coastal city where waste can easily enter marine environments. The paper suggests the need for more studies on the direct impact of microplastics in street dust on human health and the association of microplastics with secondary contaminants, such as PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), and their potential health implications.
Microplastic contamination occurs at various levels of the food chain, from lower trophic levels (like zooplankton and copepods) to higher trophic levels (such as fish, seabirds, and mammals). This contamination can occur either through direct consumption or trophic transfer.
The paper explores how microplastics enter the human food chain primarily from contaminated foods and can potentially impact human health. While a large fraction of consumed micro- and nanoplastics is excreted, smaller microplastics can penetrate deep into the organs, posing greater risks. The long-term health effects of microplastics are still relatively unknown but may include oxidative stress, cytotoxic effects, and disruption of energy balance and immune system functions.
Research Paper Summary
The research paper “Microplastics in the Food Chain” focuses on several key points regarding the impact of microplastics on the environment and human health:
Widespread Contamination of Microplastics
The paper highlights that microplastics are a widespread contaminant found in almost every part of the environment. Since the 1950s, the plastic industry has generated waste that now counts in the millions. A significant portion of plastic consumption is used for packaging materials, including those in the food industry. The contamination of the environment with microplastics and nanoplastics is emerging as a global problem, posing risks to animal life, the food chain, and public health.
Microplastics in the Human Food Chain
The main goal of the review is to summarize the occurrence of microplastics in the human food chain. It emphasizes the role of microplastics as vectors for various organic micropollutants and microorganisms and mentions the health consequences associated with the consumption of microplastics.
Toxic Additives and Microorganisms on Microplastics
The paper discusses how microplastics can serve as carriers for the spread of toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Additionally, it talks about the association of microorganisms with microplastics, highlighting the potential for plastics to act as vectors for pathogenic microorganisms that can enter the digestive tract of fish and other marine life.
Microplastic Contamination Across the Food Chain
It is reported that microplastic contamination occurs at various levels of the food chain, from lower trophic levels (like zooplankton and copepods) to higher trophic levels (such as fish, seabirds, and mammals). This contamination can occur either through direct consumption or trophic transfer.
Effects on Human Health
The paper explores how microplastics enter the human food chain primarily from contaminated foods and can potentially impact human health. While a large fraction of consumed micro- and nanoplastics is excreted, smaller microplastics can penetrate deep into the organs, posing greater risks. The long-term health effects of microplastics are still relatively unknown but may include oxidative stress, cytotoxic effects, and disruption of energy balance and immune system functions.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The paper concludes that while data on the occurrence of microplastics in the food chain are growing, they are still insufficient, and there is a lack of a uniform methodology for determining microplastic contamination in food. It recommends introducing legislation to regulate the use of primary microplastics and their release into the environment. Additionally, it suggests that more intensive research is needed on the impact of microplastics on the food chain and human health, as well as the development of new technologies for microplastic degradation and raising public awareness.
The study compiled a database called the CPPdb, which includes 4,283 substances that are likely or possibly associated with plastic packaging.
The analysis found that for 60% of the substances in the CPPdb, no hazard data were available. The chemicals have not been sufficiently studied.
The research identified 63 known chemicals associated with plastic packaging that are classified as “most hazardous” by the United Nations’ GHS (Global Harmonized System).
The paper also identified 906 chemicals likely associated with plastic packaging and 3,377 more chemicals associated with plastics that could possibly associated with packaging.
The 63 most hazardous chemicals identified in the study performed various functions in plastics, including acting as monomers, intermediates, solvents, surfactants, stabilizers, plasticizers, biocides, fire retardants, accelerators, and colorants.
About This Study
The authors of this study compiled a database called the CPPdb, which includes 4,283 substances that are likely or possibly associated with plastic packaging. These substances encompass raw materials and chemicals used in plastics manufacturing, such as monomers, polymerization aids, solvents, catalysts, and various additives.
Many chemicals used in making plastics, including packaging plastics, are highly hazardous, posing significant concerns for occupational health and the environment. These chemicals can transfer into products such as food or cosmetics during use, disposal, and recycling.
The study identified the most hazardous substances by consulting harmonized CLP classifications, advisory CLP classifications by the Danish EPA, EU-accepted classifications, and the UNEP report on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs).
What are harmonized CLP classifications?
Harmonized CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) classifications refer to a system established under the CLP Regulation in the European Union. This system is designed to determine how substances and mixtures (including chemicals used in products) should be classified, labeled, and packaged safely. The key aspects of harmonized CLP classifications are:
Classification: It involves identifying the hazardous properties of chemicals. This can include a range of hazards such as physical hazards (e.g., flammability), health hazards (e.g., toxicity, carcinogenicity), and environmental hazards (e.g., aquatic toxicity).
Labelling: The CLP regulation requires that hazards are clearly communicated to consumers and workers handling the chemicals. This is achieved through standard labels that include hazard pictograms, signal words (like “Danger” or “Warning”), hazard statements, and precautionary statements.
Packaging: Certain hazardous chemicals must be packaged in a way that minimizes the risk of exposure or accidents.
Harmonized CLP classifications are based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), which is an internationally agreed-upon standard. The purpose of this harmonization is to ensure that the same set of rules for classifying and labeling chemicals is applied across different countries, enhancing safety and facilitating international trade.
In the context of the research paper on plastic packaging-associated chemicals, the harmonized CLP classifications would have been used to assess the hazards of the chemicals found in plastics, helping to identify those with the highest risks to human health and the environment.
How are chemicals associated with plastics classified?
There are various systems and organizations that classify chemicals by type, impact to human health, impact to the environment, and much more. There are also international systems that help to standardize these classifications.
How Are Chemicals That Are Associated with Plastics Classified?
There are various levels of classification and different entities that assign labels to chemicals.
We often hear that a particular chemical is “classified as an endocrine disruptor” by “xyz” entity, but without proper context these statements can be misleading. This guide will provide you with context around how chemicals get their classifications.
Types of Classifications
Chemicals can be labeled or classified in various ways:
GeneralCategory – A chemical can be classified generally, such as “an environmental hazard” or “a health hazard”.
More DescriptiveCategory – Within the category of health hazard, a chemical can be identified in various ways such as “acute toxicity” or “carcinogenicity”.
Additional Labels – Chemicals can also be described by the specific impact they have on humans or the environment. For example, a chemical may be labeled as an “endocrine disruptor”.
Modifiers – For every description a chemical can be classified by the confidence experts have in that classification. For example, a chemical can be classified as a “known carcinogen” or “suspected carcinogen”.
Who Classifies Chemicals?
Chemicals are classified by various entities, primarily governments and NGOs.
Systems: How Chemicals Get Classified
There are various systems and organizations that classify chemicals, mostly to guide governments in regulating those chemicals.
The international standard for classifying chemicals is the Globally Harmonized System (GHS). The GHS helps various entities communicate about hazardous chemicals using a common language. Using GHS standards allows various countries and organizations to share information easier than if they all had their own systems.
Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
GHS is an international standard for classifying and labeling chemicals. It categorizes chemicals based on their health, physical, and environmental hazards. GHS provides a basis for worldwide harmonization of rules and regulations on chemicals, contributing to the protection of human health and the environment, while facilitating trade.
The GHS also provides a standardized approach for hazard communication, including labels with hazard symbols (pictograms), signal words (such as “Danger” or “Warning”), hazard statements (describing the nature and degree of the hazard), and precautionary statements (measures to minimize or prevent adverse effects).
Various countries around the world have developed their own chemical classification systems, often aligned with the GHS.
Notable Classification Systems
United States: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted the GHS through its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). This system requires manufacturers, importers, and distributors to classify chemicals and communicate their hazards through labels and safety data sheets.
Canada: Health Canada’s Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) aligns with the GHS, ensuring that hazardous products are properly classified and that workers receive consistent and comprehensive information.
Japan: Japan has adopted the GHS, and its classification system is administered by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).
Australia: The National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) is responsible for the classification of chemicals in Australia. The system, known as the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, aligns with the GHS.
China: China’s State Administration of Work Safety (SAWS) has implemented a chemical classification system that aligns with the GHS. This system is used for the classification, labeling, and packaging of chemicals.
European Union (EU): The EU has a GHS-aligned CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging) Regulation and additional regulatory frameworks such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) for chemical management.
South Korea: The Act on Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (K-REACH) and the Chemical Control Act (CCA) in South Korea align with the GHS for the classification and labeling of chemicals.
Brazil: Brazil has adopted the GHS under its National Chemical Safety Program, which is managed by multiple governmental bodies including the Ministry of Work and Employment.
Important Types of Classifications
The GHS includes several types of classifications designed to provide a consistent approach to identifying the intrinsic hazards of chemical substances and mixtures. The main categories of GHS classifications are:
Physical Hazards: These are hazards arising from the physical properties of a chemical. This category includes:
Explosives
Flammable Gases, Aerosols, Liquids, and Solids
Oxidizing Gases, Liquids, and Solids
Gases Under Pressure
Corrosive to Metals
Self-Reactive Substances and Mixtures
Pyrophoric Liquids and Solids
Self-Heating Substances and Mixtures
Substances and Mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases
Organic Peroxides
Health Hazards: This category addresses hazards that result in an adverse effect on health, particularly after exposure. It includes:
Acute Toxicity (with different routes of exposure like inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion)
Skin Corrosion/Irritation
Serious Eye Damage/Eye Irritation
Respiratory or Skin Sensitization
Germ Cell Mutagenicity
Carcinogenicity
Reproductive Toxicology
Target Organ Systemic Toxicity – Single and Repeated Exposure
Aspiration Hazard
Environmental Hazards: These are hazards that chemicals might pose to the aquatic and terrestrial environment. This includes:
Hazardous to the Aquatic Environment (Acute and Chronic)
Hazardous to the Ozone Layer (although this is not covered under GHS but is often considered under environmental hazard regulations)
Chemical Classification Outside The GHS
Regulatory bodies and scientific organizations also classify chemicals based on their attributes and/or specific effects they can have on humans or the environment.
Here are some common examples:
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs): These are chemicals that can interfere with the endocrine (hormone) system in humans and wildlife. Identification of EDCs involves specific tests and assessments.
Who classifies EDCs?
Regulatory Agencies:
European Union (EU): The EU has established specific criteria for identifying EDCs within its regulatory frameworks, such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) and the Biocidal Products Regulation. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) play significant roles in assessing and identifying EDCs within the EU.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA conducts assessments and regulates chemicals that may act as endocrine disruptors under various environmental laws. The EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) is a significant initiative in this area.
International Organizations:
World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): These organizations collaborate on research and publications regarding EDCs, contributing to global understanding and guidelines for identifying and regulating these chemicals.
Scientific and Research Institutions: Various independent scientific institutions and researchers conduct studies to identify and understand the mechanisms by which chemicals may act as endocrine disruptors. Their research contributes to the body of evidence used by regulatory bodies for classification.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Some NGOs, such as the Endocrine Society and Environmental Working Group (EWG), actively participate in research, advocacy, and education regarding EDCs, and they often collaborate with regulatory agencies and scientific communities.
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) and Very Persistent and Very Bioaccumulative (vPvB) Assessments: These classifications are for chemicals that persist in the environment and accumulate in living organisms, posing long-term risks to health and ecosystems.
Who classifies PBTs and vPvBs?
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): Under the European Union’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation, ECHA plays a crucial role in identifying and regulating PBT and vPvB substances. Chemicals are evaluated based on criteria outlined in REACH, and those meeting the PBT/vPvB criteria are subject to additional regulatory measures.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): In the United States, the EPA assesses chemicals for PBT characteristics under various environmental laws, including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA uses scientific data and risk assessment methodologies to determine whether chemicals meet the criteria for being classified as PBT or vPvB.
Other National and Regional Regulatory Bodies: Various countries have their regulatory frameworks and agencies responsible for chemical classification and management. These bodies may adopt criteria similar to those of REACH or TSCA or have their unique assessment protocols.
International Conventions: Global agreements like the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants aim to identify and control PBT substances. Signatory countries commit to taking measures to eliminate or restrict the production and use of chemicals listed under the convention.
The problem with microplastics in drinking water is way worse than we thought. A new study brings to light an accurate measurement of microplastics in bottled water and beverages.
The Study’s Findings
The research, utilizing advanced spectroscopy techniques, revealed that bottled water contains approximately 10,000 tiny plastic particles per liter. These particles stem from PET plastics, commonly used in beverage bottles. PET is made from natural gas and crude oil, and while it offers a lower carbon footprint and cost efficiency for transporting beverages compared to glass, its degradation into microplastics raises significant health concerns.
Health Implications of Microplastics
Though PET itself is not genotoxic or carcinogenic, recent studies have suggested that microplastics could potentially penetrate cells and cross the blood-brain barrier. This intrusion could disrupt cellular functions, triggering allergic reactions and inflammation. The concern escalates with the revelation that an average one-liter plastic bottle may contain up to 240,000 microplastic pieces, all small enough to permeate critical bodily barriers.
The Industry Perspective and Consumer Response
The adoption of plastic was driven by its affordability and versatility, making products accessible worldwide. However, the potential health risks are causing a shift in consumer behavior, with many opting for alternatives like glass containers and high-quality water filters. This change also sparks debates about environmental responsibility and the necessity of regulations to reduce plastic use, particularly in food packaging.
The discovery of microplastics in bottled beverages is a wake-up call for both consumers and the industry. It underscores the need for further research, sustainable practices, and certainly a reevaluation of our reliance on plastics.
Squatting in the strandline as a storm brewed on the horizon, I combed through the debris with tweezers. I spotted my first nurdle almost immediately. Covered in sand, the pale plastic pellet blended almost perfectly into the background. Next to me, a woman scraped the top layer of sand away and plopped it in a bucket of seawater. As she stirred, several nurdles drifted to the surface.
“It’s impossible to make a dent,” I thought. Despite removing more than 3,000 pieces of microplastic during our cleanup, thousands more winked at us from the sand as we left Camber Sands beach. These tiny pre-production plastic pellets, called nurdles, are littering UK beaches in such numbers that beach cleanups can’t keep up.
“I think removing all the nurdles would be an impossible task. They’re everywhere,” says Andy Dinsdale, the founder of the East Sussex-based environmental organisation Strandliners.
Nurdles are tiny plastic pellets – around the size of a lentil – made from fossil fuels, which are used to make plastic products. Huge containers of them are transported around the world by road, rail and ship before they are melted down and made into all the plastic items we use in our day-to-day lives.
Christy Leavitt is the plastics campaign director at the conservation group Oceana. She agrees that removing all the plastic pellets from our oceans and coastlines is “simply not possible”. Studies have shown there are more than 170tn plastic particles floating in the world’s oceans.
So, why even bother with cleanups? For Dinsdale and his team, cleanups help to gather data, to illustrate how bad the nurdle problem really is. Evidence from cleanups has led to legislation such as the plastic bag tax and a ban on single-use items such as cotton buds.
Organising them without recording the data would mean “we’ll be doing that for the rest of our lives”, says Beverley Coombs, a Strandliners volunteer. “If you just pick, bag and bin, nobody knows what the rubbish is. How on earth can you stop it coming back?”
Nurdle spills can occur when cargo ships capsize or drop containers overboard to preserve life during stormy seas – something allowed by international maritime law. Once in the ocean, these pellets can kill marine life and have catastrophic effects on the environment.
Dani Whitlock, a project officer at the Scottish charity Fidra says nurdle pollution rates are increasing despite voluntary industry measures that attempt to prevent it. She attributes these pellet spills to mismanagement, poor handling and lack of accountability.
Since the beginning of last year, there have been four major reported pellet spills across the world – with millions washing up in France, India, Dubai and Spain. And Fidra’s annual Great Nurdle Hunt reports finding pellets in 93% of all its surveys. “These voluntary measures are not working,” says Whitlock.
Leavitt says the problem needs to be dealt with at source, “and that’s at the production level”. About 15m tonnes of plastic waste is poured into our oceans each year. “That’s roughly equivalent to dumping two garbage trucks full of plastic into the ocean every minute,” she says. Once this plastic waste reaches the ocean, it is incredibly difficult to remove.
While many members of the public are doing their best to reduce their own plastic waste, governments and plastic-producing companies need to be the ones to solve nurdle pollution. Producing less plastic and regulating its discharge into waterways is much more effective than trying to clean up the mess after plastic pollution has already reached the ocean.
It’s “one of the most straightforward plastic problems we have because there is a solution”, says Whitlock. Better legislation, regulation and independent supply chain audits globally – including labelling nurdles as hazardous so they are treated with care during transport – could reduce pellet pollution by about 95%, she says.
Dinsdale doesn’t understand why plastic-producing companies aren’t interested in protecting their raw materials. “They’re losing money. It’s in their own interest not to lose it,” he says.
Whitlock agrees. “It’s just mind-boggling that we’re not working towards that solution together.”
In the meantime, Dinsdale and beachcombers like him aren’t planning on stopping their hunts. If their efforts only involved cleanups, it might be a different story: “That would be depressing because you would never end,” he says.
But gathering evidence on the state of nurdle pollution gives conservation organisations more power to lobby for change, Dinsdale says. “We might be small in the grand scheme of things but we’re helping in a proactive way rather than a reactive way.”
The INKULEER brand, recognized for its travel cutlery set, stands out in the market due to its blend of convenience, durability, and style. This set has garnered high customer ratings, reflecting its popularity among users who appreciate its practicality for on-the-go dining experiences, such as camping or office lunches. Crafted from high-quality stainless steel, the set promises long-lasting use. Compact in design, it is easily portable, fitting effortlessly into a backpack or lunch bag.
The NETANY brand offers a travel camping cutlery set that is a blend of functionality and style, appealing to those who are often on the move. This set has received favorable ratings from customers, emphasizing its suitability for various outdoor and travel activities like hiking, camping, and office use. It includes essential items such as a dinner spoon, knife, fork, a special sheathed steak knife, two mini spice jars, and a portable straw set, making it versatile for different dining needs. The cutlery set is praised for its compact and convenient design, allowing it to fit easily into bags, purses, or backpacks.
Zoku is the most compact cutlery set and is a top-rated choice on Amazon. Its sleek and minimalist design is ideal for those seeking a space-saving solution without compromising on quality or functionality. This set, often praised for its ultra-portable nature, includes essential utensils cleverly designed to fit into a small, convenient carrying case. Made from durable materials, Zoku’s cutlery set is not only lightweight but also sturdy, making it perfect for daily use in various settings like office lunches, outdoor picnics, or travel. Customers appreciate its ease of cleaning and the fact that it’s dishwasher safe, adding to its practicality. With its high ratings, Zoku stands out as a reliable choice for anyone looking for a compact, yet fully functional, travel-friendly cutlery set.
