By Watershed Protection Program Co-Op Vincent Liu

Large-scale plastic production has been around since the 1950s, and while plastics existed prior, it was not until this time where plastics began making their way into many aspects of life. With the rise of plastic as a popular material, microplastics emerged as a new contaminant. Microplastics are small pieces of plastic, less than 5mm in size, and they are everywhere. In even the most remote waters of Earth, microplastics can be found. Microplastics are not a recent environmental concern as they have been extensively studied in the marine environment. The presence and impact of microplastics on freshwater ecosystems, however, has been a topic of interest in recent years. With its ability to persist in the environment and being incredibly difficult to remove efficiently, microplastics have established themselves as a worrying pollutant.

Microplastics are formed when larger pieces of plastic break apart into smaller ones. They can come from a wide variety of sources, such as textiles, industry, and packaging. Single-use plastics that reach the environment gradually break into microplastics that can then wash into a stream from a storm event. Plastic fibers are easily shed in the washing machine and then end up in wastewater that enters streams and rivers. These are just some of the many ways that microplastics are released into water. The biological effects of microplastics are yet to be clearly defined, but harmful impacts have been found in studies involving freshwater fish and bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrates. Macroinvertebrates are small animals that lack a backbone, and some species are often used by scientists as indicators of stream health. A study by Redondo-Hasselerharm et. al in 2018 showed that the impact of microplastics on macroinvertebrates is species dependent, with some species being highly sensitive to microplastics and others not being affected at all. Specific health effects were also found in fish including liver damage and reduced growth.

I did my senior project on observing microplastics in Pennsylvanian streams while working with the environmental policy organization, PennEnvironment, on their citizen science microplastic project. PennEnvironment staff collected samples while I assisted in processing samples and analyzing the data. The samples were collected in glass jars, to help reduce the plastic contamination, and were run through a filtration system that draws the water sample through a filter, leaving just the suspended solid material from the water. The filter is placed under a microscope to detect the presence of microplastics within the sample. The 4 categories of microplastics that this project looked for were fibers, fragments, films, and beads. Fibers are long, thin strands of plastic that usually come from textiles. Films are flat, wide, and typically transparent. Beads are round spheres, often found in personal care products prior to 2015. Fragments are plastics that do not fit any of the other categories. A microplastic was distinguished from a natural material by using the squish test, which is a simple test done by poking the suspected microplastic with tweezers. Plastic will not break. It will either maintain its shape or mold into a different shape. 

The results of the project confirmed the presence of microplastics in every stream that was sampled. What was particularly interesting was the low amount of microbeads compared to every other category of plastic. Beads were by far the least common category of microplastic. This can most likely be attributed to the Microbead-Free Waters Act in 2015, which banned plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics. It was also notable that samples had wildly varying amounts of microplastic, though concentration was not calculated for this project. The site photos from where the samples were collected often told a story as well. In one of the sites, there was a blue tarp that was hanging from a tree into the stream just upstream of the collection site. During microplastic analysis for that sample, there was a noticeably high count of blue microfibers. 

Finding ways to remediate microplastic already existing in the environment is an ongoing pursuit, but policy changes can reduce microplastic output from the source. The microbead ban leading to almost a complete disappearance of microbeads in waterways is an example of how legislation can lead to reductions of microplastic contamination. Policy changes in reducing unnecessary plastic usage and encouraging the use of alternative materials will reduce the amount of microplastics entering the streams. After over 70 years of mass plastic production, it may be time to switch gears and look for alternatives. 

— By Watershed Protection Program Co-Op Vincent Liu

References

Parker, B., Andreou, D., Green, I. D., & Britton, J. R. (2021). Microplastics in freshwater fishes: Occurrence, impacts and future perspectives. Fish and Fisheries, 22(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12528

Redondo-Hasselerharm, Paula E., et al. “Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 52, no. 4, 30 Jan. 2018, pp. 2278–2286, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b05367 

Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015). Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research, 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012

Birch, Q. T., Potter, P. M., Pinto, P. X., Dionysiou, D. D., & Al-Abed, S. R. (2020). Sources, transport, measurement and impact of nano and microplastics in urban watersheds. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 19(2), 275–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09529-x

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “The Microbead-Free Waters Act.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018, www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/microbead-free-waters-act-faqs.b 

By Carol L. Armstrong, Ph.D., ABN, Friends of Heinz Refuge, Board of Directors
Cover Photo by Jennifer Mathes

Did you know that right here in our region, we have a wildland that supports over 300 species of birds, of which you will see and hear over 40 on any day? The marshes at the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge spanned almost 6,000 acres in the time of Lenape stewardship of the land, and now it consists of 1,000 acres where massive biodiversity exists, some endangered species survive, and beautiful streams flow into tidal wetlands. It is a place where you can feel you can get lost, all the time being but a stone’s throw from Philadelphia and the dense suburbs of Delaware County. But there is a hidden problem: plastic debris is inundating the Refuge (Photo copyright: Kim Sheridan).

To manage the plastic debris, the Refuge has both public and non-public clean-ups throughout the year. Volunteers help Refuge staff to remove the hundreds of tires, layers of plastic debris on flood plains, plastic stuck in the riparian trees and shrubs after a storm, and thick accumulation of plastics in coves, marsh, and aquatic plants. The problem is most apparent at low tide (photo copyright: Mary Trzeciak). 

How do we prevent this sort of pollution? Personal evolution comes from reading about the problem, watching the webinars from the Friends of Heinz Refuge (see videos on our Facebook), reading the Friends of Heinz Refuge e-Newsletter, and joining our Plastics Working Group meetings, held monthly. 

One of our Board members, whose career was in business and not involved in environmental restoration, recently admitted that his view of plastic had changed completely since he joined the Board, and now he “can’t stand plastic.” He is horrified at the stuff, and now refuses to purchase plastic drinking containers. 

In three of the public cleanups at the Refuge, volunteers sorted the types and number of debris using the Ocean Conservancy’s data form. Of plastics, metal, glass, and paper debris, more than 99% were some form of plastic, which, over the next hundreds of years, will flake off microplastics and leach into the water the chemicals that make plastic have the features producers want (e.g., color, flexibility, weight, heat/light resistance), long before the plastic actually decomposes back into organic matter. Plastics begin to break down into microplastics and leach chemicals as soon as they are in the environment.

It’s difficult to make the paradigm shift that this board member made, because we are so accustomed to thinking that we cannot live without plastics. The 4% increase in the production of plastics each year means that it is increasing due to supply and not due to demand. The increasing number of items that are packaged in plastic can be witnessed in any store, often in multiple layers of plastic. For example, cheeses are sold in see-through plastic boxes rather than wrapped in paper, bakery items are all packaged in some amount of plastic, condiments and drinks leave few choices in glass rather than plastic, and organic produce is difficult to find without plastic packaging. There are zero waste businesses dedicated to transforming industries to reusable containers or alternate materials, and they find the uphill road very steep. 

In the U.S., plastic that is recycled has declined from 7 to 9% to 5 to 6%, according to the most recent reports from the EPA and the U. S. Department of Energy. 100% of plastic waste is incinerated in some towns such as Harrisburg, and this practice is  increasing in many cities. Some “chemical recycling” is emerging from burning plastics for energy, which increases the demand for plastic waste, results in more toxic air pollution, and increases greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, humans will have produced more than 28.5 billion tons of plastic, and we will be dealing with four times more plastic production than currently exists. Borrowing from L-M Miranda’s Hamilton: “Do you support this Earth? Of course. Then defend it.”

The key is to remember that there is always something that each person can do: 

1. Make purchasing decisions based on the presence or relative amount of plastic in the packaging; 
2. Do your own home assessment of the sources and amounts of your waste versus recycling (now in Pennsylvania mainly limited to clear or white #1 and #2). The EPA and California provide online instructions for zero waste practices, and a simple site for home is: https://www.thezerowastecollective.com/post/how-to-do-a-trash-audit-at-home;
3. Work towards cutting in half (or more) the amount that you put out in trash and recyclables;
4. Avoid plastic sheeting and synthetic textiles used in landscaping, sediment/erosion control, blankets and rugs, and personal clothing as these plastics are filling our air, soil, and water, and there are alternatives for all.  The presence of plastics in our indoor air is disturbing at estimates of 30% of dust;
5. Give up thin, single-use plastic bags and drinking containers forever; and
6. Ask your town to ban single-use plastics. 

— By Carol L. Armstrong, Ph.D., ABN, Friends of Heinz Refuge, Board of Directors