Microplastic Pollution from a Surprising Source – The Fire Island News
[Originally published in the Fire Island News print edition, July 2016]
Living next to the ocean all summer it’s practically impossible not to see some form of plastic floating over the waves, whether it’s from an old shopping bag or a helium balloon. Experts have also highlighted the existence of masses of garbage floating around the oceans, namely the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, where trash conjoins to form islands of waste. However, we don’t often think about the plastic in the ocean that we can’t see and most of us don’t even know that it’s there.Recent studies indicate that there is a lot of plastic in bodies of water that we can’t see. Microplastic pollution is quickly becoming an important focus for those who study the effects of human life on marine ecosystems and bodies of water. Many have focused on the impacts of microbeads in this pollution, holding the cosmetic industry accountable for their role in marine contamination. Plastics less than 5 millimeters long are considered to be microbeads, according to the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015.
Signed in December 2015 by President Obama, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 bans the use of microbeads, small particles of plastic that do not disintegrate and are generally used for exfoliating purposes in cosmetic products. The bill will take effect in July of 2017, giving companies time to phase microbeads out of their products.
Beyond the obvious environmental harm caused by filling the oceans with plastic waste, the disposal of microplastics into water also has more detrimental and even less visible consequences. On their own, microbeads are not toxic. However, once in the water they attract harmful chemicals which cling to the plastic surface, forming edible clusters of dangerous chemicals. These are then ingested by animals, eventually working their way up the food chain, often making it all the way to seafood.
However, addressing the contamination caused by microbeads leaves out a significant portion of the microplastics that float through the water. Many microplastics, in fact, come from the seemingly harmless act of washing clothes. According to a study done by Professor Tamara Galloway at Exeter University, some of the worst offenders are polyester fleeces because of their larger content of plastic-based fibers like polyethylene and nylon which help keep the wearer warm.
Unlike microbeads, microfibers from fleeces and other clothing are generally toxic due to the chemicals clothes are made with or that are found in laundry detergents. This makes them even more harmful to the marine animals who ingest them. However, this poses its own set of issues as the chemicals that humans can take in through the consumption of seafood also have dangerous health effects and are affiliated with cancer or asbestos in some extreme cases, according to a study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
President of CRESLI and Professor at FIT Dr. Arthur Kopelman has interesting insights into the roles of the fashion and textile industries in microfiber pollution. He sees the need for a greater recognition of the issue and the consequences of microfiber pollution. “Fashion industries and textile industries are trying to move towards a model of sustainability, but I think that issue is not being addressed as broadly as possible.”
Kopelman noted that local efforts to ban microbeads were met with opposition, until Obama’s law miraculously passed. He suspects that any action taken to address microfiber pollution would meet similar opposition at the ground level. Kopelman also emphasized the need for greater awareness and more available information, although this need is seemingly not being addressed by any sorts of environmental organizations nearby. “I don't know who, if any, entity is pushing for that,” he said.
In terms of moving forwards and addressing the inability of sewage systems to filter out microplastics from the 1.4 billion gallons of wastewater being treated daily, Professor John Tanacredi of Molloy College looks towards the importance of maintaining septic systems when possible. Because septic systems drain into the sediment rather than being filtered and released into bodies of water like the water going through sewage systems, there is a less of a risk concerning the spread of microplastics. There are other benefits as well. As Tanacredi pointed out, “Septic systems are some of the best lines of defense we have against sprawl.”
As for the Great South Bay and the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, we will probably start to see the same consequences folks are seeing around the globe as plastic shrinks in size and pollution becomes more potent. Marine animals and ecosystems will likely be negatively impacted, as chemicals enter their food chains, affecting the biodiversity of both coasts near us over time.
When 8 million metric tons of plastic waste end up in the ocean each year, according to a New York Times Article, the pollution from microplastics that sneak through filters and settle subtly at the bottom of pipelines is often overlooked. However, studies indicate that microplastic particles can do just as much harm as the larger pieces of plastic waste we have been hearing about for years. Being vigilant about microplastic pollution in the future necessitates a watchful eye and important policy changes that go beyond a ban on microbeads.
