I Suspected As Much

 The Guardian, ‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body

High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns “a bombshell”.

Studies claiming to have revealed micro and nanoplastics in the brain, testes, placentas, arteries and elsewhere were reported by media across the world, including the Guardian. There is no doubt that plastic pollution of the natural world is ubiquitous, and present in the food and drink we consume and the air we breathe. But the health damage potentially caused by microplastics and the chemicals they contain is unclear, and an explosion of research has taken off in this area in recent years.

 

However, micro- and nanoplastic particles are tiny and at the limit of today’s analytical techniques, especially in human tissue. There is no suggestion of malpractice, but researchers told the Guardian of their concern that the race to publish results, in some cases by groups with limited analytical expertise, has led to rushed results and routine scientific checks sometimes being overlooked.

The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.

There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say. It could also help lobbyists for the plastics industry to dismiss real concerns by claiming they are unfounded. While researchers say analytical techniques are improving rapidly, the doubts over recent high-profile studies also raise the questions of what is really known today and how concerned people should be about microplastics in their bodies.

 

“Levels of microplastics in human brains may be rapidly rising” was the shocking headline reporting a widely covered study in February. The analysis, published in a top-tier journal and covered by the Guardian, said there was a rising trend in micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in brain tissue from dozens of postmortems carried out between 1997 and 2024.

However, by November, the study had been challenged by a group of scientists with the publication of a “Matters arising” letter in the journal. In the formal, diplomatic language of scientific publishing, the scientists said: “The study as reported appears to face methodological challenges, such as limited contamination controls and lack of validation steps, which may affect the reliability of the reported concentrations.”

One of the team behind the letter was blunt. “The brain microplastic paper is a joke,” said Dr Dušan Materić, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany. “Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.” Materić and his colleagues suggested rising obesity levels could be an alternative explanation for the trend reported in the study.

What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. My own field of science (trace element biogeochemistry) was plagued with problems of false positives. It turned out that to get accurate trace element measurement require fanatical attention to anti-contamination  efforts.

A particularly telling example is the saga of Fritz Haber his attempt to pay off Germany's WWI debt by extracting gold from seawater. Now, Fritz Haber is a giant among chemists. His development of the  Haber process for making ammonia from nitrogen gas and methane allows mankind to sustain it's current population. Of course, for him it was a method to make nitric acid for gun powder and explosives, but it did earn him a Nobel Prize.

His preliminary attempts to extract gold from seawater suggest that it might be a viable method to get gold and pay off post-Versailles war debt. Via Google AI, "The German Atlantic Expedition (1925–1927) on the research vessel Meteor aimed to study the South Atlantic, famously utilizing sonar to map the seabed and revealing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Chemist Fritz Haber initiated this effort, hoping to extract gold from seawater to pay off Germany's post-WWI war debts." Of course, it turned out that the initial attempts were false positives, and that it didn't work on a large scale. Seawater contains so little dissolved gold it is almost impossible to measure, even today. 

We relearned those lessons in the 1980s when reliable measurement of some elements in seawater began to be made. I assume the people who measure low levels of organic contaminants went through the same learning curve. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Extra Value Meal ready for your clicks at The Other McCain.

A Bottle Bill for Maryland?

Balmer Sun, After 3 tries in Maryland, bottle bill backers hope to pass plastic refund program

Ten states across the country have already implemented bottle bills, with Oregon becoming the first in 1971. But Maryland is not one of them.

Democratic lawmakers, backed by Sierra Club members from Central Maryland, have tried to get the bill passed in Maryland three times already, only to see it get stuck in committee and not face a vote. This year, local activists are hoping that a renewed push — and growing attention on the dangers of microplastics — will help the bill finally succeed. Del. Jen Terrasa from Howard County and Sen. Ben Brooks from Baltimore County are slated as sponsors of the bottle bill for the 2026 legislative session.

 

“The counties and states have limited budgets for picking up litter, and they are actually quite dependent on volunteers, but there are only so many of us,” said Kerri Hesley, chair of the Catoctin Group. “We feel like this is the better way to make this a valuable resource. So people have an incentive not to litter, and if someone does litter, another person has an incentive to pick it up.”

According to the version of the bill introduced in the General Assembly last year, Maryland sells 5.5 billion single-use plastic beverage containers each year. In a recent letter sent in support of a proposed state law that would allow Prince George’s County residents to report others for littering or illegal dumping, the State Highway Administration noted that Maryland spent $15 million in fiscal year 2023 on litter cleanup.

 How much of that was plastic bottles?

Bottle bills in the U.S. and similar deposit return systems in Europe and Australia have cut litter by 50% on average, according to a study by the nonprofit Reloop. And a recent survey commissioned by the Sierra Club found that over 90% of respondents supported the bottle bill.

Still, the initiative has struggled to get off the ground in Annapolis. Rubenstein, who lives in Carroll County, said she spoke with Carroll Del. April Rose, a Republican who serves on the Economic Matters Committee that oversaw the bottle bill the past few years. The bill got a hearing in the Environment and Transportation Committee last year, but not in Economic Matters, and failed to advance out of either, replicating a yearslong pattern.

According to the fiscal note that accompanied last year’s bottle bill, the program would essentially pay for itself, since revenue would offset any operating costs over the next five fiscal years. But the analysis determined that the Bottle Bill could impact small businesses and small container manufacturers, which might incur costs from joining the program and would have to front the cost of the beverage deposit.

We lived under a bottle bill in Oregon, and while it was  a hassle, you got used to it. But IIRC, that was only glass bottles, beer and soda mostly. Will the bottles really be recycled, or will they just end up being shipped to China or India for disposal.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Hello, Nurse! up and garnering clicks at The Other McCain.

I've Looked at Clouds from Both Sides Now

Penn State, Microplastics impact cloud formation, likely affecting weather and climate, just not very much. 

Scientists have spotted microplastics, tiny pieces of plastic smaller than 5 millimeters, in some of the most pristine environments on Earth, from the depths of the Mariana Trench to the snow on Mt. Everest to the mountaintop clouds of China and Japan. Microplastics have been detected in human brains, the bellies of sea turtles and the roots of plants. Now, new research led by Penn State scientists reveals that microplastics in the atmosphere could be affecting weather and climate.

The study, published today (Nov. 7) in the journal Environmental Science and Technology: Air, demonstrated that microplastics act as ice nucleating particles, microscopic aerosols that facilitate the formation of ice crystals in clouds.

This means that microplastics could impact precipitation patterns, weather forecasting, climate modeling and even aviation safety by influencing how atmospheric ice crystals form clouds, explained Miriam Freedman, professor of chemistry at Penn State and senior author on the paper.

“Throughout the past two decades of research into microplastics, scientists have been finding that they're everywhere, so this is another piece of that puzzle,” Freedman said. “It’s now clear that we need to have a better understanding of how they're interacting with our climate system, because we’ve been able to show that the process of cloud formation can be triggered by microplastics.”

Oh my god, plastics cause clouds that block the sun, they rain and snow on everyone. So many things we could have done, but clouds got in the way! 

They found that the average temperature at which the droplets froze was 5-10 degrees warmer than droplets without microplastics. Typically, an atmospheric water droplet without any defects freezes at about negative 38 degrees Celsius, explained Heidi Busse, a graduate student at Penn State and lead author on the paper. Any kind of defect in the water droplet, whether that’s dust, bacteria or microplastics, can give ice something to form — or nucleate — around. That tiny structure is just enough to trigger the water droplet to freeze at warmer temperatures.

So, basically, microplastics act just like any other form of dust, which is much more prevalent in the environment than microplastics.  

A great songwriter, crazy as a bedbug. 

The Latest Water Bottle Threat - Nanoplastics!

WaPoo, A new study finds that ‘nanoplastics’ are even more common than microplastics in bottled water

People are swallowing hundreds of thousands of microscopic pieces of plastic each time they drink a liter of bottled water, scientists have shown — a revelation that could have profound implications for human health.

A new paper released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found about 240,000 particles in the average liter of bottled water, most of which were “nanoplastics” — particles measuring less than one micrometer (less than one-seventieth the width of a human hair).

For the past several years, scientists have been looking for “microplastics,” or pieces of plastic that range from one micrometer to half a centimeter in length, and found them almost everywhere. The tiny shards of plastic have been uncovered in the deepest depths of the ocean, in the frigid recesses of Antarctic sea ice and in the human placenta. They spill out of laundry machines and hide in soils and wildlife. Microplastics are also in the food we eat and the water we drink: In 2018, scientists discovered that a single bottle of water contained, on average, 325 pieces of microplastics.

But researchers at Columbia University have now identified the extent to which nanoplastics also pose a threat.

“Whatever microplastic is doing to human health, I will say nanoplastics are going to be more dangerous,” said Wei Min, a chemistry professor at Columbia and one of the authors of the new paper.

Scientists have also found microplastics in tap water, but in smaller amounts.

Sherri Mason, a professor and director of sustainability at Penn State Behrend in Erie, Pa., says plastic materials are a bit like skin — they slough off pieces into water or food or whatever substance they are touching.

“We know at this point that our skin is constantly shedding,” she said. “And this is what these plastic items are doing — they’re just constantly shedding.”

The typical methods for finding microplastics can’t be easily applied to finding even smaller particles, but Min co-invented a method that involves aiming two lasers at a sample and observing the resonance of different molecules. Using machine learning, the group was able to identify seven types of plastic molecules in a sample of three types of bottled water.

“There are some other techniques that have identified nanoplastics before,” said Naixin Qian, a PhD student in chemistry at Columbia and the first author of the new paper. “But before our study, people didn’t have a precise number of how many.”  

“It’s really groundbreaking,” said Mason, who was not involved in the research but was one of the first researchers to identify plastics in bottled water. The new study, she says, shows how extensive nanoplastics are and provides a starting point to assess their health effects.

“Normal humans looking at a sample of water — if there’s visible plastic in it, they’ll be turned off,” she said. “But they don’t realize that it’s actually the invisible plastics present that are the biggest concern.”

The new study found pieces of PET (polyethylene terephthalate), which is what most plastic water bottles are made of, and polyamide, a type of plastic that is present in water filters. The researchers hypothesized that this means plastic is getting into the water both from the bottle and from the filtration process.

Researchers don’t yet know how dangerous tiny plastics are for human health. In a large review published in 2019, the World Health Organization said there wasn’t enough firm evidence linking microplastics in water to human health, but described an urgent need for further research.

In theory, nanoplastics are small enough to make it into a person’s blood, liver and brain. And nanoplastics are likely to appear in much larger quantities than microplastics — in the new research, 90 percent of the plastic particles found in the sample were nanoplastics, and only 10 percent were larger microplastics.

Jill Culora, a spokeswoman for the International Bottled Water Association, said in an email that there “is both a lack of standardized methods and no scientific consensus on the potential health impacts of nano- and microplastic particles. Therefore, media reports about these particles in drinking water do nothing more than unnecessarily scare consumers.”
 
Finding a connection between microplastics and health problems in humans is complicated — there are thousands of types of plastics, and over 10,000 chemicals used to manufacture them. But at a certain point, Mason said, policymakers and the public need to prepare for the possibility that the tiny plastics in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the clothes we wear have serious and dangerous effects.

“You still have a lot of people that, because of marketing, are convinced that bottled water is better,” Mason said. “But this is what you’re drinking in addition to that H2O.”

So, to summarize, we finally found a way to measure very tiny plastic nanoparticles in water from plastic bottles, and found a lot of them (remember, they're very small). We have no evidence that they are dangerous at all, but they might be thousands of times more dangerous than microparticles!

Next worry, picoplastics! Which are probably a thousand times more numerous than nanoplastics, and may be a thousand times more dangerous! Be very afraid!

The Wombat has Rule 5 Monday: Happy Lee-Jackson Day! up and at 'em at The Other McCain.

Nurdle Spill Bedevils Anacostia

A sample of nurdles spilled from derailed
 train cars in Hyattsville, MD,

Chesapeake Bay Mag, Train Derailment Sends Tiny Plastic Pellets Into Anacostia River, Fueling New Pollution Concern

A train that derailed in the Anacostia River watershed on Sept. 23 introduced local officials to a source of pollution no one was quite prepared to handle: nurdles.

These tiny plastic pellets, each about the size of a lentil, are transported around the world as the raw materials of plastic production. At 1 a.m. on Sept. 23, during a tropical storm, a CSX train derailed, spilling an unknown quantity of the pellets from some of its 16 railcars.

The spill occurred in the stretch of tracks that crosses alternate U.S. Route 1 (Baltimore Avenue) on the south side of Hyattsville, Maryland, just outside the District of Columbia and less than a half-mile from the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River. The nurdles were made of recycled plastic and were on their way to be turned into new products. A CSX spokesperson did not answer a question about where the shipment was headed or how frequently nurdles are transported through the area.

“This is the first time in the recent memory of our staff for dealing with a train derailment,” said Cindy Zork, communications manager for Hyattsville.

There were no reported injuries and, other than a small amount of diesel fuel, “no hazardous materials” released in the spill. The city closed the busy thoroughfare to traffic for two weeks, frustrating local drivers.

But, Zork said, residents were equally concerned about the tiny white nurdles that covered the ground nearby.

Most state and local governments do not yet have rules in place for monitoring, preventing or cleaning up nurdle spills, according to The Great Nurdle Hunt, a project of the Finland-based nonprofit Fidra that aims to end nurdle pollution worldwide.

“A spill is often an occasion of great confusion as local and state environmental agencies try to figure out who might be responsible for managing it,” the Nurdle Hunt website says.

California is the only state in the U.S. with a strong law regulating nurdles and marine plastics as a specific source of pollution, the website states. Other states have varied approaches to handling this emerging source of pollution. Many are developed on the fly after a spill occurs.

The Clean Water Act does provide some means for the federal government, under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to address nurdle pollution in waterways. But a legal overview published after the Hyattsville spill pointed out that nurdles aren’t federally classified as pollutants or hazardous materials, so no federal agency is expressly responsible for preventing or cleaning up the spills. Legislation that would require the EPA to prohibit the discharge of plastic pellets into waterways or during transport was introduced as recently as July but has not yet passed.

Most nurdle pollution is found on beaches, where the pellets wash in on the tide from faraway plastic production plants or ships that have spilled them.

I don't see a problem that can't be solved with some shovels and containers, and maybe a large vacuum cleaner couldn't fix. In the grand scale of Anacostia problems, this one is pretty minor. 

Just One Word - Plastics!

Bay Bulletin, Study Finds Microplastics Pollution Makes Fish Viruses More Lethal

Microplastic fragments are becoming an increasing environmental problem in our waterways. They are the tiny particles that weathering creates from Styrofoam cups and plastic bottles, particles that make their way into the Chesapeake Bay. But new research finds their impact on marine life goes even deeper than we thought.

Toxins like microplastics work slowly in fish. But when combined with something like a virus, they can be lethal. A new study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment by toxicologists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) saw it happen up close. Their lab research showed that certain types of microplastic fragments can cause enough damage to delicate structures like gill membranes to allow viruses to enter more easily.

The lead author, Dr. Meredith Evans Seeley, and several co-authors from VIMS and the College of William & Mary, wondered if the IHN virus, common in salmon and trout farms, would cause more fish to die in water containing plastic fragments than in water containing fragments of natural material like decayed marsh grass.

The team exposed rainbow trout, a common species in Virginia farms, to low, medium, and high concentrations of three different common types of microparticles, and later infected half the tanks with the IHN virus.

The particles came from polystyrene foam, nylon fibers from clothing, and the common plant saltmarsh cordgrass. Control tanks held no virus or microparticles.

“We found that co-exposure to microplastics and virus increased disease severity,” said Dr. Seeley, “with nylon fibers having the greatest impact. This is the first time this interaction has been documented, and emphasizes the importance of testing multiple stressors, which is more environmentally realistic. Nylon microfibers are larger and may be more likely to become trapped in and damage the delicate tissues of the gills and gut lining. That could make it easier for the virus to enter and stress the host.”

While the research speaks directly to the aquaculture industry, it’s also applicable to natural environments like the Bay and its tributaries, VIMS researchers say.

“Disease and microplastics may interact to produce worse outcomes across a range of aquatic and terrestrial systems,” added collaborating VIMS professor Rob Hale, “including in wild fishes, corals, and birds, raising questions far beyond fish farms. If you just test microplastics alone, you might not see any impacts and call it a day, but in the real world those microplastics may interact with pathogens, rising temperatures, decreasing pH, increasing water turbidity, and other variables.”

This research is likely to prompt further study of microplastics and a variety of other contributing factors.

To my knowledge, this is the first study to show a significant (to use the word in it's commonplace usage, not its scientific/statistical sense) negative effect of microplastics  on aquatic life, and even then, they had to introduce a second factor, a lethal virus. I tried following the links to the study (I got to the abstract, not the body). Microplastics were not harmful in the absence of virus, and natural fibers from rotting seagrass, and microplastics increased mortality above the virus alone, with the microplastics having a greater effect.

I have a few questions. 

First, how realistic were the microplastic exposure? It's nowhere in the abstract how the microplastics exposure compared to those in the real world. I wouldn't be shocked if it were several times, or even orders of magnitude higher than what is commonly found. That wouldn't be unexpected in a first study.

Second, how were the microplastics created? 'Natural' microplastics result from the slow chemical, biological and physical breakdown of plastic in the environment. Were the test microplastics created by grinding solid plastics? They could have very different, and much harsher effects than naturally created microplastics.

Third, how were the microplastics treated prior to the test? 'Real world' microplastics would mostly have a long prior exposure to the water before interacting with the fish gills. The would almost certainly become coated with "biofilm", the slimy mix of bacteria, their exudates, as well as natural organic compounds from the water, making them much more similar to natural microparticles. 

Forget It Jake, It's Baltimore

Having run out of important problems to address, Baltimore County votes to ban plastic bags (Baltimore Sun)

Baltimore County residents will no longer be able to buy plastic bags when they go grocery shopping after a new law goes into effect later this year.

The County Council voted Monday evening to pass the Bring Your Own Bag Act. The vote was 5-2, with Councilman Todd Crandell, a Republican from Dundalk, and Chairman Julian Jones Jr., a Woodstock Democrat, casting dissenting votes.

Council members Mike Ertel and Izzy Patoka, Democrats from Towson and Pikesville, respectively, and David Marks, a Republican from Perry Hall, introduced the bill last month to incentivize people to begin using reusable bags.

Under the law, which takes effect Nov. 1, customers will be charged a minimum of 5 cents for any paper or reusable bag they buy, which was amended from a previous version that would have levied at least a 10-cent fee. Shoppers who bring reusable bags will not be charged a fee.

The bill is meant to curtail customers’ use of plastic bags and cut down on litter, after the three council members said they had heard complaints from residents about trash on the streets.

“I vote for the environment,” Marks previously told The Baltimore Sun after he, Patoka and Ertel introduced the bill at a Jan. 3 council meeting.

County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr., a Democrat, supported the measure.

Before the vote, Marks said: “I will support any efforts to reduce plastic pollution to try and make sure we can preserve the precious county resources we’re spending on removing litter and to preserve the vitality of our waterways and the Chesapeake Bay.”

Ertel also framed the act as a tool for reducing waste as Baltimore County’s sole landfill nears capacity.

But council opponents saw it as something else.

“This bill is a complete government overreach into the relationship consumers have with the establishments they patronize,” Crandell said. “I don’t think I’ve seen, in my eight-plus years on the council, a more convoluted piece of legislation. I think this puts an undue burden on our business community.”

Jones said the bill would be an added burden on customers, who already are paying inflated prices for eggs and other goods, and would force retailers to implement an unpopular rule on their consumers without recourse.

So, bring your own bag to buy fentanyl. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Christina Ricci up on time an under budget at The Other McCain.

Climate and the Environment

I don't have much today, so I'm cleaning the tabs.

This is great! WUWT, Julia Hartley-Brewer Rips into Policy Researcher over Climate Change

Greta Thunberg admits the agenda: Greta Thunberg Finally Admits What Climate Change Activism Is Really All About

Greta Thunberg used to say her goal was to protect the planet from climate change but she now admits it's to overthrow "the whole capitalist system," which she says is responsible for "imperialism, oppression, genocide.. racist, oppressive extractionism"https://t.co/MwzC3IRDn0

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 1, 2022

City Journal, On Second Thought, Just Throw Plastic Away, "Even Greenpeace now admits the obvious: recycling doesn’t work."

Even Greenpeace has finally acknowledged the truth: recycling plastic makes no sense.

This has been obvious for decades to anyone who crunched the numbers, but the fantasy of recycling plastic proved irresistible to generations of environmentalists and politicians. They preached it to children, mandated it for adults, and bludgeoned municipalities and virtue-signaling corporations into wasting vast sums—probably hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide—on an enterprise that has been harmful to the environment as well as to humanity.

Now Greenpeace has seen the light, or at least a glimmer of rationality. The group has issued a report accompanied by a press release headlined, “Plastic Recycling Is A Dead-End Street—Year After Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases.” The group’s overall policy remains delusional—the report proposes a far more harmful alternative to recycling—but it’s nonetheless encouraging to see environmentalists put aside their obsessions long enough to contemplate reality.

The Greenpeace report offers a wealth of statistics and an admirably succinct diagnosis: “Mechanical and chemical recycling of plastic waste has largely failed and will always fail because plastic waste is: (1) extremely difficult to collect, (2) virtually impossible to sort for recycling, (3) environmentally harmful to reprocess, (4) often made of and contaminated by toxic materials, and (5) not economical to recycle.” Greenpeace could have added a sixth reason: forcing people to sort and rinse their plastic garbage is a waste of everyone’s time. But then, making life more pleasant for humans has never been high on the green agenda.

The Worm that Will Eat the World

"Superworms"

Not so much, actually, just a beetle larva that eats plastic, Bloomies, ‘Superworms’ Can Digest Styrofoam, Australian Scientists Find

Scientists in Australia have discovered that superworms can live and even grow on a diet of only polystyrene, also known colloquially as Styrofoam. Superworm is a common name for the larval stages of the darkling beetle (Zophobas morio). The researchers described their finding as a “first step” in discovering natural enzymes that could be used to recycle this type of plastic.

“We envision that polystyrene waste will be collected, mechanically shredded, and then degraded in bioreactors with an enzyme cocktail,” said Chris Rinke, a scientist at the University of Queensland and an author of a paper published on Thursday in the journal Microbial Genomics.

Every year the world produces upwards of 400 million tons of plastic, and the durable material has become a garbage nightmare. Plastics are filling up landfills but also spilling into the natural environment, where they breakdown and poison wildlife, and have been introduced into the water cycle and even human blood.

In recent years, scientists globally have been looking for microorganisms that can digest plastic, which is how natural materials like wood biodegrade. The idea is that some kind of enzyme engineered from the gut of an insect or bacteria could be used to digest difficult-to-recycle plastic so it could be made into new plastic products, which would reduce the need for virgin plastic.

Used for things such as coffee cups and packing peanuts, polystyrene is one of the most common plastics in production. It accounts for “up to 7–10% of the total non-fibre plastic production,” according to the paper.

Experimenters divided worms into three groups and fed each a different diet: bran, polystyrene or a starvation diet. The worms that lived on polystyrene were not as healthy as those eating bran, but they were able to eat the Styrofoam and gain weight and complete their life cycle.

However, the report also found that the diet had “negative impacts on host gut microbiome diversity and health” of the worms. In other words, they could eat plastics, but it had a cost to them.

It would theoretically be possible to keep thousands of worms in an industrial setting to digest plastics. But the researchers say their next goal is to identify and enhance the enzyme the worms use for future applications.

I fundamentally doubt one  "fact" asserted in the article, that the "superworms" can live and grow (if poorly) on a diet of only Styrofoam (polystyrene foam). Polystyrene contains only carbon and hydrogen, and while it might be an adequate source of calories for energy (it's pretty similar to solid gasoline), it lacks all the other essential elements of life, fixed nitrogen for proteins, phosphates for DNA and RNA (and more), and a host of minor and trace elements.

I suspect something happened between the scientists reporting, and the reporters story, where some aspects of the beetle larvae's diets were glossed over. I'm more inclined to blame the journalists than the scientists, although I don't doubt the scientists did a lot to push the story, and not talk about the complicated stuff to reporters.

Just One Word, Plastics!

UMCEES,  New Study Tracks Microplastics in Watershed

Scientists at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science are embarking on a research project that will lay the foundation for plastic research in the Chesapeake Bay. The two-year NOAA Marine Debris Program funded project begins in January and will track how microplastics move through the Choptank River watershed on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The project studies the fate and transport of microplastics, providing a baseline of understanding of what kind of plastics exist in the waterway and how they move through coastal systems, particularly how marsh wetlands and underwater grasses impact their flow and where they end up during different seasons throughout the year.

“A lot of attention is paid to the giant garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean, but those plastics came from somewhere. We have to understand where they are coming from and what happens to them before they get to the ocean,” said Associate Professor Jamie Pierson. “How microplastics transit through a system like the Choptank and its features—marshes, SAV beds, wetlands—might affect transport from source to open water.”

 

Studies have estimated that up to 95% of the waste that accumulates on shorelines, the sea surface, and the seafloor is plastic. To date, most published studies on plastic debris have focused on marine ecosystems and not estuaries, rivers, or freshwater systems. Even fewer studies have focused on the interaction of coastal wetlands, such as underwater grasses or marshlands, and the accumulation of microplastics.

Plastic debris occurs in different sizes and washes up on beaches, floats on the water surface, and sinks to the water's floor. Large pieces of debris are most obvious, but increasing attention has been paid to microplastics, which are less than 5 millimeters in size, or smaller than a pencil eraser. These smaller particles have specific and important human and ecological health implications because they can easily degrade and enter the food chain where they are ingested by the creatures at the base of the food chain. 

I keep seeing food chains invoked as possible problems with plastics, but I never see any results of studies suggesting this, or even evidence that they are being carried out. There's a reason for this. They know they wouldn't be able to find an effect, and they don't want the scam busted.

The project will develop and model scenarios to determine which factors and mitigation strategies could have the greatest impact on reducing marine debris in riverine environments. All of the data gathered will be made available to stakeholders and policymakers from agencies such as NOAA and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, as well as local agencies and NGOs to be applied to coastal wetland systems, locally and globally.

Far be it from be to criticize someone building a career studying a pollutant with next to no environmental impacts, but when we wanted something without biological effect in the laboratory, we usually chose plastic (though, glass is good too). Large plastics, with a few exceptions, are mostly an aesthetic problem. I still want to know who stuck the straw up the turtles noses. Microplastics are the natural results of the world recycling plastics in it's own inefficient manner and almost certainly have negligible effects on the Bay's organisms. 

The Wombat is back in the saddle with Rule 5 Sunday: Yvette Mimieux, RIP.

VA Government Bans Single Use Plastic

 Northam order phases out Va. state use of plastics

An executive order from Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam will phase out all single-use plastics at state agencies, colleges and universities.

The order bans state use of disposable plastic bags, single-use plastic and polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam) food service containers, plastic straws and cutlery and single-use plastic water bottles that aren’t for medical or public-safety use. The ban takes effect in 120 days.

And then all non-medical, single-use plastics and polystyrene objects are scheduled to be reduced by 25% by Dec. 21, 2022; 50% by Dec. 31, 2023; 75% by Dec. 31, 2024, and fully eliminated by Dec. 31, 2025.

“Plastics are the most pervasive type of marine debris in our ocean and along our coasts,” the order says. “In 2019 alone, volunteers collected more than 12,000 plastic bags and 13,000 plastic bottles, in addition to many other types of marine debris, from Virginia’s coastline.”

A statement from Northam’s office cites an Environmental Protection Agency study that found that less than 9% of plastics in the U.S. are recycled.

The order also directs the secretary of natural resources to come up with recommendations to reduce solid waste overall.

CBF was happy, Virginia to Phase Out Single-Use Plastics in State Government

“We are grateful to the governor for his leadership in the effort to rid our waterways of this bane by phasing out single-use plastics in government agencies and requiring a searching review of how to reduce the vast quantities of waste that currently goes to landfills. This executive order ensures that Virginia will be a leader in this effort.”

Frankly, I don't think it will do that much good. The state is only a small fraction of the trash stream, and one over which the state ought to be able to exert control over.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Oksana Rykova up on time and under budget at The Other McCain.

Just One Word: Plastics!

Evil plastic - take it off!

There's money in plastics, just not the way you think: Morgan State U Gets $1 Million to Study Bay Microplastics

Baltimore’s Morgan State University is diving into the issue of microplastics in the Chesapeake Bay, thanks to a nearly $1 million federal grant.

Morgan State is Maryland’s largest Historically Black University, a research institution along Herring Run in Northeast Baltimore, which leads into Back River.

The $999,999 funding, announced by lawmakers U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin and Congressmen Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes, and Kweisi Mfume (all D-Md.), focuses on microplastics’ impact on marine ecosystems, with the Chesapeake Bay serving as a model.

Microplastics are very small (less than five millimeters) pieces of plastic debris that can be ingested by marine life, settle on shorelines and in underwater grasses, and even attract other chemicals to carry along with them.

Attracting pollutants is a thing that particle in general do, whether they are sediment, biological detritus or plastic. Evidence that property is a problem for biota and not a benefit are still lacking.

The Chesapeake Bay Program warns that alarming amounts of plastics, often too small to see, are increasingly being found in the Bay. To date, the U.S. Geological Survey has found microplastics in all samples taken at nontidal stations in the Chesapeake watershed—not just the Bay proper, but also its rivers and streams.

With the new funding, Morgan State students will participate in STEM research, and the funding will allow the university to recruit and support students pursing doctoral degrees on this important issue.

“This new federal grant funding will help Morgan State University lead the way in microplastics pollution research and accelerate aquatic cleanup efforts. It’s a clear win-win – helping us to improve the health of the Bay while investing in the capabilities of our researchers at Morgan State,” said the lawmakers in a joint statement.

The funding was awarded through the National Science Foundation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities Research Infrastructure in Science and Engineering (HBCU-RISE) program, which supports STEM research at HBCUs that offer doctoral degrees in science and engineering disciplines.

I was in the business back when they first started about worrying about microplastics in the ocean and in the bay. As far as I know, they've never really demonstrated that microplastics really have any negative effects on biota; they spin theories, but either they never get tested, or they get tested and prove false, and never see the light of day because of the known scientific publishing bias for positive results. 

Back when we were looking for materials that were largely inert to contain organisms, we would often choose plastics of various sorts. Mostly, they just don't like the idea that the plastics are there.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Hedley Lamarr Presents The Teutonic Titwillow, Lili von Shtupp! ready and willing.

Maryland Bans Foam Food Containers

Take it off, now!

Virtue signaling. The Patch, From Sen. Cheryl Kagan And Del. Brooke Lierman: Farewell To Foam In Maryland

Beginning Oct. 1, Maryland will become the first state to ban expanded polystyrene foam, or Styrofoam, food and beverage packaging. There is a growing awareness that Styrofoam is harmful to both our environment and public health.

Made from petroleum products in factories that spew toxic fumes and pollute our air, Styrofoam often ends up in our gutters and waterways as litter. It cannot be effectively recycled and causes permanent damage to our ecosystem. Foam absorbs more chemicals than other plastics, breaking down into particles that are difficult to collect. Fish eat the pieces of foam, thinking it is food; we eat the fish and ingest the toxic chemicals.

I see that claim a lot, but I never see any science to back it up. In fact, most toxic chemicals are attracted to a wide variety of natural particles, such as sediment and organic detritus, and in virtually every case the toxic compounds were less available and toxic than if they were not adsorbed to the particles and were dissolved in the water. I have a sneaky suspicion no one has tested plastics for this because they're afraid the answer will not fit the agenda, or they have, and have found it inconvenient to tout.

Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Damn It, Janet ready and willing at The Other McCain.

Just One Word, Plastics!

Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper: Study Shows Steady Microplastic Increase in Susquehanna River Bass

Tiny plastic particles, also called microplastics, were found in 100 percent of smallmouth bass digestive systems studied in 2019 via the Susquehanna University’s Freshwater Institute — capping an annual increase in the three-year study.

A total of 206 smallmouth bass were collected from 2017-19 from two different sites on the Susquehanna River and in Pine Creek. Samples were collected by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, with Susquehanna University students studying each stomach for dietary contents and microplastic analysis.

“The diet analysis of smallmouth bass shows a large variety of prey items from several trophic levels suggesting that there are many pathways for the accumulation of microplastics,” said Dr. Jonathan Niles, director of the Freshwater Research Institute. “Our study will help increase the knowledge of what smallmouth bass consume in their diet and the presence and concentration of microplastics in freshwater fish species found in the Susquehanna River.”

The primary diet item in 2017 and 2019 was crayfish (53.8 percent and 46 percent, respectively). In 2018, macroinvertebrates (39.5 percent) were the top food item discovered.

However, the percentage of fish with microplastic particles — and the number of microplastics per fish — drastically increased in specimens in each of the three years.
​
In 2017, 87.5 percent of the samples contained microplastics, with an average of 2.3 microplastics per fish. That number climbed to 95.5 percent in 2018 specimens (61 per fish) and 100 percent of those collected in 2019 (28.9 per fish).

“One possibility for the differing number of microplastics could be the flow rate of the Susquehanna River, allowing it to gather more plastic waste and break it down with a higher flow rate,” said Niles, adding that the average flow increased in each of the three testing years.

That seems like it is an enormous increase in a very short time, far more than any increase of the use of plastics, or the rate at which it is getting into the River. So, it could just be a weather effect?

The thing about micro plastics, is that they are, shockingly, plastic. Mostly plastic is relatively biologically inert (which is why we use it so much for eating and drink, and while they talk about "accumulation of microplastics", my guess is that most of these microplastics are simply consumed along with play, and simply eliminated like all the rest of the random detritus.

There is often concern expressed that microplastics might sorb toxic chemicals onto their surface, which may then be taken in by the fish. (The same might be wondered with sediment and other natural particle). I've noticed that scientists seem unable or unwilling to test this hypothesis; possibly for fear of rejecting it.

It's not high on my list of worries.



Wombat-socho has Rule 5 Sunday: Summer Musashi up and running as expected.

WuFlu Kills Maryland Foam Ban

Or at least stunts it. Maryland Extends Foam Ban Deadline Due to COVID-19 Shutdowns

Maryland businesses and schools are getting a little more time to make the switch away from foam food containers due to pandemic-related setbacks.

The nation’s first statewide ban on foam food containers passed in the Maryland legislature last year and was set to go into effect July 1, 2020. The disposable foam frequently winds up in the Bay and is particularly dangerous to wildlife.

Now, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is offering a “very limited, 90-day extension to help small businesses and schools that weren’t able to use up their existing inventories because of COVID-19.”

The new law bans the use of food service containers, egg cartons, trays, and plates composed of expanded polystyrene commonly referred to under the trademark name of Styrofoam. Restaurants, grocery stores, schools, and other food-service businesses with foam containers still left in their inventory were supposed to use them up by July 1, but many of those schools and restaurants were closed or had greatly-reduced traffic.

In a statement, Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles explains, “We’re not altering the effective dates of any county or municipal laws on the sale or use of these styrofoam products. This is solely about finding a modest accommodation for those in need in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, while upholding an important new environmental law that could become a model for many other states.”
. . .
In a public notice, MDE says existing inventories of foam food service products may be used until October 1, 2020, but businesses and schools may not buy additional foam products after July 1. Additionally, no person or business may sell foam food service products in the state of Maryland.

Once the ban is in effect, MDE says the counties will have the authority to enforce it will fines for noncompliance. For more information about the new law, see MDE’s Frequently Asked Questions and to read about alternatives to foam products, refer to Montgomery County’s List of Recyclable and Compostable Alternatives for Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Ware.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Michelle Malkin up on time and within budget.

WuFlu Sickens Plastic Bag Bans, Virtue Signalers Hurt Worst

Jessica Alba

Paper Or Plastic? Bans On Single-Use Bags Tossed Out Amid Fears Of Virus Spread

Reusable grocery tote bags across Massachusetts are idle these days, stuffed in the backs of vehicles and hanging on door knobs in homes.

That's because last week Gov. Charlie Baker issued a new public health order: "From now on reusable bags are prohibited and all regulations on plastic bag bans will be lifted."

Several New England states have also temporarily banned reusable bags or delayed implementing or enforcing new restrictions on single-use bags.

Olivia Wilde

The goal is to limit the spread of the coronavirus in food stores and pharmacies. But the scientific evidence supporting the prohibition of reusables is far from conclusive.

Over the past two years, 139 Massachusetts municipalities have instituted a variety of restrictions on single-use bags. A move to pass a statewide ban has failed in 10 legislative seasons.

The Massachusetts Food Association, which represents supermarkets and grocers, has supported a uniform statewide ban for environmental reasons but right now, it's pro-paper and plastic.

Emma Roberts

"During an emergency crisis, they're probably safer than reusable bags," says Brian Houghton, the association's senior vice president for policy. "There have been studies we've seen by the CDC and others that there are surfaces that this virus can live on."

But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers no specific recommendations about reusable bags and coronavirus. (Though they do say you should regularly wash reusable bags to prevent the spread of food-borne disease.)

Georgia tries to use reusable bags (peer pressure is a powerful thing), but the last time she went to the grocery store, she came back with the back of the car full of the old one use plastic bags. It seems the local store won't allow reusable bags in the era of WuFlu.

The Wombat has Rule Five Monday: Honor Blackman, RIP up on time at The Other McCain.

Safe At Last!

At least if you live or travel to Anne Arundel County: Anne Arundel County foam food container ban takes effect

The law was passed after concerns came up about plastic foam impacting the local environment.

"Well, they say a lot of the recyclable stuff they got now, they're not recycling. It's just piling up. So I guess that's just more stuff piling up. Every time you look around that's all you see," said Robert Wilson, a resident.

The ban includes single-use food-product containers like cups, plates, bowls or other products used for selling or serving food.

"It almost brings a tear to my eye because I really enjoy fishing when I get an opportunity to get out and do it," said Edward Mason, a resident.

I can't honestly say a foamed food or beverage container has ever detracted from my fishing experience.

Many people said the law is the right move to make in order to protect the environment, especially the Chesapeake Bay.

"I'm a fisherman of some type, and I've noticed how things have changed in the bay area over the years that I've been there, so I think it would be a good thing as far as the quality of the bay," Mason said.

The move comes after Annapolis put into effect a similar ban in September 2019. The new law in the county does not ban food or drinks placed in plastic foam containers outside of the county, but if restaurants in Anne Arundel County get caught using plastic foam containers, they could face fines ranging from $50 to $500.

I spend a lot of time walking the beach, and I rarely notice or encounter a foam container.

Just One Word: Plastic!

One reputation for plastic is that plastic waste is forever, but a recent study from Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute shows that plastics in the ocean are broken down at relatively rapid rates: Simulated sunlight reveals how 98% of plastics at sea go missing each year

A team of scientists from Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, East China Normal University and Northeastern University conducted a unique study to help elucidate the mystery of missing plastic fragments at sea. Their work provides novel insight regarding the removal mechanisms and potential lifetimes of a select few microplastics.

For the study, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, researchers selected plastic polymers prevalently found on the ocean surface and irradiated them using a solar simulator system. The samples were irradiated under simulated sunlight for approximately two months to capture the kinetics of plastic dissolution. Twenty-four hours was the equivalent of about one solar day of photochemical exposure in the subtropical ocean gyre surface waters. To assess the physical and chemical photodegradation of these plastics, researchers used optical microscopy, electron microscopy, and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy.

Results showed that simulated sunlight increased the amount of dissolved carbon in the water and made those tiny plastic particles tinier. It also fragmented, oxidized and altered the color of the irradiated polymers. Rates of removal depended upon polymer chemistry. Engineered polymer solutions (recycled plastics) degraded more rapidly than polypropylene (e.g. consumer packaging) and polyethylene (e.g. plastic bags, plastic films, and containers including bottles), which were the most photo-resistant polymers studied.

Based on the linear extrapolation of plastic mass loss, engineered polymer solutions (2.7 years) and the North Pacific Gyre (2.8 years) samples had the shortest lifetimes, followed by polypropylene (4.3 years), polyethylene (33 years), and standard polyethylene (49 years), used for crates, trays, bottles for milk and fruit juices, and caps for food packaging.

These are relatively short life-times for substances in the oceans; even highly reactive (and toxic) trace metals have life spans estimated in the tens of years.

“For the most photoreactive microplastics such as expanded polystyrene and polypropylene, sunlight may rapidly remove these polymers from ocean waters. Other, less photodegradable microplastics such as polyethylene, may take decades to centuries to degrade even if they remain at the sea surface,” said Shiye Zhao, Ph.D., senior author and a post-doc researcher working in the laboratory of Tracy Mincer, Ph.D., an assistant professor of biology/biogeochemistry at FAU’s Harbor Branch and Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College. “In addition, as these plastics dissolve at sea, they release biologically active organic compounds, which are measured as total dissolved organic carbon, a major byproduct of sunlight-driven plastic photodegradation.”

And what happens to these organic compounds? It turns out that marine bacteria eat them. A little secret, there are bacteria out there that will degrade almost anything that they can extract energy out of by degrading it further; if there aren't any, and a substrate becomes newly available, bacteria will rapidly evolve to take advantage of the new food source.

Zhao and collaborators also checked the biolability of plastic-derived dissolved organic carbon upon marine microbes. These dissolved organics seem to be broadly biodegradable and a drop in the ocean compared to natural biolabile marine dissolved organic carbon. However, some of these organics or their co-leachates may inhibit microbial activity. The dissolved organic carbon released as most plastics photodegraded was readily utilized by marine bacteria.

“The potential that plastics are releasing bio-inhibitory compounds during photodegradation in the ocean could impact microbial community productivity and structure, with unknown consequences for the biogeochemistry and ecology of the ocean,” said Zhao. “One of four polymers in our study had a negative effect on bacteria. More work is needed to determine whether the release of bioinhibitory compounds from photodegrading plastics is a common or rare phenomenon.”

These results should surprise no one who has ever picked up a piece of plastic that's been left out in the sun for a season or two and had it crumble in their hands.

The Wombat is back in business, with Rule Five Sunday: Black Widow.