case study caused by use of plastic

Teach the Earth the portal for Earth Education

From NAGT's On the Cutting Edge Collection

Course Topics
Atmospheric Science
Biogeoscience
Environmental Geology
Environmental Science
Geochemistry
Geomorphology
GIS/Remote Sensing
Hydrology/Hydrogeology
Oceanography
Paleontology
Planetary Science
Sedimentary Geology
Structural Geology
Incorporating Societal Issues
Climate Change
Complex Systems
Ethics and Environmental Justice
Geology and Health
Public Policy
Sustainability
Strengthening Your Department
Career Development
Strengthening Departments
Student Recruitment
Teacher Preparation
Teaching Topics
Biocomplexity
Early Earth
Earthquakes
Hydraulic Fracturing
Plate Tectonics
Teaching Environments
Intro Geoscience
Online Teaching
Teaching in the Field
Two-Year Colleges
Urban Students
Enhancing your Teaching
Affective Domain
Course Design
Data, Simulations, Models
Geophotography
Google Earth
Metacognition
Online Games
Problem Solving
Quantitative Skills
Rates and Time
Service Learning
Spatial Thinking
Teaching Methods
Teaching with Video
Undergrad Research
Visualization
Teaching Materials
Two Year Colleges
Departments
Workshops and Webinars

Geology and Human Health Topical Resources

⋮⋮⋮ ×

Plastics in the Ocean Affecting Human Health

Author: Gianna Andrews

The Three Plastic Islands

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also know as the Pacific Trash Vortex or gyre, is located in the central North Pacific Ocean and is larger than the state of Texas. There are also garbage patches in the Indian and Atlantic ocean. The patches are defined as containing a higher amount of plastic as compared to surrounding oceans. To date, five patches in total have been discovered.

Plastics are transported and converge in the ocean where currents meet. This means that huge plastic islands are made as a result. SES (Sea Education Society) scientists studied plastics in the Atlantic and calculated there are 580,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometer.

Sources of Plastic Toxins Entering the Oceanic Food Chain

As far as plastic entering the ocean, about 20% of the trash comes from ships and platforms that are offshore. The rest sources from litter being blown into the sea, picked up by tides on the beach, or intentional garbage dumping. The worse part is, these plastics don't biodegrade, so they break up into tiny pieces that are consumed by fish and sea mammals. Plastic is killing more than 100,000 sea turtles and birds a year from ingestion and entanglement. To learn more visit Project Green Bag.

Chemicals in plastics are released into the water as well as the atmosphere. Fish easily become contaminated from the chemicals in the water. This is a direct link of how plastic chemicals enter the food chain. See Earth Times for more on this.

Plastics getting to Humans Impacting Health

Different plastics spread throughout the ocean. As Styrofoam breaks into smaller parts, polystyrene components in it sink lower in the ocean, so that the pollutant spreads throughout the sea column.

In fact, not only do the toxins in plastic affect the ocean, but acting like sponges, they soak up other toxins from outside sources before entering the ocean. As these chemicals are ingested by animals in the ocean, this is not good for humans. We as humans ingest contaminated fish and mammals.

For more information on this topic on toxins in the ocean, see this article by National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/8/plastic-breaks-down-in-ocean-after-all-and-fast/#:~:text=Though%20ocean%2Dborne%20plastic%20trash,that's%20not%20a%20good%20thing.

There are different types of ways that plastic is dangerous for humans. Direct toxicity from plastics comes from lead, cadmium, and mercury. These toxins have also been found in many fish in the ocean, which is very dangerous for humans. Diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) contained in some plastics, is a toxic carcinogen. Other toxins in plastics are directly linked to cancers, birth defects, immune system problems, and childhood developmental issues. To learn more on effects of plastics on humans visit the Ecology Center

Other types of toxic plastics are BPA or health-bisphenol-A, along with phthalates (mentioned above). Both of these are of great concern to human health. BPA is used in many things including plastic bottles and food packaging materials. Over time the polymer chains of BPA break down, and can enter the human body in many ways from drinking contaminated water to eating a fish that is exposed to the broken down toxins. Specifically, BPA is a known chemical that interferes with human hormonal function.

Rolf Halden, associate professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering and Arizona State University has studied plastics adverse effects on humans and has thus far concluded that and exact outline of health effects of plastics on humans is almost impossible to determine. This is due to the fact that the problem of plastic contamination in humans is globally spread; there are almost no unexposed subjects. That being said, it is evident that the chemicals are not healthy for humans. To learn more about Halden's studies on plastic at Arizona State University see Impacts of plastics on human health and ecosystems

Prevention of Contamination

As Rolf Halden asserts, the only way for this unsustainable plastic production to decrease would be a global staggering petroleum supply, because of environmental worry. About 8% of the world's oil use is from manufacturing plastics.

There are efforts to protect the oceans from plastic pollutants along with human health, but they are mostly grassroots organizations. One in particular that I discovered during my research is Save My Oceans (http://www.savemyoceans.com/plastics.php-broken link) which anyone can become involved with.

As far as protecting yourself from contamination, it is probably best not to have a diet that consists mainly of fish, since most is probably contaminated. However, one of the most effective things we could all do as members of this fragile ecosystem is to be responsible for our trash. When we have the opportunity, we should try to avoid buying products packaged in plastic. We should always recycle plastic when we do use it. At the store, request a paper bag instead of plastic, or bring your own. Use a reusable water bottle, and of course don't litter.

The Role Humans Play

As quoted by UN Environment Programme Executive Director Achim Steiner,

"Marine debris – trash in our oceans – is a symptom of our throw-away society and our approach to how we use our natural resources."

Our tendency as humans to be irresponsible about cleaning up after ourselves is about to get us in trouble. We risk losing many species in the ocean as well as negatively affecting ourselves. The average person produces half a pound of plastic waste every day. No wonder the oceans are filling up with waste!

I think part of the problem is that we don't recognize how this issue starts with the individual. There are obviously life style changes we can make to solve this problem. We just have to be willing to accept this issue and look past our denial. The government also needs to make regulations on plastics if anything is going to change. Surprisingly, there is little to no information on governmental websites about pollution in the oceans. I think they are afraid to address the problem; it is a costly fix. However there have been some treaties formed to minimize the amount of trash entering the oceans. This is still not enough. To see more on EPA laws and treaties visit US Environmental Protection Agency . These grassroots organizations are vital then to the protection of the oceans, striving to get information out about this tragic pollution. We should really all be involved though, it is everyone's responsibility. Lets make these changes before it is too late and we kill the all oceanic life, or even our own.

CORE COMPONENTS

Expert Commissions
Secretariat and Director General
IUCN Council

IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

Get involved

The plastic pollution crisis

Plastics only began to be produced in large quantities following the second world war – but plastic pollution has since become one of the most serious threats humanity faces. By 2015, 60% of all plastic ever produced had become plastic waste, and in today’s world, plastic waste is ubiquitous – it’s in the air, in the soil, in freshwater, and in the sea.

Much of the world’s plastic waste – from large items down to barely visible microplastic particles – ends up in the ocean, where it can persist for hundreds of years. Here it has negative effects on marine life of all kinds, and ultimately causes harm to humans too. Up to 12 million tonnes of plastic debris is entering the global ocean every year: 2 the UN calls it ‘a planetary crisis’.

The highly populated, semi-enclosed Mediterranean basin is one of the global hotspots for marine plastic pollution. Urgent and wide-ranging action is required to radically reduce the amounts of plastic that reach the sea and bring the situation under control – but for this to happen, we need to build as full a picture as possible of what’s actually going on.

Where does ocean plastic come from?

Overall, 80% of marine plastic debris comes from land, and 20% is produced by ocean-based sources such as fishing, shipping and aquaculture. 3 Much of it is comprised of industrial and domestic waste from metropolitan and urban areas with poorly managed collection and disposal systems. Rubbish finds its way into rivers and other waterways, sometimes through storm drains and sewage outfalls, and these take it all the way to the sea. It’s estimated that 94% of the plastic pollution that enters the Mediterranean comes in the form of macroplastics, but microplastic pollution is significant too. Land-based sources of microplastics include agricultural polyethylene sheets that fragment from weathering, biosolids and sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants, and grey water from washing clothes made with synthetic fibres. 4 Sewage entering municipal treatment systems is high in microfibres from textiles, microplastics from personal care products, and degraded consumer products.

Above view of mountains of plastic waste from the greenhouses in Andalusia

Between 80 and 90 percent of microplastics entering treatment systems remain in residual sewage sludge. This sludge is often used as fertilizer in agriculture, resulting in plastic being deposited on agricultural fields where it can remain for long periods of time – or be washed into the rivers and out to sea. Based on a recent study, microplastics can persist in soils for more than 100 years, due to low light and oxygen conditions 5 .

The plastics life cycle

Plastic pollution is a design, production, consumption and disposal challenge that must be tackled across plastic’s entire life cycle. Many factors contribute to the issue, most obviously unsustainable consumption patterns, non-existent or ineffective legislation, inefficient waste management systems, and a lack of coordination between different sectors.

The impacts of plastic pollution on biodiversity and human health

Plastic pollution has adverse impacts on ocean ecosystems, the integrity of food supplies, and people’s livelihoods.

Entanglement and ingestion are the most common hazards for marine species, almost all of which – from microscopic zooplankton to the largest marine mammals – will come into contact with plastic waste during their lives. Entanglement in plastic ropes, lines and discarded fishing gear injures and kills all kinds of marine animals; while ingestion at every stage of the food chain can cause fatalities or have major impacts on physiological functions including nutrition, growth, behaviour and reproduction.

Once microplastics and nanoplastics are ingested by marine animals they become part of the food web, and can ultimately enter the human food chain.

Confronting the issue: a harmonised methodology and a global agreement

Plastic leakage is a complex issue, involving multiple sources and actors, and addressing it requires stakeholders to join forces and intervene at various levels. Before this can happen, though, countries and cities face an initial knowledge gap: they need to establish the magnitude of the challenge they face, and gain an understanding of the processes involved. Resolution No. 6 on marine plastic litter and micro-plastics adopted at the Fourth Session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-4) in 2019 highlighted the importance of a h armonised methodology to measure plastic flows and leakage along the value chain, and generate actionable data.

Once these facts are established, countries need practical and legislative tools to address the root sources of the problem. With this in mind, the Fifth UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) created an expert group on marine litter and microplastics. The group is “reviewing the present situation and analysing the effectiveness of existing and potential response options related to marine plastic litter and microplastics”. It developed and signed “a new global agreement , to provide a legal framework of global response and to facilitate national responses especially for those countries with limited resources and capacities that could contain either legally binding and/or non-binding elements”.

The Programme for the Assessment and Control of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean (MEDPOL) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is responsible for the implementation of the Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMAP) for the Pollution and Litter and Noise clusters. MED POL supports the Contracting Parties in the formulation and implementation of pollution control and prevention policies as well as regulatory measures. MED POL also undertakes regular activities to promote capacity-building and provides technical assistance on monitoring and assessment, implementation and enforcement. Its purpose is to assist Mediterranean countries in the implementation of three major protocols of the Barcelona Convention:

The Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources
The Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft
The Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

The Mediterranean: plastic pollution hotspot

The Mediterranean Sea is a global hotspot for plastic pollution, its semi-enclosed basin concentrating marine litter at levels comparable to those found in the five subtropical gyres 7 ,the most notorious being the ‘Great Garbage Patch’ of the North Pacific.

The need for knowledge: PlastiMed project

In order to improve knowledge of the origins, distribution and leakage of plastic waste in the Mediterranean, a quantitative study on the impact of microplastics in the Mediterranean ecosystem was conducted. The research was based on samples collected during two main expeditions, ExpeditionMED and Tara Méditerranée 2014 . In the latter, 75,000 microplastic particles were collected and analysed, making it the largest study of this kind in the Mediterranean to date. Following the expeditions, a database of Mediterranean plastic polymer types, including their geographical distribution, was completed, and a modelling study of the circulation of plastic debris in the Mediterranean was developed.

The recent IUCN report Mare Plasticum : The Mediterranean provides information about the quantity of plastics leaking into the Mediterranean Sea every year, also highlighting the countries and cities with the highest plastic leakage rates. This map is a combination of both studies, merging information gathered through fieldwork and desk-based analysis.

Taking action

The Beyond Plastic Med (BeMed) initiative was launched in 2019 to develop and support a network of stakeholders committed to implementing concrete solutions for the prevention of plastic pollution in the Mediterranean. By raising awareness of the issue, bringing together companies and organisations who can contribute to the project’s aims, and spreading best practices in the field, BeMed is an important umbrella for much of the work going on in the Mediterranean today.

In 2019, IUCN-Med launched the Plastic Waste-Free Islands Mediterranean project, as part of its global Close the Plastic Tap programme. The initiative’s overarching goal is to drive the circular economy agenda forward and to reduce plastic waste generation and leakage from islands. The programme of work focuses on tackling plastic pollution at its source by engaging a wide range of stakeholders – including governments, industries and society – and on addressing plastic pollution knowledge gaps.

Surfrider Europe has been advocating for enhanced environmental policies to tackle plastic pollution and raising awareness among citizens to change their behaviour.

Tara Foundation conducted a 2019 expedition along nine major European rivers to research the origins and flux of microplastic waste, using its scientific expertise to raise awareness and educate the general public, as well as mobilise political decision-makers at the highest level.

In 2017, Région Sud (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur) established the Zero Plastic Waste Pledge to enable local authorities, companies and associations to commit to reducing plastic waste at sea and on land. Région Sud and the IUCN signed a joint declaration at the World Conservation Congress, reflecting strong engagement and the beginning of coordinated action against plastic pollution.

Co-developed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the IUCN, the National Guidance on Plastic Pollution Hotspotting and Shaping Action contributes to filling gaps in knowledge. It provides a methodological framework and practical tools applicable at national level. Beyond the quantification and qualification of plastic pollution, the guidance offers an effective interface between science-based assessments and policy-making. The guidance maps plastic leakage and its impacts across the value chain by collecting and analysing data on plastic production, consumption, waste management and disposal, and prioritises hotspots for action. It enables governments to collaborate with key stakeholders to identify and implement corresponding interventions and instruments in these hotspots, ensuring that action takes place in the areas that need it most. Once decision-makers are equipped with reliable knowledge through use of the guidance, they can set targets, agree and implement actions, and monitor progress.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science advances , 3 (7), e1700782. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Boucher, J., & Friot, D. (2017). Primary microplastics in the oceans: a global evaluation of sources (Vol. 43). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 43pp.
Mendenhall, E. (2018). Oceans of plastic: a research agenda to propel policy development. Marine Policy, 96 , 291-298. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.005
Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., & Svendsen, C. (2017). Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of the total environment , 586 , 127-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190
Azoulay, D., Villa, P., Arellano, Y., Gordon, M. F., Moon, D., Miller, K. A., & Thompson, K. (2019). Plastic & health: the hidden costs of a plastic planet . Geneva: CIEL;
Peng, L., Fu, D., Qi, H., Lan, C. Q., Yu, H., & Ge, C. (2020). Micro-and nano-plastics in marine environment: Source, distribution and threats—A review. Science of the Total Environment , 69 8. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134254
Cózar, A., Sanz-Martín, M., Martí, E., González-Gordillo, J. I., Ubeda, B., Gálvez, J. Á., ... & Duarte, C. M. (2015). Plastic accumulation in the Mediterranean Sea. PloS one , 10 (4). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121762
Kedzierski, M., Palazot, M., Soccalingame, L., Falcou-Préfol, M., Gorsky, G., Galgani, F., ... & Pedrotti, M. L. (2022). Chemical composition of microplastics floating on the surface of the Mediterranean Sea. Marine pollution bulletin , 174 , 113284. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113284
Pedrotti Maria Luiza, Lomard Fabien, Baudena Alberto, Galgani François, Kedzierski Mikaël, Elineau Amanda, Henry Maryvonne, Bruzeau Stéphane, Reverdin Gilles, Boss Emmanuel, & Gorsky Gabriel. (2021). Tara Mediterranean surface plastic quantitative dataset [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5538238 .
Boucher, J., Billard, G., Simeone, E. and Sousa, J. (2020). The marine plastic footprint. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. viii+69 pp.
Boucher, J. & Bilard, G. (2020). The Mediterranean: Mare plasticum. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x+62 pp.

Acknowledgements

This web story has been edited by IUCN Med and its partners, with financial support from the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation .

Produced and designed by Swim2Birds & IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation.

The World's Plastic Pollution Crisis Explained

Much of the planet is swimming in discarded plastic, which is harming animal and possibly human health. Can it be cleaned up?

Conservation

Children Play among Plastic

While plastic pollution is a worldwide problem it is most obvious in less-wealthy African and Asian nations, like the Philippines. Here, children play among plastic waste on the shore of Manila Bay.

Photograph by Randy Olson

Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues, as rapidly increasing production of disposable plastic products overwhelms the world’s ability to deal with them. Plastic pollution is most visible in less-wealthy Asian and African nations, where garbage collection systems are often inefficient or nonexistent. But wealthy nations, especially those with low recycling rates, also have trouble properly collecting discarded plastics. Plastic trash has become so ubiquitous it has prompted efforts to write a global treaty negotiated by the United Nations. How Did this Happen? Plastics made from fossil fuels are just over a century old. Production and development of thousands of new plastic products accelerated after World War II to the extent that life without plastics would be unimaginable today. Plastics revolutionized medicine with life-saving devices, made space travel possible, lightened cars and jets—saving fuel and lessening pollution —and saved lives with helmets, incubators , and equipment for clean drinking water. The conveniences plastics offer, however, led to a throw-away culture that reveals the material’s dark side: Today, single-use plastics account for 40 percent of the plastic produced every year. Many of these products, such as plastic bags and food wrappers, are used for mere minutes to hours, yet they may persist in the environment for hundreds of years. Plastics by the Numbers Some key facts:

Half of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years.
Production increased exponentially, from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to 448 million tons by 2015. Production is expected to double by 2050.
Every year, about 8 million tons of plastic waste escapes into the oceans from coastal nations. That’s the equivalent of setting five garbage bags full of trash on every foot of coastline around the world.
Plastics often contain additives making them stronger, more flexible, and durable. But many of these additives can extend the life of products if they become litter, with some estimates ranging to at least 400 years to break down.

How Plastics Move around the World Most of the plastic trash in the oceans, Earth’s last sink, flows from land. Trash is also carried to sea by major rivers, which act as conveyor belts, picking up more and more trash as they move downstream . Once at sea, much of the plastic trash remains in coastal waters. But once caught up in ocean currents, it can be transported around the world. On Henderson Island, an uninhabited atoll in the Pitcairn Group isolated halfway between Chile and New Zealand, scientists found plastic items from Russia, the United States, Europe, South America, Japan, and China. They were carried to the South Pacific by the South Pacific gyre , a circular ocean current. Microplastics Once at sea, sunlight, wind, and wave action break down plastic waste into small particles, often less than half a centimer (one-fifth of an inch) across. These so-called microplastics are spread throughout the water column and have been found in every corner of the globe, from Mount Everest, the highest peak, to the Mariana Trench, the deepest trough . Microplastics are breaking down further into smaller and smaller pieces. Plastic microfibers (or the even smaller nanofibers), meanwhile, have been found in municipal drinking water systems and drifting through the air. Harm to Wildlife Millions of animals are killed by plastics every year, from birds to fish to other marine organisms. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by plastics. Nearly every species of seabird eats plastics. Most of the deaths to animals are caused by entanglement or starvation. Seals, whales, turtles, and other animals are strangled by abandoned fishing gear or discarded six-pack rings. Microplastics have been found in more than 100 aquatic species, including fish, shrimp, and mussels destined for our dinner plates. In many cases, these tiny bits pass through the digestive system and are expelled without consequence. But plastics have also been found to have blocked digestive tracts or pierced organs, causing death. Stomachs so packed with plastics reduce the urge to eat, causing starvation. Plastics have been consumed by land-based animals, including elephants, hyenas, zebras, tigers, camels, cattle, and other large mammals, in some cases causing death. Tests have also confirmed liver and cell damage and disruptions to reproductive systems , prompting some species, such as oysters, to produce fewer eggs. New research shows that larval fish are eating nanofibers in the first days of life, raising new questions about the effects of plastics on fish populations. Stemming the Plastic Tide Once in the ocean, it is difficult—if not impossible—to retrieve plastic waste. Mechanical systems, such as Mr. Trash Wheel, a litter interceptor in Maryland’s Baltimore Harbor, can be effective at picking up large pieces of plastic, such as foam cups and food containers, from inland waters. But once plastics break down into microplastics and drift throughout the water column in the open ocean, they are virtually impossible to recover. The solution is to prevent plastic waste from entering rivers and seas in the first place, many scientists and conservationists—including the National Geographic Society—say. This could be accomplished with improved waste management systems and recycling, better product design that takes into account the short life of disposable packaging, and reduction in manufacturing of unnecessary single-use plastics.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030

Marine debris, including plastics, paper, wood, metal and other manufactured material is found on beaches worldwide and at all depths of the ocean.

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Plastic pollution in oceans and other bodies of water continues to grow sharply and could more than double by 2030, according to an assessment released on Thursday by the UN Environment Programme ( UNEP ).

The report highlights dire consequences for health, the economy, biodiversity and the climate. It also says a drastic reduction in unnecessary, avoidable and problematic plastic, is crucial to addressing the global pollution crisis overall.

To help reduce plastic waste at the needed scale, it proposes an accelerated transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies, the removal of subsidies and a shift towards more circular approaches towards reduction.

Titled From Pollution to Solution: a global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution , the report shows that there is a growing threat, across all ecosystems, from source to sea.

Solutions to hand

Our oceans are full of plastic. A new @ UNEP assessment provides a strong scientific case for the urgency to act, and for collective action to protect and restore our oceans from source to sea. #CleanSeas https://t.co/97DMOZD3Ee pic.twitter.com/3xjthnsTh2 Inger Andersen andersen_inger

But it also shows that there is the know-how to reverse the mounting crisis, provided the political will is there, and urgent action is taken.

The document is being released 10 days ahead of the start of the crucial UN Climate Conference, COP26 , stressing that plastics are a climate problem as well.

For example, in 2015, greenhouse gas emissions from plastics were 1.7 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent; by 2050, they’re projected to increase to approximately 6.5 gigatonnes. That number represents 15 per cent of the whole global carbon budget - the amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted, while still keeping warming within the Paris Agreement goals.

Recycling not enough

Addressing solutions to the problem, the authors pour cold water on the chances of recycling our way out of the plastic pollution crisis.

They also warn against damaging alternatives, such as bio-based or biodegradable plastics, which currently pose a threat similar to conventional plastics.

The report looks at critical market failures, such as the low price of virgin fossil fuel feedstocks (any renewable biological material that can be used directly as a fuel) compared to recycled materials, disjointed efforts in informal and formal plastic waste management, and the lack of consensus on global solutions.

Instead, the assessment calls for the immediate reduction in plastic production and consumption, and encourages a transformation across the whole value chain.

It also asks for investments in far more robust and effective monitoring systems to identify the sources, scale and fate of plastic. Ultimately, a shift to circular approaches and more alternatives are necessary.

Making the case for change

For the Executive Director of UNEP, Inger Andersen, this assessment “provides the strongest scientific argument to date for the urgency to act, and for collective action to protect and restore our oceans, from source to sea.”

She said that a major concern is what happens with breakdown products, such as microplastics and chemical additives, which are known to be toxic and hazardous to human and wildlife health and ecosystems.

“The speed at which ocean plastic pollution is capturing public attention is encouraging. It is vital that we use this momentum to focus on the opportunities for a clean, healthy and resilient ocean”, Ms. Andersen argued.

Growing problem

Currently, plastic accounts for 85 per cent of all marine litter.

By 2040, it will nearly triple, adding 23-37 million metric tons of waste into the ocean per year. This means about 50kg of plastic per meter of coastline.

Because of this, all marine life, from plankton and shellfish; to birds, turtles and mammals; faces the grave risk of toxification, behavioral disorder, starvation and suffocation.

The human body is similarly vulnerable. Plastics are ingested through seafood, drinks and even common salt. They also penetrate the skin and are inhaled when suspended in the air.

In water sources, this type of pollution can cause hormonal changes, developmental disorders, reproductive abnormalities and even cancer.

Economy

According to the report, there are also significant consequences for the global economy.

Globally, when accounting for impacts on tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, together with the price of projects such as clean-ups, the costs were estimated to be six to 19 billion dollars per year, during 2018.

By 2040, there could be a $100 billion annual financial risk for businesses if governments require them to cover waste management costs. It can also lead to a rise in illegal domestic and international waste disposal.

The report will inform discussions at the UN Environment Assembly in 2022, where countries will come together to decide a way forward for more global cooperation.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Science & Case Studies
Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Opportunities to Address Tire Wear Particles in Waterways (2023)

Report on Priority Microplastics Research Needs: Update to the 2017 Microplastics Expert Workshop

Microplastics Expert Workshop Report (2017)

State of the Science White Paper: A Summary of the Effects of Plastics Pollution on Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife

Summary of Expert Discussion Forum on Possible Human Health Risks from Microplastics in the Marine Environment

Tern Island Preliminary Assessment and Technical Support Document

EPA conducts analysis and research to address important issues related to the potential health, ecological, and socio-economic impacts of trash and debris in the aquatic environment.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Opportunities to Address Tire Wear Particles in Waterways

EPA’s Trash Free Waters (TFW) program announces the publication of “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Opportunities to Address Tire Wear Particles in Waterways.” Tire wear particles as a pollutant in waterways is a relatively new field of study without standardized terminology, assessment methodologies, or established solutions. The emergence of tire wear particles as a significant category of microplastics found in waterways prompted EPA to convene stakeholders in two roundtable discussions in Spring 2022 to facilitate shared learning about the challenges of addressing the problem of tire wear particle pollution. Stakeholders represented diverse perspectives on the nature of the problem and how to effectively address it. The roundtables provided a forum for discussion among participants without committing to a specific course of action. Participants discussed a set of questions aimed at understanding the barriers to and opportunities for managing tire wear particles in waterways. This brief report summarizes the roundtable discussions. In producing it, EPA seeks to share the challenges and potential solutions discussed during the roundtables, in order to inform the public and broaden the community engaged in addressing tire wear particle pollution.

View the Report: Where the Rubber Meets the Road (pdf) (835 KB, April 2023, EPA-830-S-23-001)

In June 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Trash Free Waters Program convened a workshop that brought together subject matter experts (SME) in the fields of environmental monitoring, waste management, toxicology, ecological assessments, and human health assessments to discuss and summarize the risks posed by microplastics to ecological and human health (See "Microplastics Expert Workshop Report" below). The resulting workshop report outlined priority scientific information needs within four broad categories of research: Field and analytical methods; sources, transport, and fate; ecological assessments; and human health assessments.

The EPA Trash Free Waters Program has updated the 2017 Microplastics Expert Workshop (MEW) report to assist the scientific research and funding communities in identifying information gaps and emerging areas of interest within microplastics research. This report includes a status update on the state of the science for each of the four categories listed above, informed by conversations with SMEs and a targeted review of the peer-reviewed literature.

View the Report: A Trash Free Waters Report on Priority Microplastics Research Needs: Update to the 2017 Microplastics Expert Workshop (pdf) (2.1 MB, December 2021, EPA-842-R-21-005)

Microplastics Expert Workshop Report

The EPA Trash Free Waters program convened a Microplastics Expert Workshop (MEW) on June 28-29, 2017 to identify and prioritize the scientific information needed to understand the risks posed by microplastics to human and ecological health. The workshop gave priority to gaining greater understanding of these risks, while recognizing that there are many research gaps needing to be addressed and scientific uncertainties existing around microplastics risk management. The workshop participants adopted a risk assessment-based approach and addressed four major topics: 1) microplastics methods, including deficits and needs; 2) microplastics sources, transport and fate; and 3) the ecological and 4) human health risks of microplastics exposure. Workshop participants recommended developed detailed conceptual models to illustrate the fate of microplastics from source to receptor and assess the ecological and human health risks of microplastics, the degree to which information is available for each, and the interconnections among these uncertainties. The expert panelists did not provide recommendations for specific regulatory or non-regulatory actions to be taken. This document presents a summary of the expert panel discussion.

View the Report

Cover of the report "State of the Science White Paper: A Summary of the Effects of Plastics"

Plastics have become a pervasive problem in oceans, coasts, and inland watersheds. Recent estimates suggest that 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of plastic waste entered the global marine environment in 2010. Areas of accumulation of plastic debris include enclosed basins, ocean gyres, and bottom sediments. Plastics in the aquatic environment primarily originate from land-based sources such as littering and wind-blown debris, though plastic debris from fishing activities may be a key source in some areas. Plastic particles are generally the most abundant type of debris encountered in the marine environment, with estimates suggesting that 60% to 80% of marine debris is plastic, and more than 90% of all floating debris particles are plastic. This document is a state-of-the-science review – one that summarizes available scientific information on the effects of chemicals associated with plastic pollution and their potential impacts on aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife.

Summary of Expert Discussion Forum on Possible Human Health Risks from Microplastics in the Marine Environment

The EPA Trash Free Waters program convened a panel of scientific experts on April 23, 2014. The purpose of the forum was to discuss available data and studies on the issue of possible human health risks from microplastics in the marine environment. The participating subject matter experts were asked to provide insights on the current scientific basis for determining human health risks, based on a review of scientific research done to date. The experts also were asked to identify data gaps and make suggestions for further study. The expert panelists did not provide recommendations for specific regulatory or non-regulatory actions to be taken. This document presents a summary of the expert panel discussion.

In September 2014, EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released an initial assessment of contamination at Tern Island, a remote island in the chain of Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The results show that there have been releases of hazardous substances such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead from military wastes buried on the island between World War II and 1979, and further action is warranted.

View the report
Trash Free Waters Home
Learn About Aquatic Trash
What EPA is Doing
What You Can Do
Best Management Practices & Tools
Webinar Library
Trash Free Waters Article Series
'The Flow' Newsletter Archive
'The Rapids' Email Archive

Plastic Waste Management: A Case Study From Dehradun, India

To enhance the Plastic Waste Management at Dehradun, India, Earth5R, an Environmental Organization based in India initiated a project called ‘ Know Your Plastics ’. The project aims at raising awareness about plastic waste and also aspires to increase recycling rates of products.

Clean-Up And Classification Of Plastic Waste

As part of the project, volunteers visited 10 locations in their neighborhood to collect the maximum amount of plastic waste possible. A time limit was dedicated to segregating waste into six different categories: MLP(multi-layer packaging), PET( Polyethylene terephthalate) plastics, LDPE(Low Density Polyethylene), HDPE(High Density Polyethylene), Tetra packs and Synthetic fibers. Any other kind of waste that was found was included in the ‘other’ category.

After the waste was segregated, the data put together is analyzed to figure out what category contributes to most of the pollution. It also assists in finding out which companies are generating most of the plastic waste.

Waste Data Utilised For Research Work And Creating Awareness

As an effort to bring into perspective the ongoing issue of plastic waste and how it hinders the implementation of sustainable development goals and environmental growth, some data has been represented below:

The Changing Markets Foundation stated that as of 2020, Coca-Cola was the largest plastic footprint on earth with 2.9 million metric tonnes of plastic packaging produced annually. While Pepsico, came second with 2.3 millon metric tonnes of plastic waste.
A Central Pollution Control Board ( CPCB ) report from 2018-19 puts the total annual plastic waste generation in India at a humongous 3.3 million metric tonnes per year.
More than half of the plastic waste (approx.60%) goes in for recycling whereas the rest of it goes unpicked in the natural environment.
The current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated the issue with large amounts of plastic and medical waste being disposed of carelessly.
As per data from 2019, metropolitan cities like Chennai, Bengaluru and Delhi contribute to more than 50% of the plastic waste deposition.

Recklessly increasing dependency on plastics simply because of their durability is choking our waterways and is becoming an immeasurable threat to the terrestrial as well as the aquatic ecosystem!

Predictions say that the amount of plastic waste in the environment will only keep increasing if no strict action is taken against it.

Plastic Waste Management Initiative At Dehradun, India

Arya Mitra , an Earth5R volunteer from Dehradun took the initiative to go about the Global Plastic Waste Crisis from his hometown. He conducted a sequence of 10 cleanup sessions, analysed the waste collected and provided the material.

His views on why he wanted to join the project were, “I wanted to join the ‘Know Your Plastics’ project because I wanted to understand the types of waste and how I could help in achieving a long term goal, not only by picking up waste right now but actually encouraging the society around me to assist in accomplishing the objective of sustainable development. With the help of Earth5R, I would like to raise awareness about plastic waste not only in my city but outside the boundaries too and also do the required steps that need to be implemented in order to bring the crisis under control and gradually solve it.”

With the help of Earth5R, I would like to raise awareness about plastic waste not only in my city but outside the boundaries too and also do the required steps that need to be implemented in order to bring the crisis under control and gradually solve it-ARYA MITRA, EARTH5R VOLUNTEER @DEHRADUN, INDIA

Plastic Waste Data Collected In Dehradun

Cleanup and segregation of data was carried out in 10 different locations by Arya Mitra in his locality.

He collected and analyzed the data, the results are as follows:

A total of 246 plastic waste items were collected.
150 Multi-Layer Packaging(MLP)Products constituted the highest amount of the plastic waste i.e. 60.9%.
This was followed by 48 Low Density Polyethylene Products (LDPE) waste which made up 19.5% of the total.
19 Tetra Packs were found which formed 7.7% of the total.
9 High Density Plastic (HDPE) Products were found forming 3.6% of the total plastic waste.
5 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)Products were found which made up 2.03% of the total plastic waste.

Lack of proper waste management leads to waste being found at places which are harmful for the environment. Arya also stated, “According to my findings, most of the waste was found near school boundaries and comparatively lesser around the residential areas. I also wanted to mention that most of the plastic waste material consisted of things which are usually tabooed in the society for example: pregnancy test kits other contraceptives and packets of tobacco. Maybe people are not comfortable with disposing these off at home and so unfortunately, they happen to litter the streets outside!”

I also wanted to mention that most of the plastic waste material consisted of things which are usually tabooed in the society for example: pregnancy test kits other contraceptives and packets of tobacco. Maybe people are not comfortable with disposing these off at home and so unfortunately, they happen to litter the streets outside!– ARYA MITRA, EARTH5R VOLUNTEER

Burning Of Plastic Waste

Due to lack of management in the city, all the waste is littered on the roads and is highly hazardous for the environment. As an outcome of lack of segregation and recycling, plastic is left in the soil to decompose or to be burnt which again poses detrimental effects on the environment.

Another important point that Arya brings up is “I am positive that the rate of plastic consumption in my city is very high. People are not even responsible enough to throw their plastic waste in segregated dustbins that have been set up. Due to their careless behaviour, the entire ecosystem has to bear the consequences.”

This behavior highlights the lack of education and awareness of the people belonging to the city.

How To Solve The Global Plastic Waste Issue?

The responsibility of solving the Plastic Waste Crisis falls directly on the shoulders of the people. They must switch to recyclable and reusable plastics or things that do not pose a threat to the environment.

The government must make policies or laws encouraging plastic ban, use economic incentives to stimulate manufacturers to adopt alternatives to plastic or create revenue that can fund plastic waste cleanup efforts.

As Sylvia Earle, a marine biologist says, “It is the worst of times but it is the best of times because we still have a chance,” we must not let go of that chance to protect our ecosystem and the environment around us. Instead, we must work together towards a brighter plastic-free future leading us on the road to sustainable development. It is all in the hands of those in power after all and as citizens of the world we must be responsible enough to give back to Mother Earth for she has granted to us the gift of life.

Reported by Arya Mitra; Edited by Krishangi Jasani

About USAID’s Urban Work

Case Study: Marine Plastic Debris and Solid Waste Management in Peru

Click here to open the Spanish version of the Case Study

Introduction

The negative impact of plastic debris on marine ecosystems and species is a global challenge. While the causes vary by region, most scientists agree that poor solid waste management is a leading factor. This is particularly true in the developing world, where infrastructure has not kept pace with economic growth. For the past several years, a range of public and private sector partners in Peru have worked to improve solid waste management—for human well-being and to reduce threats to marine ecosystems. Their work offers insight into effective strategies while also illuminating gaps in key data on the impact of plastic pollution on marine biodiversity. This case study includes a look at the challenges facing Peru, the strategies undertaken to date, and the types of additional data and interventions required to address this global issue at the local and national level.

The Global Challenge

Plastic debris is a persistent and ubiquitous global issue threatening marine life throughout the world’s oceans (Thevenon, Carroll and Sousa 2014; Jambeck, et al. 2015; Boucher and Friot 2017; The CADMUS Group 2018). Global plastic production has increased significantly, with more than 300 million metric tons of plastics currently produced annually, compared to 1.5 million metric tons in 1950 (Boucher and Friot 2017). As plastic consumption increases, so does solid waste and, ultimately, marine debris. Currently, plastic debris can be found in a wide range of sizes: from nanoplastics and microplastics, such as the ones used in synthetic textiles and tires (Ibid), to macroplastics, such as plastic bags.

A significant portion of marine plastic pollution is generated inland and transported to the coastal areas through rivers (Lebreton et al. 2017) and runoff (Boucher and Friot 2017). Industrial fisheries also contribute to marine plastic debris (Luna-Jorquera et al. 2019). On a global scale, the most significant polluting rivers are located in Asia (Lebreton, et al. 2019). Rivers in South America account for an estimated 4.8 percent of the river mass plastic input to the oceans (Ibid).

Most plastic debris remains near coastal areas for years, degrading ecosystems key to economic and human health. Over time, debris can be degraded and transported by ocean currents to open waters and gyres, where particles accumulate and create “garbage patches” (Lebreton, Egger, and Slat 2019; Thiel, et al. 2018). Plastics in the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre (SPSG) largely originate from debris in the coastal waters of the Humboldt Current, spanning across the coast of Chile and Peru (Thiel, et al. 2018). Marine protected areas located near the five oceanic gyres and garbage accumulation points are at risk of receiving large amounts of marine plastic debris, undermining efforts to protect local wildlife (Luna-Jorquera, et al. 2019).

Plastic debris has negative effects on marine wildlife, including entanglement, ingestion, the transport of invasive species, and toxic pollutants (Thevenon, Carroll, and Sousa 2014). Microplastics have been reported in a wide range of marine taxa, including amphipods living in six of the deepest marine ecosystems on Earth (Thiel et al., 2018; Jamieson, et al. 2019), pointing at the ubiquitous distribution of these particles. However, a nuanced understanding of the impact of plastic on the biology of specific marine species is still poorly understood. The risk of exposure to plastics and microplastics depends on the distribution and abundance of the plastics and the biology of the species (Thiel et al. 2018).

Until scientists collect more data on the impact of marine debris on species and ecosystems, public and private sector institutions are focusing on better solid waste management upstream to reduce the flow of plastic pollution. Of the 6,300 million metric tons of plastic waste produced globally as of 2015, 9 percent has been recycled, 12 percent has been incinerated, and about 79 percent has accumulated in landfills or in the natural environment (Geyer et al. 2017). At the current trend, 12 billion tons of plastic waste will accumulate in landfills and the natural environment by 2050 (Idem).

In many developing countries, the consumption of disposable goods has increased at a higher rate than the development of proper waste management practices and infrastructure (Jambeck, et al. 2015). Developing sustainable waste management systems requires several key strategies, including strengthening the capacity of public waste management authorities; closing the infrastructure gap; partnering with and building the capacity of the private sector and civil society organizations; and implementing adequate laws, regulations, and standards (The Cadmus Group 2018). Countries, including Peru, are increasingly taking bold measures to tackle plastic pollution. With over 3,000 km of coastline and home to some of the most polluted beaches in Latin America, Peru provides a model to better understand the relationship between marine plastic debris and solid waste management, and the types of interventions having a positive impact.

Explore USAID's LINKS sites for learning and knowledge sharing

Achieving agriculture-led food security

Advancing biodiversity conservation

Improving climate change and development programming

Fostering resilient democratic societies

Creating successful and effective education programs

Promoting gender equality and integration

Solving global water and sanitation challenges

Sharing knowledge to advance health market development

Strengthening land tenure and property rights

A collaborative learning community of development professionals

Sharing market-based solutions for development

Helping communities withstand crisis and thrive

Supporting sustainable urban development

Consumer Awareness of Plastic: an Overview of Different Research Areas

Original Paper
Published: 25 March 2023
Volume 3 , pages 2083–2107, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Fabiula Danielli Bastos de Sousa ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5776-2247 1 , 2

6611 Accesses

8 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Plastic makes our society more practical and safer. It is hard to consider eliminating plastic in some sectors, such as the medical field. However, after use, plastic waste becomes a global problem without precedents, and when not properly disposed of, it can cause several socio-environmental problems. Some possible solutions are recycling, the circular economy, proper waste management, and consumer awareness. Consumers play a crucial role in preventing problems caused by plastic. In this work, consumer awareness of plastic is discussed according to the point of view of the research areas—environmental science, engineering, and materials science—based on the analysis of the main authors’ keywords obtained in a literature search in the Scopus database. Bibliometrix analyzed the Scopus search results. The results showed that each area presents different concerns and priorities. The current scenario, including the main hotspots, trends, emerging topics, and deficiencies, was obtained. On the contrary, the concerns from the literature and those of the daily lives of consumers do not seem to fit in, which creates a gap. By reducing this gap, the distance between consumers awareness and their behavior will be smaller.

Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review

Sustainability trends and gaps in the textile, apparel and fashion industries

Health risk of human exposure to microplastics: a review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The correct management of plastic waste is a complex and delicate task. Several characters are involved but the consumer has a relevant role, being responsible for segregating and discarding all the waste they produce.

The greater the economic prosperity of a region is, the greater its municipal solid waste (MSW) composition complexity [ 1 ]. More available products and services for citizens occur as countries and cities become more prosperous and more populated [ 2 ]. In high-income countries and cities, packing wastes, especially plastics, are predominant among all the waste produced [ 3 ]. Consequently, the higher the MSW composition complexity, the greater the difficulty of managing it, especially the correct management of plastic. Plastic is ubiquitous in our lives and modern society, being a massive increase in the production of fibers and resins, from 2 Mt in 1950 to around 380 Mt in 2015 [ 4 ].

Plastic plays a unique socioeconomic role. Worldwide, thousands of jobs are generated, whether in the production or recycling of plastic [ 5 ]. Thus, in addition to contributing to the economy, it plays a tremendous social role. Employment can be defined as a source of income and also a link of its identity over individual attributions introduced by its achievement of the task [ 6 ]. In addition, employment means social integration, allowing contact among people, insertion, and the feeling of belonging to a group [ 7 ].

However, even with a tremendously positive influence on society [ 5 ], plastic pollution outperforms it, making plastic a major polluter. Over the years, people have accompanied a significant increase in the pollution of water bodies by plastic, reaching up to 53 Mt per year by 2030 [ 8 ]. According to Geyer et al. [ 4 ], around 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated up to 2015, being recycled only about 9% of this amount.

Even with legal procedures, regulations, and levies regarding the reduction of single-use plastic [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], knowing that the circular economy is crucial to reduce plastic pollution [ 15 , 16 ], and knowing all the problems that plastic can cause when improperly disposed of, some consumers do not fulfill their role regarding the correct segregation and the final disposal of plastic waste that they produce. Some authors consider consumers as a primary source of plastic pollution [ 17 ] due to their lack of awareness or contribution to dealing with plastic. Besides, consumers may not want to put information into practice on individual actions relative to environmental and economic benefits [ 17 ].

Bibliometric analysis is an important instrument used to have an overview of different knowledge areas. Using specific software programs, the data of the publications collected from a search in a given database can be analyzed from a quantitative point of view. Among the possible data to be analyzed, the investigation of the keywords is essential to determine the research trend, identify gaps in the discussion concerning a given subject/research area, and identify the fields that can be interesting as future research areas [ 18 ]. The obtained results are relevant to influence new researchers to achieve progress in a given research area.

Considering the distinct role of consumers in the correct management of plastic waste and all the consequences that its incorrect management is likely to result in, consumer awareness of plastic was discussed, according to the literature of the last two decades. The analysis was based on the analysis of the main authors’ keywords obtained from a search in the Scopus database. Deepening the discussion, the point of view of the research areas—environmental science, engineering, and materials science—was also studied. The primary purpose was to comprehend the contribution of each area in developing consumer awareness of plastic. The results have shown that each area has different concerns and priorities. The current scenario was obtained by including the main hotspots, trends, emerging topics, and deficiencies.

Literature Review

Awareness is the knowledge that something exists or the understanding of a situation or subject based on information or experience [ 19 ]. Thus, within the scope of this work, although consumers know the problems that the incorrect disposal of plastic waste causes and the possible actions to mitigate existing problems, they do not collaborate positively.

Thomas [ 20 ] categorized four dynamic and ever-changing forms of non-recognition or unawareness, trying to elucidate why pollution is ignored:

Recognized unawareness: An individual perceives that pollution can cause negative effects but believes that the information is insufficient.

False awareness: An individual trusts to have all the information and that it is accessible, even having insufficient, outdated, or misunderstood information.

Deliberate unawareness: People do not consider as significant an environmental topic and then do not search for further information on it.

Concealed awareness: Information is omitted by an actor who is unable or does not feel like sharing it with others. There can be financial motivation issues or a benevolent effort to secure the public.

In the circular economy, waste is a raw material. Waste is a resource continually circulated within the economy [ 21 ]. It is a valuable material. The consumer is responsible for making available correctly the recyclable waste they produce for selective collection. The consumer is responsible for reintroducing the plastic waste to the cycle again (Fig. 1 item 3). Then, the plastic waste is collected, separated, and washed, i. e., it is prepared for recycling (Fig. 1 item 4). Plastic is recycled (Fig. 1 item 5), becoming a raw material for producing new items. In the sequence, it is transformed into other items (Fig. 1 item 1). After, the items made of recycled plastic go to consumer markets (Fig. 1 item 2), and then, consumed again (Fig. 1 item 3), closing the cycle (considering the mechanical recycling). This cycle constitutes the circular economy (Fig. 1 ). However, the role of the consumer regarding plastic does not end at that point—it goes far beyond. Some authors [ 22 ] have identified 14 critical roles of the consumers in reducing plastic pollutants, as follows:

Support plastic-free brands and supermarkets;

Take initiatives to limit plastic littering;

Ensure proximity of waste disposal bins;

Contribute to municipal services;

Comply with regulations;

Demand for sustainable and biodegradable product options;

Reduce reliance on single-use of plastic;

Plan green purchasing;

Positive attitude towards responsible consumption and reuse of plastic;

Clear perception of the adverse environmental effects of plastic pollution;

Emphasize proper recycling practices;

Conversion of plastic source into a resource;

Promote green packaging preferences;

Motivate to opt for the green lifestyle.

Summarized circular economy of plastic. The photo in the center shows a Magellanic Penguin found dead with a face mask in its stomach. The use of the photo was authorized by Instituto Argonauta [ 23 ]

The lack of consumer awareness plays a crucial role in recycling rates. In some countries, such as Brazil, recycling rates are meager—only about 4%. Even worse, it causes plastic pollution, mainly in water bodies (as aforementioned), which causes negative impacts on the environment, fauna, and human health.

Plastic is found in several sizes in different water bodies around the globe, but the most common are microplastics [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], fragments of polymeric origin with dimensions between 1 and 1000 μm [ 30 ]. Some products, such as wet wipes [ 27 ], sanitary towels [ 27 ], and face masks [ 31 , 32 , 33 ], are sources of microplastics in water bodies when improperly disposed of.

Microplastics in water bodies damage different organisms as they cannot distinguish them from food [ 34 ]. The accumulation of plastic in their organisms hinders digestion and the absorption of nutrients, reducing the reserve of energy available and leading to premature death [ 35 ]. As a shocking example, news addressed a Magellanic Penguin found dead on a beach in the city of São Sebastião, on the north coast of São Paulo (Brazil). During its necropsy, a face mask (made of plastic) was found in its stomach (photo in the center of Fig. 1 ), the cause of its death [ 36 ].

Microplastics can be easily ingested by aquatic animals and by humans due to their small size. Additionally, microplastics can adsorb different contaminants, increasing their toxicity. It is estimated that humans ingest up to 5 g of microplastics per week [ 37 ]. The literature points to inflammation as the major impact of microplastics on human health [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. Recently, microplastics were detected in breast milk for the first time [ 52 ].

Methodology

The methodology used in this work is described by de Sousa [ 53 ]. The bibliographic data inputs were obtained through a Scopus search on 12 August 2021. The keywords used were (consumer*) AND (awareness OR consciousness) AND (plastic* OR polymer*). Reviews and articles in English were considered from 2001 to 2020.

From Scopus, a scopus.bib file containing the data was taken, and a bibliometric analysis using the Bibliometrix (an R-package) was performed.

Next, from the Scopus search, the results obtained were limited to environmental science, engineering, and materials science research areas. For each area investigated, a scopus.bib file with the data was recorded and used to analyze the authors’ keywords.

The word cloud contains the 50 most frequent authors’ keywords. Five keywords per year with a minimum frequency of occurrence of 3 were analyzed for the evolution of the main terms.

Results and Discussion

The Scopus search obtained a total of 191 publications, with 156 articles and 35 reviews in English. The number of publications per year and area is presented in Fig. 2 .

Number of publications per year ( a ) and per area ( b )

The results show a growth in the number of publications over the period, with an annual growth rate of 15.39% (according to Bibliometrix). Even with a trend of increase in this figure, the number of annual publications is still low given the great relevance of the subject, and also demonstrates a real possibility of growth and improvement in the area, with ample space for research and development [ 54 ].

By analyzing the authors’ keywords, it is possible to obtain a panorama of the research field [ 55 ], as well as the hotspots and future trends. Authors use keywords to communicate their wishes to readers and the scientific community [ 56 ]. Some authors [ 54 ] explain that “keywords are the core of the paper, which indicates the research direction of the field by abstracting and summarizing the research content of the academic paper.” Given the importance of analyzing the authors’ keywords, they will be discussed in the present work.

The research area of consumer awareness of plastic (encompassing all the involved research areas) will be analyzed in the sequence.

All the Research Areas

From the 191 publications, a total of 720 authors’ keywords were obtained. The most relevant are as follows (number of occurrences in parenthesis): waste management (9), recycling (8), sustainability (7), plastic waste (6), packaging (5), consumer behavior (4), microplastics (4), pollution (4), and biopolymers (3). These keywords are hotspots concerning consumer awareness of plastic, especially waste management [ 57 , 58 ].

Figure 3 presents the word cloud containing the 50 more frequently observed authors’ keywords in the results of the Scopus search about consumer awareness of plastic and the trending topic. The word cloud analysis can provide an overview of the current literature about consumer awareness of plastic. The size of the letters represents the frequency of the keyword. The word cloud contains the authors’ keywords that are more relevant in the field. Therefore, as a panorama is provided, the discussion can be deepened.

( a ) Word cloud containing the 50 principal authors’ keywords. ( b ) Evolution of the main terms

Based on the authors’ keywords with the highest frequency and the word cloud, a concern from the literature about the problems that plastic (“plastic waste,” “packaging”) can cause/aggravate in the environment can be observed (“pollution,” “microplastics”), as well as the possible solutions to mitigate them (“consumer behavior,” “waste management,” “recycling,” and use of “biopolymers” and “biodegradable polymers”). This result also demonstrates the vital role of consumers in the plastics recycling chain through their pro-environmental behavior (“consumer behavior”).

Some possibilities to mitigate plastic pollution include the correct “management of plastic,” “recycling,” “levies,” and “consumer behavior.”

Other concerns depicted in the word cloud are the management of “e-waste” [ 59 ] and “food safety” [ 24 , 58 ].

Single-use plastic is a massive concern in consumer awareness of plastic research. Around 49% of the global production of plastic is constituted by single-use items [ 60 ]. The point to be considered is that single-use plastic has a very short lifetime, being discarded just after use and consequently becoming responsible for enhancing the environmental damages and concerns caused by plastic waste. According to Forbes [ 61 ], around 160,000 plastic bags are used per second worldwide, and only less than 3% of this amount is effectively recycled. The literature [ 62 ] describes a more negative perception towards single-use plastic and relatively high awareness of the environmental impacts they cause, as observed in the word cloud due to the keywords “plastic straws” and “plastic bags.” Negative discernments of single-use plastic consumption are linked to higher levels of environmental awareness [ 63 , 64 ]. On the other hand, even knowing the negative impact of plastic, some consumers still use them indistinctly [ 65 ].

According to Winton et al. [ 64 ], the most found macroplastics in freshwater environments in Europe are single-use short-term food acquisitions. Single-use plastics contribute to 60–95% of global marine plastic pollution [ 9 ]. So, abolishing all single-use products can effectively protect the environment and the world’s oceans [ 63 ].

Consumers can decide to reduce single-use plastic bags (SUPBs) in their daily life and engage in pro-environmental behavior [ 63 ]. In Chile, an informal and uncoordinated alliance of different sectors, including science, media, the general public, government agencies, schools, and universities, promoted the demise of SUPBs [ 63 ].

The literature points out to the circular economy and recycling as possible solutions for plastic waste management. The commitment of consumers, government, and companies (through the extended producer responsibility [ 66 ]), as part of the circular economy, is essential for reducing/solving the massive problem of plastic management since each sector is co-responsible for the environmental problems generated by plastic [ 55 ].

According to Fig. 3 b, the evolution of the main terms can be visualized. Some terms have been kept in evidence in the literature for an extended period, such as “mechanical properties,” “consumer behavior,” and “food safety.” However, they have lost their evidence to other terms, such as “packaging,” “sustainability,” “marine debris,” “microplastics,” and “plastic waste.” The terms with the highest frequency are the most popular authors’ keywords, as depicted before. The term “waste management” has been kept in evidence from 2012 to 2020. It has the highest frequency, corroborating Fig. 3 a. The terms with the highest frequencies, as mentioned previously, are currently in evidence, being considered hotspots in the research field of consumer awareness of plastic.

Regarding the authors’ keywords, 584 are from articles, and 136 are from reviews.

Based on the analysis of the authors’ keywords, emerging topics and trends are obtained. Trends or, in other words, subjects highly investigated, are present in reviews, whereas emerging topics are present in articles [ 67 ].

Table 1 presents the most frequent authors’ keywords in articles and reviews. The minimum number of occurrences for each keyword is 2. The keywords were separated into the following categories: actor, source, problem, mitigation, consequence, and policy. The main problem was plastic pollution (“microplastics,” “marine debris,” etc.). The actor is responsible for the problem, i.e., “consumer behavior.” The sources are the ones that produce plastic pollution, such as “plastic waste.” The consequences are the effects of plastic pollution. Mitigations lessen the consequences of plastic pollution. Furthermore, a policy is a rule to be followed by the population, such as a ban on a given plastic item. Plastic packages act as a barrier, protecting food against damage (food safety), and reducing food waste. However, some additives in the plastic can migrate to food in contact with the package, resulting in health impacts. So, the authors’ keywords “food safety,” “food contact material,” and “food waste” were categorized into a consequence.

Table 1 shows that reviews focus on human health impacts caused by plastic pollution, some sources, consequences, and mitigations. Conversely, in articles, authors focus on the mitigations of plastic pollution.

Some of the most frequent authors’ keywords are from articles (Fig. 3 a); so, a high contribution of articles in the current literature can be observed, such as the concerns expressed by authors considered emerging trends [ 67 ].

Directions can be obtained through the divergences among the keywords in articles and reviews [ 67 ]. Based on Table 1 , some mismatches are observed, such as actors, mitigations, and policies. These discrepancies are considered deficiencies on which the literature should be focused. So, themes contemplated in these categories can be attractive for future research. Thus, future works can focus on the abovementioned themes to mitigate plastic pollution caused mainly by the need for more consumer awareness [ 68 , 69 ].

“A large proportion of the plastic waste is caused due to consumerism” [ 68 ]. In general, the incorrect disposal of plastic waste is caused, in large part, by the lack of awareness of consumers or, in other words, by the “throwaway behavior” of consumers [ 68 ].

Consumer awareness can change consumer behavior. However, if changes do not happen, negative consequences can occur due to wrong political and entrepreneurial strategies because of a lack of information about consumer awareness [ 70 ]. Based on this, consumer awareness of plastic must be understood in depth to achieve a change in consumer habits for the common good. Most studies focus on environmental concerns and the disposition of consumers to purchase alternative products [ 68 , 71 ]. On the other hand, consumer awareness of plastic does not involve only environmental aspects, evidenced by the numerous research areas with publications on the subject (Fig. 2 b). Literature is constructed from the contribution of many different knowledge areas.

To better understand the interests and concerns of some of the different research areas, the literature on the areas of environmental science, engineering, and materials science (some of the areas with the highest number of publications) will be briefly analyzed, focusing on the analysis of the authors’ keywords of these research areas. Based on this, the contribution of each area in developing consumer awareness about plastic can be understood.

Environmental Science

The Scopus search about consumer awareness of plastic limited to the environmental science area (68 publications—60 articles and 8 reviews) obtained a total of 286 authors’ keywords. The most relevant are as follows (number of occurrences in parenthesis): waste management (7), plastic waste (5), recycling (5), consumer behavior (4), microplastics (4), marine debris (3), plastic bag levy (3), plastic pollution (3), and pollution (3).

The word cloud containing the 50 more frequently observed authors’ keywords in the publications of the environmental science area is shown in Fig. 4 .

Word cloud containing the 50 main authors’ keywords of the environmental science area

The role of consumers is evidenced through the keywords “awareness of consequences” [ 72 ], “consumer preferences” [ 73 , 74 ], “attitude,” “theory of planned behavior” [ 75 ], “beliefs,” “behavior-based solutions,” “behavior change” [ 76 ], “anti-consumption behavior” [ 77 ], “awareness” [ 68 , 78 ], “choice experiment” [ 74 ], “behavior,” “consumer behavior” [ 62 , 64 ], “pro-environmental behavior,” and “willingness to pay” [ 79 ]. Some keywords present a minor frequency. The high number of keywords concerning the behavior of consumers shows that the environmental science area focuses on consumers. Their behavior and consumption are responsible for environmental problems caused/aggravated by plastic. As aforementioned, consumers also play an essential role in correctly managing plastic and its recycling [ 75 ] (Fig. 1 ).

Other possible solutions to mitigate the problems that plastic can cause are posed by the environmental science area, such as the use of “bioplastic bottles,” “bio-based packaging” [ 80 ], “biodegradable plastic bottles” (in substitution for conventional plastic bottles [ 81 ]), “bio-based plastic,” the correct “management of plastic waste” [ 63 ], “recycling” [ 75 ], and “plastic bag levies” [ 77 , 79 , 82 ].

Habits, norms, and situational factors predict the behavior of consumers. Despite a pronounced awareness of the associated problems that plastic can cause, consumers keep on appreciating and using it [ 65 ]. In Taiwan, some authors [ 1 ] demonstrated that the plastic and glass waste generation rate declined when economic activities expanded, mainly due to the strict enforcement of recycling policies accompanied by marketing campaigns encouraging recycling and enhancing the green awareness of consumers. Accordingly, an opportunity to increase consumer awareness is to encourage the opening of zero-packaging grocery stores, improving the social and environmental impacts of the food supply chain [ 78 ]. Another example of the importance of consumer behavior is the ban on SUPBs in Chile [ 63 ], which was driven by a broad concern among the general public, and led to a bottom-up movement culminating in the national government taking stakes in the issue.

Literature also analyzed the consumer perceptions of microplastics in “personal care products” [ 83 ], of using “compostable carrier bags” [ 84 ], and “plastic water bottles” [ 81 ]. Orset et al. [ 81 ] analyzed the perception and behavior of consumers of plastic water bottles, which depend on the viewpoint (i.e., consumer, producer, and social welfare). From the consumer point of view, the authors recommended the organic policy with subsidy, the three tools of the recycling policy, and the biodegradable policy with subsidy. Concerning the compostable carrier bags [ 84 ], a greater awareness was observed regarding the use of these bags and the recognition of the importance of green products, which are gaining space in the market and in the routine of consumers. Furthermore, about microplastics in personal care products [ 83 ], participants of the survey perceived the use of microbeads in such products as unnatural and unnecessary.

Engineering

From the Scopus search about consumer awareness of plastic limited to the engineering area, a total of 131 authors’ keywords were obtained in the 33 publications (24 articles and 9 reviews). The most frequently used keywords by the authors of the engineering area are as follow (frequency of occurrence in parenthesis): mechanical properties (3), bio-based plastic (2), composites (2), consumer preferences (2), and food waste (2). All the other keywords present the same frequency.

The word cloud containing the 50 more frequently found authors’ keywords in the results of the Scopus search of the engineering area is shown in Fig. 5 .

Word cloud containing the 50 principal authors’ keywords of the engineering area

Based on the analysis of the authors’ keywords, the engineering area demonstrates some options to mitigate the impacts that plastic pollution can cause; options such as the “circular economy,” “e-waste management,” the use of “biodegradable polymers” [ 85 ], “bio-based plastic” [ 73 ], “composites” [ 86 ], “chitosan” [ 87 ], “eco-friendly plastic,” “bioplastic,” “bamboo” [ 88 ], “alginate” [ 87 ], “biobased” and “biodegradable” [ 89 , 90 , 91 ], “bio nanocomposites” [ 92 ], “CO 2 -derived products” [ 93 ], and “filler” materials. All these materials are possible options for producing materials that are more environmentally friendly.

As an example of using biobased/biodegradable polymer, some authors [ 91 ] studied the feasibility of biobased/biodegradable films for in-package thermal pasteurization made of polylactic acid (PLA) and polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT). The results indicated that selected PLA and PBAT-based films are suitable for in-package pasteurization and can replace polyethylene for ≤ 10 days of shelf life at 4 °C.

This area focuses on economic aspects to encourage the use of materials that cause less environmental impacts, such as “demonetization” and a “cashless economy” since financial encouragement is considered an effective way to reduce plastic debris [ 76 ]. “Credible alternative actions and products offered by businesses or through legislation at competitive costs can produce positive behavior changes that eventually reduce plastic pollution” [ 17 ].

The area also alerts people to a material that causes a substantial environmental impact, the ‘Brazil coffee-in-capsules’ [ 94 ]. According to the authors [ 94 ], coffee consumers have a dominant role in helping turn coffee capsule waste into a financial resource or supporting other efforts toward circular practice, emphasizing the behavior and awareness of consumers.

This attitude also raises an alert of possible problems to human health caused/aggravated by the use of plastics with the presence of the keywords “endocrine disruption,” “carcinogenesis,” “allergen,” and “biogenic toys” [ 74 ] (to avoid “children contamination” [ 95 ]). These keywords express some consumer concerns about the use of plastics.

Even knowing that packages act as a kind of barrier protecting food against damage, extending the lifetime of foods [ 5 , 33 ], and reducing food waste [ 78 , 96 ] (another keyword present in the word cloud), additives contained in plastic can migrate from packaging to the food due to diffusion processes (keyword “food contact material,” also shown in the word cloud). As an example of the diffusion process, the release of bisphenol A (BPA), a monomer used in the manufacture of epoxy resins, from polycarbonate products such as plastic baby bottles, baby bottle liners, and reusable drinking bottles is proven by literature [ 97 , 98 , 99 ]. BPA (endocrine-disrupting chemical) is toxic and can cause several health problems, from cancer to the development of problems in the formation of sexual organs of babies and children, depending on the contamination level [ 98 ]. Additionally, additives can contaminate soil, air, water, and food [ 100 , 101 ].

The research area also demonstrates the critical role of consumers regarding plastic use and its environmental impact through the keywords “consumer preferences” and “awareness” [ 78 , 102 ].

Materials Science

From the Scopus search about consumer awareness of plastic limited to materials science, 72 authors’ keywords were obtained in the 28 publications (20 articles and 8 reviews). The most frequently used keywords by the authors of the materials science area are as follow (frequency of occurrence in parenthesis): recycling (3), antibacterial (2), and mechanical properties (2). All the other keywords presented the same frequency. The smallest frequency of the keywords of the engineering and materials science compared to the environmental science area is due to the smaller number of publications and authors’ keywords.

The word cloud containing the 50 more frequently found authors’ keywords in the results of the Scopus search of the materials science area is shown in Fig. 6 .

Word cloud containing the 50 main authors’ keywords of the materials science area

The keywords of the materials science area seem to show more significant concerns about the materials that compose the plastic, such as “high-density polyethylene” (HDPE) [ 103 ], “aliphatic polyesters” [ 90 ], “PET” (polyethylene terephthalate) [ 104 , 105 ], “additives” [ 106 ], “antioxidants,” “kenaf fiber” [ 107 ], “antifogs” [ 106 ], “bamboo” [ 88 ], “dyes/pigments” [ 108 ], “bamboo rayon” [ 109 ], “copper nanoparticles,” and “biodegradable polymers” [ 89 , 90 ]. Some of these keywords express the search for more environmentally friendly materials (for instance, the use of “natural fibers” [ 110 ] and “biodegradable polymers” [ 89 , 90 ]), aiming at reducing environmental impacts caused by plastic.

Concerning materials, a meaningful example is the one by Stoll et al. [ 108 ], which analyzed the use of carotenoid extracts as natural colorants in PLA films. According to the authors, using carotenoids as colorants for polymeric materials represents an environmentally friendly way of obtaining colored packaging. Beyond the environmental advantages, this natural colorant reduced the oxygen permeability and presented a lubricant effect, increasing the film elasticity up to 50%. Some authors [ 110 ] investigated the processing of natural fibers in an internal mixer to be used for thermoplastic lightweight materials, which means a good alternative for the automotive industry.

The primary possibility to solve the problem of plastic waste posed by the area is “recycling” and others, such as the use of plastic residues in the production of “lightweight concrete” [ 111 ], “construction materials,” “composites,” and in “3D printing” [ 104 ]. 3D printing is an option for the recycling process of post-used plastics, as in the example of using PET [ 104 ].

Biodegradable polymers can be considered an option to reduce solid waste disposal problems and reduce the dependence on petroleum-based plastics for packaging materials [ 90 ]. However, some authors [ 89 ] detected some problems, namely, cost control, in-depth development of functions and applications, materials source extension, enhancement of environmental protection awareness and regulations, and systematical assessment of environmental compatibility of the biodegradable polymers.

All these possibilities should present the necessary mechanical properties for their specific final applications, demonstrated by the keywords “mechanical properties,” “compliance,” and “durability.” Also, the keywords “finite element analysis,” “kinetics,” “computational fluid dynamics” [ 112 ], and “package design” indicate some possibilities for analyzing the properties of a given material and design. Computational fluid dynamics (the “finite volume method”) was used to analyze the airflow and the heat transfer performances in the design and performance evaluation of fresh fruit ventilated distribution packaging by Mukama et al. [ 112 ], being that the vent-hole design affects cooling and strength requirements.

Some health impacts of plastic and some benefits are also presented, such as “heavy metal testing” [ 105 ], “antimicrobial” [ 113 , 114 ], “antibacterial” [ 109 ], “exposure” [ 115 ], and “antimicrobial fruit quality.” The research area does not demonstrate the role of consumers in the problems that plastic can cause. However, it presents some possibilities for consumers to act actively and consciously through the presence of keywords “chemical education research” [ 116 ], “evaluation strategies,” and “environmental protection.”

Concerning the use of recycled polymers, some authors [ 117 ] analyzed the removal of the odor from HDPE by using a modified recycling process. Removing this type of contamination is considered a challenge in the industry and vital to establishing viable concepts for a circular economy for post-consumer HDPE packaging.

Based on the analysis of the authors’ keywords, the materials science area is more focused on solving environmental problems caused by plastic through designing and producing materials that cause a lower environmental impact and are more environmentally friendly options. It is also a way to make consumers more aware of their role when using plastics, providing consumers with options that cause less environmental impact.

The work of Rhein and Schmid [ 68 ], which verified the real concerns of consumers regarding plastic packaging from a quantitative analysis based on consumers interviews, showed that consumer awareness involves the following five different aspects:

Awareness of environmental pollution: consumer awareness of the damage that plastic pollution causes to the environment and the oceans, knowing the necessity of environmental protection.

Awareness of the intensive use of plastic: consumers who are aware of the problems that plastic can cause but, even so, still use it unreasonably.

Awareness of consumers’ influence: even being aware, these consumers are concerned about companies and the influence caused by them.

Awareness of consumers’ powerlessness: consumers do not know how to contribute to the reduction of plastic pollution.

Awareness of the need for using plastic: consumer awareness of the positive characteristics of plastic making it essential in their daily lives, such as a hygienic way of storage.

According to the authors [ 68 ], “the different types of awareness strongly reflect how consumers think about problems associated with plastic and whether they feel that they are responsible and, therefore, able to change the current situation.”

As stated before, consumers may not want to put information into practice on individual actions relative to environmental and economic benefits [ 17 ]. In other words, many consumers have the information they need to dispose of plastic waste correctly and would rather avoid cooperating. So, consumers have a crucial role in the correct segregation and final disposal of plastic waste, but, unfortunately, some do not fulfill their role (Fig. 1 ), and consequently, several socio-environmental problems caused by plastic are aggravated. An example that can be observed daily is the significant increase in the number of face masks improperly disposed of on the streets during the COVID-19 pandemic. They end up going into water bodies and can kill animals (Fig. 1 ). These masks are degraded and release plastic microparticles [ 23 , 33 , 118 ].

Behavior changes can be blocked by psychological and practical barriers, turning the awareness raising into tortuous action [ 119 ]. Plastic-related behavioral change is not very successful if the focus is only on information and raising awareness [ 65 ]. Stakeholders interviewed by Steinhorst and Beyerl [ 120 ] agreed that consumers are not the most responsible agents of change but rather partners of producers, retailers, politicians, and disposal agencies, in which producers and retailers are considered the main agents. Private and public sector initiatives, well-enforced policies, and evidence-based media reporting can provide new norms and practices that are socially accepted [ 17 ]. According to Parashar and Hait [ 69 ], the primary drivers of plastic misconduct are the lack of awareness and attitude of consumers and their irresponsible behavior, as well as the stress on waste management infrastructure in terms of collection, operation, and financial constraints.

The impact of COVID-19 on people’s consumption behavior worldwide was studied [ 121 ], having the following as main results:

Increased the consumption of packed food and food delivery (i.e., increased the number of packages consumed) during the pandemic (45–48% of the respondents)

Increased waste generation during the lockdown period, being the highest increase observed for plastic packaging (53%) and food waste (45%) (55% of the respondents)

Efforts increasing to segregate waste properly during the lockdown (32% of the respondents)

The need to use less packaging through new product design (66% of the respondents) or to increase recyclability (61% of the respondents)

These results reveal the increase in the production of recyclable materials in homes and the lack of environmental awareness of most of the respondents. Contradictorily, just 32% segregated the waste they produced but demonstrated concern about the new design of packaging containing less plastic.

Likewise, Rhein and Schmid [ 68 ] demonstrated a similar profile of consumers and their awareness of the use of plastic. At the same time, some consumers are willing to pay more for other options that cause less pollution, citing concern for families and especially grandchildren. They claim that plastic pollution is the fault of Africa, Asia, and the Americas (i.e., outside Europe, where the research was performed). They know that the amount of plastic used in packages is large and sometimes unnecessary, such as plastic in shell fruits. However, these consumers cannot help change and assign responsibility to companies. A particular sort of laziness and a wish to buy goods without restrictions override the consciousness that the existing plastic system would, in principle, be changed. Some consumers are conscious of the use of plastic and know the problems they cause to the environment but agree that plastic is practical, unwilling to alter their consumption behavior. That is, “others” are responsible for pollution, not “me.”

Considering consumers’ daily consumption, hygiene, food safety, and practicality of use are more important than the environmental impact [ 122 ]. In the review of Heidbreder et al. [ 65 ], in which 187 studies were analyzed, people appreciate and regularly use plastic despite a noticeable awareness of related problems. Also, Nguyen [ 123 ] analyzed factors that affect Vietnamese consumers’ intention and behavior to bring their shopping bags (BYOB). The results illustrated a modest relationship between intent and authentic behavior concerning BYOB.

So, the literature shows a gap between consumer awareness and behavior. The literature needs to be focused on reducing this gap. According to Ali et al. [ 22 ], there is a lack of literature about the explicit roles of consumers, corroborating with the present work. The interrelationships among the consumer’s roles were identified by the authors, which provided action plans for decreasing plastic pollution.

According to the obtained results, each knowledge area has its concerns and priorities regarding consumer awareness of plastic. Nevertheless, such concerns and priorities are not in line with the ones of consumers in everyday life. Thus, by reducing this gap, literature can be a strong partner, for example, in the decision-making of authorities, such as in the creation of laws and norms aimed at reducing the real problem of the final disposal of plastic waste. “Consumers-citizens can greatly contribute to solving the plastic pollution problem and can be used as a stepping stone for further interdisciplinary research” [ 17 ].

As an example of the magnitude of the literature, Wang et al. [ 124 ] systematically reviewed and compared the publications related to plastic pollution before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the main results, the authors observed that the total number of publications during the COVID-19 pandemic has been much higher than before, and this increase happened in a short period, demonstrating increasing attention to research on plastic pollution worldwide promoted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Another relevant case is Contact From the Future , a digital game on plastic pollution for children created by Panagiotopoulou et al. [ 125 ], which proposed to construct awareness and motivate pro-environmental behaviors.

As stated before by some authors [ 68 ], in the literature, consumer awareness of plastic is, in general, intrinsically linked to the consumers’ environmental awareness. The results from this work show that consumer awareness of plastic is broader, not limited to environmental consciousness, and each knowledge area has its concerns. These results align with Rhein and Schmid [ 68 ], which depicted that “the term awareness cannot automatically be equated with environmental concerns”.

Based on the analysis of the authors’ keywords, the environmental area is prone to concerns; engineering is focused on the solutions, and materials science in the materials that compose the plastic and the development of alternative materials. All of them are intrinsically connected in an attempt to mitigate the pollution caused by plastic. In other words, consumer awareness of plastic is a much broader issue, not just an environmental concern. Even knowing the importance of all the areas analyzed in the search for the growth of consumer awareness of plastic, it is perceived that the literature is not aligned with consumer awareness in their daily life. Literature needs, in addition to focusing on addressing deficiencies described above, meet the real requests of the population in the search for awareness and behavior change for the well-being of society. A schema is shown in Fig. 7 .

Schema shows that even if the various areas of knowledge about consumer awareness of plastic have several concerns, these do not seem to align with the population’s concerns

So, after all, how to raise consumer awareness of plastic? The literature has provided an outstanding contribution to this.

Integrated plastic waste management is a very complex issue and requires engagement at all levels, including producer, consumer, and government. The government is mainly responsible for establishing laws aimed at the common good and supervision so that they are fulfilled. As an example of Law Nº 12,305 in Brazil [ 126 ], laws addressing waste management highlight the shared responsibility in which consumers have an essential role.

Public policies are relevant, mainly in cases of consumers who, even knowing their role in the circular economy, do nothing for laziness, selfishness, or lack of awareness. They must change consumer habits through impositions when they do not collaborate. Some consumers contribute from a stimulus, a “currency of exchange,” collaborating only from some advantage. In this sense, it is up to the industries responsible for the reverse logistics of their products to encourage consumers in some way that seems feasible for them to contribute to reverse logistics and the circular economy.

Some authors [ 127 ] compared the result of focus group sessions in India with literature about sustainable packages for Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). Higher environmental awareness was observed in groups with higher levels of schooling. Young generations, especially those still attending school, have shown more awareness and concern about making sustainable choices, while older generations have shown a significant lack of awareness. Conversely, price is one of the most significant factors deterring purchase. Also, a lack of knowledge about the benefits offered by sustainable products makes consumers indifferent toward them.

Similar behavior was observed by Molloy et al. [ 128 ], which examined the perception of legislative actions on single-use plastics through surveys and interviews in four Atlantic provinces of Canada. Young generations, students, and high-level school people support the plastic ban. A higher percentage of females support the plastic ban. Men have less probability of contributing to environmentally friendly activities, such as carrying reusable bags.

In Islamabad Capital Territory of Pakistan [ 129 ], people who support the plastic bag ban are those with a high education level, health, and environmental awareness. According to the authors, to increase the effectiveness of Islamabad’s plastic bag ban, increasing public understanding of the effects of plastic pollution needs to receive more focus by investing money in awareness programs and campaigns, education investment, and proper implementation machinery.

In Ecuador [ 130 ], reusable bags are more likely to be used by the head of household with a high-education level and the rural population. On the other hand, the probability of using these bags reduces when the head of household participates in social organizations.

In Turkey, the use of free-of-charge plastic bags was banned. After this, some authors observed that, among the Istanbul population, women, married people, and high-income groups are more prone to consume plastic bags [ 131 ]. These groups should be considered the focal point when designing policies. Based on the authors, “policymakers and environmental organizations should provide the necessary campaigns and training to reignite the tendency to reduce plastic bag consumption as part of environmental awareness.”

There are also cases where the consumer does not contribute to the circular economy due to a lack of knowledge. For example, the survey results found that university students are unaware of the consequences of beverage packaging material choices on environmental sustainability [ 132 ]. They do not know how to contribute effectively in their day-by-day activities to the sustainability goal.

More environmentally conscious people are more prone to join environmental initiatives [ 128 , 129 , 133 ]. “Information is one of the most widely used means to promote pro-environmental behavior change” [ 134 ] and, consequently, make consumers aware of plastic and its impacts. So, education is an effective way to raise consumer awareness of plastic.

The Internet can improve consumers’ pro-environmental behavior [ 135 ]. The Internet has the leading role in providing environmental information, making environmental knowledge popular, and enhancing energy use and social relationships [ 135 ]. Moreover, communication through mass media as TV channels open to the public is essential means of information about plastic pollution. Additionally, shocking images, messages of victims of plastic waste, and emotive images are effective in developing consumer awareness since they attract the consumers’ attention and produce a debate on plastic use [ 136 , 137 ]. “The media has a critical role in educating the public and policymakers on the current environmental concerns regarding plastic pollution” [ 22 ].

Last but not least, the plastic importance must be clear to everyone, no matter the way.

Conclusions

It is common in different areas of knowledge to have distinct interests. In an interdisciplinary area such as consumer awareness of plastic consumption and its paramount importance to society, it would be ideal for interests to converge for the well-being of society.

It was possible to observe that each area (environmental science, engineering, and materials science) presents different strategies to reduce the negative impact of plastic on human health and the environment. Each area contributes on its area in developing consumer awareness of plastic:

The environmental science area seems to be focused on consumer accountability for problems that plastic can cause.

Engineering seems to analyze the plastic problem in a more broadly way, depicting some causes, problems that plastic can cause, and possible solutions to solve them.

Materials science seems to be focused on the materials that compose the plastic, bringing some opportunities for materials that cause less impact on the environment, such as the ones from renewable sources.

Concerning the analysis of the authors’ keywords:

The main hotspots are waste management, recycling, sustainability, plastic waste, packaging, consumer behavior, microplastics, pollution, and biopolymers.

The main trends are biopolymers, recycling, sustainability, waste management, food safety, health impact, mechanical properties, microplastics, and packaging.

The main emerging topics are plastic waste, sustainability, waste management, recycling, microplastics, and pollution.

The primary deficiencies or gaps in the literature are in the following categories: actors, mitigations, and policies.

So, the authors’ keywords analysis can describe the current scenario of consumer awareness of plastic literature and depict the main concerns of the authors. The analysis can also help outline the future of the research area based on filling in identified deficiencies.

However, all these concerns are not aligned with the ones of the consumer’s habit. It is a severe gap in which literature needs to turn, reducing the “distance” between consumer awareness and behavior.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Nguyen KLP, Chuang YH, Chen HW, Chang CC (2020) Impacts of socioeconomic changes on municipal solid waste characteristics in Taiwan. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104931. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2020.104931

Article Google Scholar

Kaza S, Yao LC, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F (2018) What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0

Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388 . Accessed 11 Feb 2021

Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3:e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Article CAS Google Scholar

de Sousa FDB (2021) The role of plastic concerning the sustainable development goals: the literature point of view. Clean Responsible Consum 3:100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100020

Dejours C (1999) A banalização da injustiça social, 4th edn. FGV, Rio de Janeiro

Google Scholar

de Medeiros LFR, Macêdo KB (2006) Recycled garbage pickers – a profession beyond survival? Psicol Soc 18:62–71. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-71822006000200009

Borrelle SB, Ringma J, Lavender Law K et al (2020) Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Sci (80-) 369:1515–1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ABA3656

Schnurr REJ, Alboiu V, Chaudhary M et al (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 137:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2018.10.001

Xanthos D, Walker TR (2017) International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 118:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048

Bezerra JC, Walker TR, Clayton CA, Adam I (2021) Single-use plastic bag policies in the southern african development community. Environ Challenges 3:100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100029

Linnebjerg JF, Baak JE, Barry T et al (2021) Review of plastic pollution policies of Arctic countries in relation to seabirds. Facets. https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2020-0052

Clayton CA, Walker TR, Bezerra JC, Adam I (2021) Policy responses to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in the Caribbean. Mar Pollut Bull 162:111833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111833

Adam I, Walker TR, Bezerra JC, Clayton A (2020) Policies to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar Policy 116:103928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103928

Myers J (2020) China’s plans to reduce single-use plastics | World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/china-has-an-announced-ambitious-plans-to-cut-single-use-plastic/ . Accessed 21 Feb 2021

Masterson V (2020) Which countries have bans on single-use plastics? | World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/canada-bans-single-use-plastics/ . Accessed 21 Feb 2021

Marazzi L, Loiselle S, Anderson LG et al (2020) Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: a multi-criteria decision analysis approach. PLoS ONE 15:e0236410. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0236410

Secinaro S, Brescia V, Calandra D, Biancone P (2020) Employing bibliometric analysis to identify suitable business models for electric cars. J Clean Prod 264:121503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121503

Cambridge dictionary (2022) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dicionario/ingles/awareness . Accessed 11

Thomas L (2013) How and why environmental issues are neglected. Yale Environ Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2011.10.002

Elgie AR, Singh SJ, Telesford JN (2021) You can’t manage what you can’t measure: the potential for circularity in Grenada’s waste management system. Resour Conserv Recycl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105170

Ali SM, Ahmed S, Ahmed HN et al (2022) Reducing plastic pollutants through catalyzing consumer roles: a novel application of fuzzy total interpretive structural modeling. J Clean Prod 335:130327. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.130327

de Sousa FDB (2021) Plastic and its consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-021-15425-W

Usman S, Razis AFA, Shaari K et al (2020) Microplastics pollution as an invisible potential threat to food safety and security, policy challenges and the way forward. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2020 17:9591. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH17249591

Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I et al (2020) Environmental status of (micro)plastics contamination in Portugal. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 200:110753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110753

Rodrigues D, Antunes J, Otero V et al (2020) Distribution patterns of microplastics in seawater surface at a portuguese Estuary and Marine Park. Front Environ Sci 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/FENVS.2020.582217

Briain O, Marques Mendes AR, McCarron S et al (2020) The role of wet wipes and sanitary towels as a source of white microplastic fibres in the marine environment. Water Res 182:116021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116021

Yurtsever M (2019) Glitters as a source of primary microplastics: an approach to environmental responsibility and ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics 2019 323 32:459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10806-019-09785-0

e Silva PHS, de Sousa FDB (2021) Microplastic pollution of Patos lagoon, south of Brazil. Environ Challenges 4:100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100076

Hartmann NB, Hüffer T, Thompson RC et al (2019) Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol 53:1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.8B05297/

Ammendolia J, Saturno J, Brooks AL et al (2021) An emerging source of plastic pollution: environmental presence of plastic personal protective equipment (PPE) debris related to COVID-19 in a metropolitan city. Environ Pollut 269:116160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116160

Anastopoulos I, Pashalidis I (2021) Single-use surgical face masks, as a potential source of microplastics: do they act as pollutant carriers? J Mol Liq 326:115247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.115247

de Sousa FDB (2020) Pros and cons of plastic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recycling 5:27. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5040027

Hämer J, Gutow L, Köhler A, Saborowski R (2014) Fate of microplastics in the marine isopod Idotea emarginata. Environ Sci Technol 48:13451–13458. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501385y

Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut 178:483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2013.02.031

Necropsia aponta que pinguim encontrado morto no litoral de SP engoliu máscara. https://g1.globo.com/sp/vale-do-paraiba-regiao/noticia/2020/09/15/necropsia-aponta-que-pinguim-encontrado-morto-no-litoral-de-sp-engoliu-mascara.ghtml . Accessed 16 Sep 2020

WorldWide Fund for Nature (2019) No plastic in nature: assessing plastic ingestion from nature to people. Gland, Switzerland

Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I et al (2020) Environmental exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ 702:134455. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.134455

Yuan Z, Nag R, Cummins E (2022) Human health concerns regarding microplastics in the aquatic environment - from marine to food systems. Sci Total Environ 823:153730. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.153730

Xu D, Ma Y, Han X, Chen Y (2021) Systematic toxicity evaluation of polystyrene nanoplastics on mice and molecular mechanism investigation about their internalization into Caco-2 cells. J Hazard Mater 417:126092. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.126092

Huang D, Zhang Y, Long J et al (2022) Polystyrene microplastic exposure induces insulin resistance in mice via dysbacteriosis and pro-inflammation. Sci Total Environ 838:155937. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.155937

Weber A, Schwiebs A, Solhaug H et al (2022) Nanoplastics affect the inflammatory cytokine release by primary human monocytes and dendritic cells. Environ Int 163:107173. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2022.107173

Yang S, Cheng Y, Chen Z et al (2021) In vitro evaluation of nanoplastics using human lung epithelial cells, microarray analysis and co-culture model. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 226:112837. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOENV.2021.112837

Huang Z, Weng Y, Shen Q et al (2021) Microplastic: a potential threat to human and animal health by interfering with the intestinal barrier function and changing the intestinal microenvironment. Sci Total Environ 785:147365. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.147365

Junaid M, Siddiqui JA, Sadaf M et al (2022) Enrichment and dissemination of bacterial pathogens by microplastics in the aquatic environment. Sci Total Environ 830:154720. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.154720

Tong X, Li B, Li J et al (2022) Polyethylene microplastics cooperate with Helicobacter pylori to promote gastric injury and inflammation in mice. Chemosphere 288:132579. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2021.132579

Rawle DJ, Dumenil T, Tang B et al (2022) Microplastic consumption induces inflammatory signatures in the colon and prolongs a viral arthritis. Sci Total Environ 809:152212. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.152212

Liu S, Li H, Wang J et al (2022) Polystyrene microplastics aggravate inflammatory damage in mice with intestinal immune imbalance. Sci Total Environ 833:155198. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.155198

Nikolic S, Gazdic-Jankovic M, Rosic G et al (2022) Orally administered fluorescent nanosized polystyrene particles affect cell viability, hormonal and inflammatory profile, and behavior in treated mice. Environ Pollut 305:119206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.119206

Zheng H, Wang J, Wei X et al (2021) Proinflammatory properties and lipid disturbance of polystyrene microplastics in the livers of mice with acute colitis. Sci Total Environ 750:143085. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.143085

Zhao L, Shi W, Hu F et al (2021) Prolonged oral ingestion of microplastics induced inflammation in the liver tissues of C57BL/6J mice through polarization of macrophages and increased infiltration of natural killer cells. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 227:112882. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOENV.2021.112882

Ragusa A, Notarstefano V, Svelato A et al (2022) Raman microspectroscopy detection and characterisation of microplastics in human breastmilk. Polym (Basel) 14:2700. https://doi.org/10.3390/POLYM14132700

de Sousa FDB (2022) A simplified bibliometric mapping and analysis about sustainable polymers. Mater Today Proc 49:2025–2033. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.08.210

Zhou Y, Yang F, Wu X et al (2020) Bibliometric analysis of research progress on karst groundwater pollution. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 568:012040

de Sousa FDB (2021) Management of plastic waste: a bibliometric mapping and analysis. Waste Manag Res 39:664–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X21992422

Vošner HB, Kokol P, Bobek S et al (2016) A bibliometric retrospective of the Journal Computers in Human Behavior (1991–2015). Comput Hum Behav 65:46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.026

Al-Khatib IA, Monou M, Abu Zahra ASF et al (2010) Solid waste characterization, quantification and management practices in developing countries. A case study: Nablus district – Palestine. J Environ Manage 91:1131–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2010.01.003

Lin AYu-Chen, Tzy-Ying Huang S, Wahlqvist ML (2009) Waste management to improve food safety and security for health advancement. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 18:538–545

Sarath P, Bonda S, Mohanty S, Nayak SK (2015) Mobile phone waste management and recycling: views and trends. Waste Manag 46:536–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.09.013

Ogunola OS, Onada OA, Falaye AE (2018) Mitigation measures to avert the impacts of plastics and microplastics in the marine environment (a review). Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:9293–9310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1499-z

Forbes (2020) Solving the problem of plastic bag pollution. https://www.forbes.com/sites/businessreporter/2020/10/22/solving-the-problem-of-plastic-bag-pollution/?sh=7d04b22b4c8a . Accessed 12 Apr 2022

Van Rensburg ML, Nkomo SL, Dube T (2020) The ‘plastic waste era’; social perceptions towards single-use plastic consumption and impacts on the marine environment in Durban, South Africa. Appl Geogr 114:102132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEOG.2019.102132

Amenábar Cristi M, Holzapfel C, Nehls M et al (2020) The rise and demise of plastic shopping bags in Chile – broad and informal coalition supporting ban as a first step to reduce single-use plastics. Ocean Coast Manag 187:105079. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2019.105079

Winton DJ, Anderson LG, Rocliffe S, Loiselle S (2020) Macroplastic pollution in freshwater environments: focusing public and policy action. Sci Total Environ 704:135242. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.135242

Heidbreder LM, Bablok I, Drews S, Menzel C (2019) Tackling the plastic problem: a review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci Total Environ 668:1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.02.437

Quartey ET, Tosefa H, Danquah KAB, Obrsalova I (2015) Theoretical framework for plastic waste management in Ghana through extended producer responsibility: case of sachet water waste. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2015 12:9907–9919. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH120809907

Garcia-Vazquez E, Garcia-Ael C, Topa G (2021) On the way to reduce marine microplastics pollution. Research landscape of psychosocial drivers. Sci Total Environ 799:149384. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.149384

Rhein S, Schmid M (2020) Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: more than just environmental concerns. Resour Conserv Recycl 162:105063. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2020.105063

Parashar N, Hait S (2021) Plastics in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: protector or polluter? Sci Total Environ 759:144274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144274

Latinopoulos D, Mentis C, Bithas K (2018) The impact of a public information campaign on preferences for marine environmental protection. The case of plastic waste. Mar Pollut Bull 131:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2018.04.002

Widayat W, Praharjo A, Putri VP et al (2022) Responsible consumer behavior: driving factors of pro-environmental behavior toward post-consumption plastic packaging. Sustainability 14:425. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14010425

Khan F, Ahmed W, Najmi A, Younus M (2019) Managing plastic waste disposal by assessing consumers’ recycling behavior: the case of a densely populated developing country. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2019 2632 26:33054–33066. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-019-06411-4

Scherer C, Emberger-Klein A, Menrad K (2018) Segmentation of interested and less interested consumers in sports equipment made of bio-based plastic. Sustain Prod Consum 14:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2018.01.003

Scherer C, Emberger-Klein A, Menrad K (2017) Biogenic product alternatives for children: consumer preferences for a set of sand toys made of bio-based plastic. Sustain Prod Consum 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2016.11.001

Khan F, Ahmed W, Najmi A (2019) Understanding consumers’ behavior intentions towards dealing with the plastic waste: perspective of a developing country. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.11.020

Bartolotta JF, Hardy SD (2018) Barriers and benefits to desired behaviors for single use plastic items in northeast Ohio’s Lake Erie basin. Mar Pollut Bull 127:576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2017.12.037

Zen IS, Ahamad R, Omar W (2013) No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and the policy implication. Environ Dev Sustain 2013 155 15:1259–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10668-013-9437-1

Beitzen-Heineke EF, Balta-Ozkan N, Reefke H (2017) The prospects of zero-packaging grocery stores to improve the social and environmental impacts of the food supply chain. J Clean Prod 140:1528–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.09.227

Madigele PK, Mogomotsi GEJ, Kolobe M (2017) Consumer willingness to pay for plastic bags levy and willingness to accept eco-friendly alternatives in Botswana. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 15:255–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2017.1369243

Wensing J, Caputo V, Carraresi L, Bröring S (2020) The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging. Ecol Econ 178:106783. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2020.106783

Orset C, Barret N, Lemaire A (2017) How consumers of plastic water bottles are responding to environmental policies? Waste Manag 61:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2016.12.034

Mogomotsi PK, Mogomotsi GE, Phonchi ND (2018) Plastic bag usage in a taxed environment: investigation on the deterrent nature of plastic levy in Maun, Botswana. Waste Manag Res J a Sustain Circ Econ 37:20–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18801495

Anderson AG, Grose J, Pahl S et al (2016) Microplastics in personal care products: exploring perceptions of environmentalists, beauticians and students. Mar Pollut Bull 113:454–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2016.10.048

Santos SC, Sousa CVE, Sampaio D, de Fagundes O (2013) A influência da utilização das sacolas compostáveis no comportamento do consumidor de Belo Horizonte. Ambient Soc 16:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2013000400002

Santos C, Mateus A, Mendes A, Malça C (2017) Processing and characterization of thin wall and biodegradable injected pots. Procedia Manuf 12:96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2017.08.013

Devadiga DG, Bhat KS, Mahesha G (2020) Sugarcane bagasse fiber reinforced composites: recent advances and applications. Cogent Eng doi. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2020.1823159

Ramos PE, Cerqueira MA, Teixeira JA, Vicente AA (2017) Physiological protection of probiotic microcapsules by coatings. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 58:1864–1877. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1289148

Beukers A, Bergsma O (2004) Lightness: ‘light, lighter, bamboo?’ JSME Int J Ser A Solid Mech Mater Eng 47:533–540. https://doi.org/10.1299/JSMEA.47.533

Yin G-Z, Yang X-M (2020) Biodegradable polymers: a cure for the planet, but a long way to go. J Polym Res 27:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10965-020-2004-1

Lim LT, Auras R, Rubino M (2008) Processing technologies for poly(lactic acid). Prog Polym Sci 33:820–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROGPOLYMSCI.2008.05.004

Sonar CR, Al-Ghamdi S, Marti F et al (2020) Performance evaluation of biobased/biodegradable films for in-package thermal pasteurization. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 66:102485. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IFSET.2020.102485

Vilarinho F, Silva AS, Vaz MF, Farinha JP (2017) Nanocellulose in green food packaging. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 58:1526–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1270254

Arning K, van Heek J, Ziefle M (2018) Acceptance profiles for a carbon-derived foam mattress. Exploring and segmenting consumer perceptions of a carbon capture and utilization product. J Clean Prod 188:171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.03.256

Abuabara L, Paucar-Caceres A, Burrowes-Cromwell T (2019) Consumers’ values and behaviour in the Brazilian coffee-in-capsules market: promoting circular economy. 57:7269–7288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1629664

Akimzhanova Z, Guney M, Kismelyeva S et al (2020) Contamination by eleven harmful elements in children’s jewelry and toys from central asian market. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2020 2717 27:21071–21083. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-020-08631-5

Chae JS, Kim SW, Lee JH et al (2020) Combustion characteristics of solid refuse fuel derived from mixture of food and plastic wastes. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2020 224 22:1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10163-020-00996-6

Kubwabo C, Kosarac I, Stewart B et al (2009) Migration of bisphenol A from plastic baby bottles, baby bottle liners and reusable polycarbonate drinking bottles. Food Addit Contam - Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 26:928–937. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030802706725

Friques A (2019) Epidemia do plástico - Bisfenol A (BPA): Você precisa saber! Grafitusa, Vitória

Goodson A, Robin H, Summerfield W, Cooper I (2004) Migration of bisphenol A from can coatings - Effects of damage, storage conditions and heating. Food Addit Contam 21:1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030400011387

Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R et al (2018) An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J Hazard Mater 344:179–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014

Raha UK, Kumar BR, Sarkar SK (2021) Policy framework for mitigating land-based marine plastic pollution in the Gangetic Delta region of Bay of Bengal- A review. J Clean Prod 278:123409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123409

Ma X, Park C, Moultrie J (2020) Factors for eliminating plastic in packaging: the european FMCG experts’ view. J Clean Prod 256:120492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120492

Curtzwiler GW, Williams EB, Hurban E et al (2018) Certification markers for empirical quantification of post-consumer recycled content in extruded polyethylene film. Polym Test 65:103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POLYMERTESTING.2017.11.015

Ferrari F, Corcione CE, Montagna F, Maffezzoli A (2020) 3D printing of polymer waste for improving people’s awareness about marine litter. Polym 12:1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/POLYM12081738

Goodlaxson B, Curtzwiler G, Vorst K (2017) Evaluation of methods for determining heavy metal content in polyethylene terephthalate food packaging. J Plast Film Sheeting 34:119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756087917707336

Singh P, Saengerlaub S, Wani AA, Langowski HC (2012) Role of plastics additives for food packaging. Pigment Resin Technol 41:368–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/03699421211274306

Saba N, Paridah MT, Jawaid M (2015) Mechanical properties of kenaf fibre reinforced polymer composite: a review. Constr Build Mater 76:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2014.11.043

Stoll L, Rech R, Flôres SH et al (2018) Carotenoids extracts as natural colorants in poly(lactic acid) films. J Appl Polym Sci 135:46585. https://doi.org/10.1002/APP.46585

Teli MD, Sheikh J (2013) Bamboo rayon–copper nanoparticle composites as durable antibacterial textile materials. Compos Interfaces 21:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15685543.2013.855528

Limper A, Fischer K (2018) Processing of natural fibres in an internal mixer opens up new perspectives for thermoplastic lightweight materials in the automotive industry. Int Polym Sci Technol 42:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0307174X1504200201

Attanasio A, Largo A, Alvarez L et al (2015) Sustainable aggregates from secondary materials for innovative lightweight concrete products. Heron 60:5–26

Mukama M, Ambaw A, Opara UL (2020) Advances in design and performance evaluation of fresh fruit ventilated distribution packaging: a review. Food Packag Shelf Life 24:100472. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FPSL.2020.100472

Morais DS, Guedes RM, Lopes MA (2016) Antimicrobial approaches for textiles: from research to market. Mater (Basel) 9:498. https://doi.org/10.3390/MA9060498

Simmons J (2003) The why, what and wherefore of antimicrobial systems. Polym Polym Compos 11:101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/096739110301100205

Vangronsveld E (2013) Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI): EU classification; impact of REACH; worker and consumer exposure – perception versus facts. Int Wood Prod J 3:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042645312Y.0000000013

Rajan KP, Gopanna A, Thomas SP (2019) A project based learning (PBL) approach involving PET recycling in chemical engineering education. Recycling 4:10. https://doi.org/10.3390/RECYCLING4010010

Strangl M, Ortner E, Buettner A (2019) Evaluation of the efficiency of odor removal from recycled HDPE using a modified recycling process. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.03.009

Xu EG, Ren ZJ (2021) Preventing masks from becoming the next plastic problem. Front Environ Sci Eng 2021 156 15:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11783-021-1413-7

Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol 49:141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/IJOP.12034

Steinhorst J, Beyerl K (2021) First reduce and reuse, then recycle! Enabling consumers to tackle the plastic crisis – qualitative expert interviews in Germany. J Clean Prod 313:127782. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127782

Filho WL, Voronova V, Kloga M et al (2021) COVID-19 and waste production in households: a trend analysis. Sci Total Environ 777:145997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145997

Feber D, Granskog A, Lingqvist O (2020) Daniel Nordigården How US consumers view sustainability in packaging. In: McKinsey Co. https://www.mckinsey.com.br/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/sustainability-in-packaging-inside-the-minds-of-us-consumers . Accessed 12 Apr 2022

Nguyen TPL (2022) Intention and behavior toward bringing your own shopping bags in Vietnam: integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J Soc Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-06-2021-0131/FULL/XML

Wang Q, Zhang M, Li R (2022) The COVID-19 pandemic reshapes the plastic pollution research – a comparative analysis of plastic pollution research before and during the pandemic. Environ Res 208:112634. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2021.112634

Panagiotopoulou L, Cía Gayarre N, Scurati GW et al (2021) Design of a serious game for children to raise awareness on plastic pollution and promoting pro-environmental behaviors. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 21:064502. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050291/1100542

Law No. 12305, Brazil. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm . Accessed 22 Oct 2022

Jain P, Hudnurkar DM (2022) Sustainable packaging in the FMCG industry. Clean Responsible Consum 7:100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLRC.2022.100075

Molloy S, Medeiros AS, Walker TR, Saunders SJ (2022) Public perceptions of legislative action to reduce plastic pollution: a case study of Atlantic Canada. Sustainability 14:1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14031852

Jehangir A, Imtiaz M, Salman V (2022) Pakistan’s plastic bag ban: an analysis of citizens’ support and ban effectiveness in Islamabad Capital Territory. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 24:1612–1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10163-022-01429-2

Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Alejandra Ruano M (2020) Do you need a bag? Analyzing the consumption behavior of plastic bags of households in Ecuador. Resour Conserv Recycl 152:104489. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.104489

Senturk G, Dumludag D (2022) The relationship between consumption of single-use plastic bags, environmental awareness, and socio-demographic factors. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 24:1494–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10163-022-01407-8/TABLES/5

Lai NYG, Wong KH, Zhu F et al (2022) Awareness and perception of the environmental sustainability of beverage packaging materials. In: Sani ASA, Zahid MNO, Yasin MRM et al (eds) Enabling Ind. 4.0 through Adv. Manuf. Mater. Lect. Notes Mech. Eng. Springer, Singapore, pp 447–460

Kitz R, Walker T, Charlebois S, Music J (2021) Food packaging during the COVID-19 pandemic: consumer perceptions. Int J Consum Stud 46:434–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.12691

Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HAM (2004) Effecting durable change: a team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environ Behav 36:341–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260163

Xiao Y, Liu X, Ren T (2022) Internet use and pro-environmental behavior: evidence from China. PLoS ONE 17:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0262644

Dasmi C, Acuti D, Grazzini L, Aiello G (2022) How does the use of shockvertising trigger moral emotions? A focus on the plastic issue. In: Luceri B, Martinelli E (eds) Int Ser Adv Manag Stud. Springer, pp 169–184

Septianto F, Lee MSW (2020) Emotional responses to plastic waste: matching image and message framing in encouraging consumers to reduce plastic consumption. Australas Mark J 28:18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUSMJ.2019.09.002

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Technology Development Center, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Rua Gomes Carneiro, 1, 96010-610, Pelotas, RS, Brazil

Fabiula Danielli Bastos de Sousa

Center of Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social Science, Universidade Federal do ABC, Avenida dos Estados, 5001, 09210-580, SP, Santo André, Brazil

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F. D. B. de Sousa wrote and proofread the manuscript for language editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabiula Danielli Bastos de Sousa .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This article does not include human participants or biological material data.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable

Consent for Publication

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

de Sousa, F.D.B. Consumer Awareness of Plastic: an Overview of Different Research Areas. Circ.Econ.Sust. 3 , 2083–2107 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00263-4

Download citation

Received : 14 June 2022

Accepted : 13 March 2023

Published : 25 March 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00263-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Bibliometric analysis
Authors’ keywords
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Yonsei Med J
v.64(5); 2023 May
PMC10151227

Health Effects of Microplastic Exposures: Current Issues and Perspectives in South Korea

Yongjin lee.

1 Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

2 Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

3 Institute of Human Complexity and Systems Science, Yonsei University, Incheon, Korea.

Jungwoo Sohn

4 Department of Preventive Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea.

Changsoo Kim

Microplastics are environmental pollutants that prevail in the oceans, remote islands, and polar regions. Exposure to microplastics presents a major emerging threat to the ecosystems due to their potential adverse effects. Herein, we reviewed the literature to provide an up-to-date synopsis of the current understanding of the sources, compositions, and adverse effects of microplastics in humans and the environment. Most studies on microplastics have focused on developing standardized methods for monitoring the occurrence, distribution, and movement of microplastics in the environment, as well as developing microplastic substitutes; however, although humans are exposed to microplastics via various routes, research on the adverse effects of microplastics in humans remains limited. Little is known about the impact of microplastics on human health and the toxic effects that may vary depending on the type, size, shape, and concentration of microplastics. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms of microplastic toxicity and related pathologies.

Graphical Abstract

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ymj-64-301-abf001.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Microplastics are found in the oceans, remote islands, and polar regions and are emerging as a major threat to ecosystems due to their direct and indirect potentials as environmental pollutants. No international consensus has been reached regarding the definition of microplastics, such as the size cutoff and materials involved. Microplastics are usually produced intentionally or generated when large synthetic polymer products, such as plastic packaging, are not properly disposed of or treated. Once formed, microplastics are often exposed to the environment, where they can decompose. In general, microplastics are synthetic polymer compounds that form when large plastic materials are fragmented and micronized to a size ≤5 mm.

Currently, accurate statistics are unavailable regarding the sources of microplastics and the total amount of microplastics deposited in the land and sea. Various human activities and products, such as washing, worn tires, city dust, road paint, ships, and cleaning products, have been reported as sources of microplastics; 1 however, the main sources of microplastics have not been clearly identified. Although various cases of microplastic pollution have been reported globally, such as in marine ecosystems, freshwater, air, and human bodies, additional research is needed to accurately understand the origins and spread of microplastics and their impact in each situation.

Microplastics are easily ingested due to their micro-level sizes. They also move easily through the food chain and persist in the environment since they are refractory to biodegradation. In addition, as microplastics exist in micro-level to nano-level sizes, they are virtually impossible to remove once released into the environment. Due to these characteristics, microplastics pose potential hazards to humans and the environment. As a representative example of the risk posed by microplastics, they can cause physical and mechanical harm (e.g., cause abnormalities in internal organs) to marine organisms when they mistakenly ingest microplastics. Ecotoxicity may be caused by the polymer itself, unreacted monomers, impurities (e.g., residual catalysts or reaction by-products), additives (e.g., stabilizers), or other substances in the polymer matrix (e.g., dyes, lubricants, or plasticizers). In addition, microplastics can enter the human body when they are not filtered out during sewage-treatment processes, or they can flow into the sea, thereby posing risks for the ecosystem and humans. Various examples of damage caused by microplastics have been reported, such as microplastic accumulation in the bodies of marine and aquatic organisms (leading to malnutrition), inflammation, reduced fertility, and mortality. The threats that microplastics present to the human body have not yet been clearly identified. However, previous reports have shown that ultrafine microplastic absorption resulted in complex toxicity in zebrafish, 2 and that microplastics under 100 nm in size can reach almost all organs after entering the human body. 3 Therefore, concerns exist regarding the negative effects of continuous microplastic accumulation in the human body.

To counteract the harmful effects of microplastics, the South Korean government has begun establishing and promoting plastic waste-management measures that promote the effective management of microplastics. The Korean Ministry of Environment prepared a comprehensive plan for recycling microplastic waste in 2018 and a plan for managing microplastics in 2019, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries prepared a comprehensive plan for reducing marine plastics in 2019. Globally, general solutions to the problem of microplastics include direct regulations (such as banning the use of microplastics in some emission sources) and indirect regulations (such as restricting the use of single-use or disposable plastics and encouraging the collection and recycling of plastics). The United States and France introduced regulations banning the intentional use of primary microplastics in cleaning products, and the European Union (EU) expanded the list of products and items that are regulated (e.g., agriculture/horticulture products, cosmetic products, air fresheners, paints and coatings, oil and gas products, construction equipment, medications, medical devices and supplies, food, synthetic detergents, and adhesives) (ref). In particular, the EU adopted the “European Plastics Strategy” in January 2018 (ref), which included promoting increased recycling of plastic products and a reduction of plastic waste, and the United Kingdom and France have made efforts to strengthen regulations on the use of single-use and disposable plastics (ref).

Recently, various studies on microplastics have focused on developing standardized methods for monitoring the occurrence, distribution, and movement of microplastics in the environment, as well as developing microplastic substitutes; however, research on the adverse effects of microplastics in humans remains limited. International organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization and the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, which provide advice to the United Nations Environment Programme, have promoted the development of standardized investigation and analysis guidelines for microplastics. Furthermore, the Netherlands and Germany have promoted mid- to long-term research to obtain an integrated understanding of terrestrial microplastics (e.g., to determine where microplastics occur, their routes of dissemination, their loads in different settings, and treatment strategies).

The proposed Korean and international regulations of microplastics are based on current scientific knowledge and available information on the intentional uses and risks of microplastics. To obtain further information and take additional measures regarding the use of microplastics in the future, it is necessary to continue research on market adaptation to regulation, ascertain the performance of biodegradable polymers in related applications, and obtain new information on the harmfulness of microplastics to the human body and the environment.

STUDY OF MICROPLASTICS

Definition of microplastics and international regulations.

Microplastics are synthetic, high-molecular weight compounds that have been micronized into plastic particles smaller than 5 mm in size. Such materials have a low biodegradation rate and, thus, mostly remain in the environment and adversely affect the human body, the final consumer in the food chain.

Microplastics can be classified according to their source and fragment size. In general terms, microplastics can be categorized as primary and secondary microplastics. Primary microplastics are intentionally created plastic particles, such as consumer-care products (e.g., detergents and cosmetics) or industrial products. Microplastics are also referred to as “microbeads.” Currently, microbeads are prohibited for use both domestically in South Korea and internationally ( Table 1 ). Secondary microplastics are products containing plastics, such as plastic waste and fibers, or plastic products that have decomposed after being exposed to the environment.

Country	Effective date (year)	Regulations
United States of America	2014	First ban on the use of microbeads in personal care products (Illinois)
United States of America	2015	Ban on the use of microbeads in cosmetic products (California, New Jersey, New York, etc.)
Canada	2016	Announcement of a ban on the use of microbeads for exfoliation and cleansing products
New Zealand	2018	Prohibition of the manufacture and sales of personal care products containing microbeads
Northern Ireland	2019
Italy	2020
UK	2021
Sweden	2019	Announcement of amendments to acts regarding the use of microbeads in cosmetic products
Taiwan	2020	Announcement of amendments to acts regarding the use of microbeads in cosmetic products
Korea	2017	Designation of microbeads as raw materials that cannot be used in cosmetic products
	2019	Preparation of a test method for detecting microbeads in cosmetic products by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in Korea
	2021	Specific regulations for microplastic contents in some household chemical products : cleaning solutions, deodorant agents, laundry detergent, bleach, and fabric softener

Lee, et al. 4 investigated correlations between the distribution of large plastics (which are easily seen with the naked eye) and microplastics in plastic debris on the beach near the Nakdonggang River estuary, based on their sizes, i.e., micro (1–5 mm), medium (5–25 mm), and large (>25 mm). In addition, the chemical constituents of environmental microplastics are diverse and include polymers, such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), PE terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, and polyvinyl alcohol. Microplastics can exist as fragments, films, fibers, and foam.

Microplastics in South Korea

Research conducted by the Seoul Institute of Health and Environment showed that the concentrations of microplastics suspended in indoor and outdoor air ranged from 0.45 to 6.64 [mean±standard deviation (SD): 2.51±1.77] pieces/m 3 . Specifically, the concentration of microplastics suspended in indoor air ranged from 0.49 to 6.64 (mean±SD: 3.02±1.77) pieces/m 3 , whereas that in outdoor air ranged from 0.45 to 5.16 (mean±SD: 1.96±1.65) pieces/m 3 , indicating that 1.5 times more microplastics were floating in indoor air than in outdoor air. The size distributions of microplastics varied from 20.1 to 6801.2 µm indoors and from 20.3 to 4497.4 µm outdoors, and microplastics with a size of 20 to 100 µm accounted for 48% to 96% of the total microplastic particles. The most abundant type of microplastics detected was PE, followed by PP, polyamide (nylon), polyester, acrylic, and others. PE and PP components accounted for approximately 67% of all microplastics. The percentages of microplastics detected indoors were particularly high for synthetic fibers, such as polyester. 5

According to research reported by the Ministry of Environment in Korea in 2017, a mean concentration of 0.05 pieces/L of microplastics was detected in 24 water-treatment plants that mainly received surface water from the four major river-water systems in South Korea (i.e., Hangang River, Nakdonggang River, Geumgang River, and Yeongsangang River). Kwon, et al. 6 investigated microplastics during the dry season (May) and rainy season (July) along the eastern coast of Geoje Island, adjacent to the Nakdonggang River estuary. Their study showed that in the May, manta trawl nets (pore size: 330 µm) and hand nets (pore size: 50 µm) caught 0.57 pieces/m 3 and 260–11410 pieces/m 3 of microplastics, respectively. In July, manta trawl nets and hand nets caught 0.64–860 pieces/m 3 and 210–15560 pieces/m 3 of microplastics, respectively. In addition, the most abundant type of microplastic particles detected was paint particles (48.9%), followed by Styrofoam (19.6%) and fibers (17.5%).

Since bivalves (which are one of the most widely consumed seafoods obtained from marine environments) are generally eaten whole without removing the intestines, they can be regarded as a main food source for human exposure to microplastics. According to a 2020 press release by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in Korea, 7 the mean concentration of microplastics detected in highly consumed marine products (including seafoods) in South Korea was 0.47 pieces/g. Microplastic concentrations according to the types of analyzed marine products were 0.07–0.86 pieces/g for shellfish, 0.03–0.04 pieces/g for cephalopods, 0.05–0.30 pieces/g for crustaceans, 1.03 pieces/g for dried anchovies, and 2.22 pieces/g for sea salt. Microplastics were mainly detected in marine products as fragments of 20 to 200 µm, and their major chemical components were PP, PE, and PS. Cho, et al. 8 found 0.15 (range: 0.07–0.34) pieces/g of microplastics in commercial bivalve shellfish (e.g., oysters, mussels, clams, and scallops) in fish markets of major cities in South Korea (Seoul, Gwangju, and Busan), and that the annual concentration of microplastics ingested through crustacean consumption by Koreans was 521 (range: 243–1182) pieces/person. The microplastics detected were mainly composed of PP, PE, Styrofoam, and PE vinyl acetate as fragments ranging from 100 to 200 µm in size.

Choi, et al. 9 analyzed the concentration of microplastics in soil samples from 100 sites in South Korea, including forests, suburbs, and agricultural lands in Yeoju-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. Their analysis showed that the mean microplastic concentration in soil was 700 pieces/kg, and more microplastics were detected in upland soil than in urban soil. In addition, the microplastic concentrations differed depending on the agricultural soil type with orchard soil samples showing the highest microplastic concentrations, followed by upland, greenhouse, and rice paddy soil samples. These findings indicate that microplastic concentrations differ according to the type of land use ( Table 2 ).

Medium	Types of microplastics	Sampling	Concentration(s)		Reference
Air	PE, PP, polyamide (nylon), polyester, acrylic, etc.	Capture of indoor and outdoor air	0.45 to 6.64 pieces/m (mean±SD: 2.51±1.77)		5
Water	-	Water-treatment plants for surface water from the four major rivers in South Korea	Mean: 0.05 pieces/L		35
	Paint, Styrofoam, and fiber particles	Eastern coast of Geoje Island, adjacent to the Nakdonggang River estuary	Dry season (may)		6
				- Manta trawl nets (330 µm), 0.62–57 pieces/m
				- Hand nets (50 µm), 260–11410 pieces/m
			Rainy season (july)
				- Manta trawl nets (330 µm), 0.64–860 pieces/m
				- Hand nets (50 µm), 210–15560 pieces/m
Seawater	Fragments 20 to 200 μm in size, consisting of PP, PE, or PS	Marine products that are highly consumed in South Korea, including seafoods	Shellfish: 0.07–0.86 pieces/g		7
			Cephalopods: 0.03–0.04 pieces/g
			Crustaceans: 0.05–0.30 pieces/g
			Dried anchovies: 1.03 pieces/g
			Sea salt: 2.22 pieces/g
	Fragments 100 to 200 μm in size, consisting of PP, PE, Styrofoam, or PE vinyl acetate	Commercial shellfish in fish markets in Seoul, Gwangju, and Busan, South Korea	Oysters, mussels, clams, and scallops: 0.15 (0.07–0.34) pieces/g		8
			Concentration of microplastic intake through crustacean consumption by Koreans: 521 (243–1182) pieces/(person · year)		8
Soil	-	Forests, suburbs, and agricultural lands in Yeoju-si, South Korea	Mean: 700 pieces/kg (more microplastics detected in upland soil than in urban soil)		9

PE, polyethylene; PP, polypropylene; PS, polystyrene; SD, standard deviation.

TYPES AND ROUTES OF MICROPLASTIC EXPOSURE AND THE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH

Types and routes of human exposure.

Humans are mainly exposed to microplastics by using various plastic products (i.e., plastic packaging containers, decomposing plastic materials, fishing nets, textiles, and personal hygiene products) and being exposed to paint fragments (e.g., abrasion of paint) that have flowed into the environment (i.e., air, water, seawater, or soil). As such, humans can be exposed to microplastics through direct ingestion, direct contact, and inhalation. 10

Most investigations of microplastics have been based on observations of synthetic microbeads (i.e., primary microplastics) intentionally manufactured for industrial or household use. However, unintentional causes of microplastic pollution should also be paid attention to, such as secondary microplastics that comprise a relatively large proportion of plastic particles in the environment. It is also well known that the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials play important roles in their toxic properties and lethality. Primary microplastics currently used in toxicology studies are mostly uniform in size and shape, whereas secondary microplastics exist in a variety of sizes and shapes, making it difficult to assess their actual health risks. 11

Microplastics have irregular shapes, such as cubic, spherical, and rod shapes depending on their morphological characteristics, which should be considered when assessing risks to humans and the environment. Sharp microplastic particles can cause toxicity by physically stimulating the human body. In addition, various chemicals are used when synthesizing plastic polymers, depending on the end use, most of which are endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors, also referred to as hormonally active agents, can harm the human body by causing various cancers and reproductive-system disorders. Microplastics can also affect the human body by stimulating the release of endocrine disruptors. In addition, microplastics can carry other toxic chemicals such as heavy metals and organic pollutants during adsorption, which can adversely affect the human body (i.e., the final consumer).

The toxicity of microplastics inhaled by humans was addressed in a study performed by Prata. 12 The results of that study suggested that microplastics were present in the atmosphere, and that humans could be exposed to microplastics through inhalation. Thus, chronic exposure to low concentrations of microplastics in the air could be associated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases depending on an individual’s susceptibility and the particle characteristics.

Choi, et al. 13 assessed the harmfulness of microplastic accumulation in marine zooplankton and found that such accumulation can affect the overall marine ecosystem as well as the human body. They exposed marine zooplankton to microplastics (size: 50 nm or 10 µm) for 24 h and 48 h, respectively, using PS microplastics found in disposable cups and snack packaging, and then they analyzed expression differences in antioxidant genes and enzymes involved in generating active oxygen and oxidative stress. Although the gene-expression differences were not significant over time, it was found that smaller microplastics were more toxic. In addition, both sizes of microplastics accumulated in the bodies of plankton and in the oocytes of some female plankton, implying the possibility of intergenerational transmission. Such a finding raises the possibility of that microplastics can eventually enter the human body through the food chain, as microplastics accumulate in plankton (lowest level of the food chain) and then migrate into higher predators.

To date, no method has been established to accurately assess the risks posed by microplastics; therefore, further research is needed, particularly since microplastics can act a medium for adsorbing persistent organic pollutants or transporting bacteria.

Effects of microplastics on human health

The results of cellular and animal experiments have shown that microplastics can affect various systems in the human body, including the digestive, respiratory, endocrine, reproductive, and immune systems. First, the digestive systems are affected when microplastics are ingested, and physical irritation to the gastrointestinal tract may eventually cause inflammation, resulting in various gastrointestinal symptoms. 14 Microplastics may cause changes in the intestinal microbiome, resulting in an imbalance between beneficial and harmful bacteria, which can lead to various gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, bloating, and changes in bowel habits. 15 In addition to their physical effects on the digestive system, microplastics can cause chemical toxicity, which involves the absorption and accumulation of environmental toxins such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These toxic substances can enter the body through the gastrointestinal tract when microplastics are ingested orally, leading to various gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. 16

Regarding the effects on the respiratory system, microplastics may cause oxidative stress in the airways and lungs when inhaled, leading to respiratory symptoms such as coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath due to inflammation and damage, as well as fatigue and dizziness due to a low blood oxygen concentration. 17 A recent study showed that nano-sized plastics were associated with mitochondrial damage in human respiratory cells. 18 Microplastics can act as carriers of other environmental toxins, such as PS, and exposure to high concentrations of PS are detrimental to human lung cells, increasing the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 19

In addition, microplastics interfere with the production, release, transport, metabolism, and elimination of hormones, which can cause endocrine disruption and lead to various endocrine disorders, including metabolic disorders, developmental disorders, and even reproductive disorders (i.e., infertility, miscarriage, and congenital malformations). 20 Microplastics can act as a medium for environmental toxic substances such as bisphenol A, which are absorbed into the body and cause various diseases of the endocrine system and reproductive system. 21 In a recent study, microplastics were also found in the placentas of six pregnant women by Raman microspectroscopy. 22 The potential negative effects of microplastics on the human immune system warrant further research. Accumulated exposure to microplastics induced chronic inflammation and homeostasis changes in animal experiments, 23 and a study on human lung cells showed that microplastics can activate innate immunity by regulating the expression of genes and proteins involved in the immune response. 24

In vitro experiments with human cells and in vivo data generated with mice showed that microplastics elicit adverse health effects mainly by causing inflammation, oxidative stress [increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production], lipid metabolism disturbances, gut microbiota dysbiosis, and neurotoxicity. Exposing human gastric adenocarcinoma cells to 44 nm PS nanoparticles strongly increased the expression of the IL-6 and IL-8 genes, which are major inflammatory substances in the body. 25 Exposing human glioblastoma multiforme cells (T98G cells) and human cervical carcinoma cells (HeLa cells) 26 to PE microplastics only increased ROS production in the T98G cell line, whereas exposure to PS microplastics increased ROS production in both cell lines. As such, microplastic exposure not only increases ROS production in cerebral and epithelial cells, but it also increases oxidative stress in colon and small intestine epithelial cells 27 and lung epithelial cells. 19 , 24 The results of animal experiments reported to date have shown that exposing mice to PS microplastics caused lipid-metabolism disturbance in the liver, increased oxidative stress and acetylcholine esterase activity, 28 and induces microbiota dysbiosis in the intestine. 29

Choi, et al. 30 fed PS microplastics to mice for 2 weeks and found that inflammatory-response proteins, such as inducible nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase-2, increased significantly in the liver, kidneys, and intestines of mice, and that ROS production and superoxide dismutase activity increased significantly. Lipid-metabolism disturbances and inflammatory reactions caused by microplastic exposure were more severe in diabetic mice than in healthy mice. 31 Microplastic neurotoxicity has also been reported in a small number of animal experiments. Shan and colleagues 32 exposed PS nanoparticles orally to mice for 7 days, and found that the nanoparticles accumulated in the central nervous system and caused microglia activation and neuron damage. Additional data have shown that exposure to PS microplastics caused cognitive dysfunction in mice, 33 along with changes in locomotor function and anticholinesterase activity. 34

As discussed above, the detrimental health effects of microplastics have been observed in many experimental studies, suggesting that the risks for various inflammatory-related diseases in the human body is increasing. However, few epidemiological or etiological studies have been performed to examine the occurrence of symptoms or diseases caused by microplastic exposure.

Microplastic-exposure routes

Recently, microplastics have been recognized as important pollutants that cause environmental problems. Microplastics have been detected in food consumed by humans or in the air. Therefore, they may affect human health through food consumption or inhalation.

Ingested or inhaled microplastics may accumulate in the body and trigger an immune response or cause local particle toxicity. In addition, chronic exposure may cause more problems through accumulation in the body. However, to date, no definitive evidence has been reported regarding exposure levels, due to a limited number of studies on the exposure doses.

Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the threshold exposure levels and loads of microplastics that affect human health in the future.

Target-food and microplastic-size considerations based on Korean dietary characteristics reviewed 134 food items after considering common Korean dietary patterns and heavy metals that might be found in such foods. After considering Korean eating habits, we classified the foods studied into different group (muscles, intestines, and other organs) and analyzed each food group. The foods were further subclassified as domestic Korean, ocean fishing, and imported marine products and investigated. Each product type (e.g., organic, salt dried, or dried) was analyzed separately. To estimate the internal dose of microplastics in foods sold in South Korea, obtaining information on the unit intake for each food group was essential, and it was necessary to analyze the contents of microplastics in each organ based on the dietary characteristics of Koreans ( Table 3 ).

Food group	Selection criteria	Target marine products
Fish (20 species)	Intestines consumed (muscles or intestines)	Yellow corvina, stingray, pike eel (liver), halibut, perch, cod, flounder, croaker, rockfish, conger eel, monkfish, and skate
	Whole fish consumed (whole fish, muscles, or intestines)	Snakehead, crucian carp, and carp
	Specific organs consumed (muscles, intestines, or specific organs)	Sandfish (roe), pollack (roe), frozen pollack (roe), and conger eel (liver)
Shellfish (8 species)	Conches (muscles or intestines, including reproductive organs)	Conch, triton snail, abalone, big snail, and rice paddy snail
Shellfish (8 species)	Larger shellfish among invasive shellfish (muscles or intestines, including reproductive organs)	Scallops, cockles, and razor shell
Crustaceans (6 species)	Marine decapods (muscles or intestines)	Blue crab, snow crab, red crab, stone crab, king crab, and lobster
Mollusks (4 species)	Cephalopods (muscles or visceral mass, including reproductive organs and ink)	Cuttlefish, squid, small octopus, and octopus
Echinoderms (1 species)	Specific organs consumed (edible parts or intestines)	Sea cucumber
Deep-sea fish (2 species)	Large marine animals or fish (muscles, intestines, tails, fins, or eggs)	Whale, shark (eggs)

The synthetic fiber industry is a representative example of potential workplace exposure to microplastics through inhalation. The results of many studies have demonstrated that microplastic inhalation can lead to respiratory and lung diseases among workers in factories using synthetic fibers.

In addition, sea salt aerosols can be transmitted by sea waves and wind to urban environments close to the coast.

A previous report showed that microplastics exist in fertilizer components that are used in agricultural fields, and that they remain in the land for approximately 15 years and are eventually released to the atmosphere.

The results of most previous studies showed that ingestion was the main route of microplastic exposure in humans, although recently developed detection and quantification methods has provided mounting evidence that humans are exposed to microplastics through the air. However, a consensus on sampling and analysis methods for microplastics in the air is currently lacking, and this issue should be resolved soon. The main sources of microplastics in indoor and outdoor air are synthetic fibers, plastic fibers, building materials, waste-incineration byproducts, and landfills. Recent human-biomonitoring data have revealed the presence of plastic fibers in lung tissue, suggesting that airborne microplastics can be deposited or accumulate in the lungs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Previous estimates indicated that humans are exposed to between tens of thousands and millions of microplastics each year, or several milligrams per day. The main exposure route could be the inhalation of indoor air and drinking water in plastic bottles. Exposure to microplastics through food intake is likely the main exposure source, although it remains difficult to provide a detailed estimate due to the lack of research on the contents and internal doses of microplastics in different foods. 17

A recent report showed that microplastics exposure in newborns and infants could increase due to the use of feeding bottles and medical devies, and biomonitoring data provide indirect evidence of microplastics exposure in infants and children. The results of animal studies have shown that maternal exposure to microplastics affects offspring and subsequent generations and that the toxicity levels and effects in humans can vary depending on the size, shape, chemical composition, surface charge, and hydrophobicity of microplastic particles.

Microplastics exist everywhere, and humans are exposed to microplastics through various routes. To assess the toxicity and adverse effects in humans caused by such exposure, various exposure and toxicity evaluations are needed. Moreover, in the past 50 years, the global production of plastics has increased, as has the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the general population, and research is ongoing to test the hypothesis that microplastics are responsible.

Humans are exposed to microplastics through various routes, and the associated health effects are complex and variable. Little is known regarding the impact of microplastics on human health and the toxic effects that may vary depending on the type, size, shape, and concentration of microplastics, as well as other factors. Therefore, further research is needed to understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms of microplastic toxicity and related pathologies. In addition, the composition of microplastics and relevant additives variably introduce additional toxicity and health effects, so it is necessary to conduct additional research on these topics.

Considering the ubiquitous nature and long persistence of microplastics, it is necessary to make efforts to mitigate their exposure given their effects on entire generations and multiple generations.

Plastic, which has become inseparable from human life, has given various benefits to mankind, but is naturally or artificially divided into various sizes and affecting the natural ecosystem. When the size of the plastic becomes smaller and microplastics are formed, they can be absorbed, ingested, or inhaled into the human body through the skin, gastrointestinal system, or lungs. These microplastics can physically block the digestive system, stimulate the mucous membrane, and injure it. Also, when the size of microplastics becomes smaller than 1 micrometer to form nanoplastics, which are ultrafine plastics, they can pass through the primary tissue barrier in the body and penetrate the capillary blood vessel through the blood stream, which can be dispersed throughout the body. In addition, ultrafine plastics have hydrophobic properties that do not dissolve in water and can be dispersed, resulting in various properties.

Microplastics are so small that they are almost impossible to recover once they are released into the ecosystem. As a result, countries around the world are strengthening related laws on primary microplastics. For example, the EU is taking various measures to recycle plastics, develop biodegradable plastics, distinguish harmful substances in plastics, and prevent marine waste generation.

Research and development is needed to thoroughly identify and analyze the potential impact of microplastics on the environment, the distribution of waste plastics in the ocean, and chemical composition. In the future, in-depth research on the pollution status and hazards of marine microplastics, as well as the correlation between exposure to microplastics and diseases in humans, should be conducted; and based on these findings, human health should be protected by preventing and managing microplastics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT and Ministry of Education) and (No.2019M3E7A111308322) and Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through Core Technology Development Project for Environmental Diseases Prevention and Management, funded by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (grant No. 2022003310011).

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS:

Conceptualization: Changsoo Kim.
Funding acquisition: Changsoo Kim and Jaelim Cho.
Investigation: Yongjin Lee, Jaelim Cho, and Jungwoo Sohn.
Methodology: Yongjin Lee and Changsoo Kim.
Supervision: Changsoo Kim.
Writing—original draft: Yongjin Lee, Jaelim Cho, and Jungwoo Sohn.
Writing—review & editing: Yongjin Lee and Changsoo Kim.
Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Creating a throw-away culture: How companies ingrained plastics in modern life

Michael Copley

Your future's in the trash can: How the plastic industry promoted waste to make money

A trash can overflows as people sit outside of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. Jacquelyn Martin/AP hide caption

Just for a minute, think about how much of the plastic you use today will end up as trash. Drink bottles? Grocery bags? Food wrappers? If you live in the United States, it’ll probably add up to about a pound of stuff — just today.

Most plastic is dumped in landfills or becomes pollution in places like rivers and oceans, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Along the way, it sheds microplastics that can make their way into animals and people . Just 4% of plastic in the U.S. is recycled.

It wasn’t always this way. But over the past 70 years, plastic has become embedded in nearly every aspect of human life. The world produces around 230 times more plastic now than it did in 1950, according to Our World in Data.

As production soared, so did pollution. Many scientists and activists say chemical and fossil fuel companies make too much plastic now for society to manage sustainably. The United Nations says the problem is also being fueled by a “worrying shift” toward single-use products and packaging , which are designed to be used once and thrown away.

Plastic became ingrained in modern life in large part because the plastics industry started working in the 1950s to convince people to embrace the material as cheap, abundant and disposable.

The marketing campaign worked so well that litter soon became a problem across the U.S., and there was a public backlash. The industry responded by pitching recycling. But almost from the outset, corporations knew that recycling probably wouldn’t work to rein in waste, multiple investigations have shown.

Now, faced with spiraling plastic pollution, the U.N has set out to write a legally-binding agreement to deal with the problem. But the negotiations are fraught.

And even if nations can broker a deal, it’ll be a daunting task to actually reduce the world’s consumption of plastic, which is in almost everything, from clothing and diapers to medical devices.

“We’ll continue to need plastic for specific uses,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said at the latest round of U.N. negotiations in Canada in April. “But there’s a growing agreement,” she said, that a lot of single-use plastic “can probably go.”

Vintage Bakelite and other plastic objects at a museum in England. Matt Cardy/Getty Images/Getty Images Europe hide caption

The plastics industry pitched disposability to make more money

As part of the treaty talks, some countries want to cap production of new plastic, which is made from oil and gas. However, those efforts are opposed by big fossil fuel producers that are determined to keep plastic demand growing. State and local governments in the U.S. have tried to limit pollution by passing laws that ban plastic shopping bags or single-use plastic bottles .

The industry has responded by fighting regulations that could hurt demand for its products. It says the solution to environmental problems is better recycling, not using less plastic.

Matt Seaholm, chief executive of the Plastics Industry Association, says his group is advocating on behalf of plastic producers and consumers alike, since “it is an essential part of society at this point.”

Synthetic plastic was patented in the early 1900s. It was known as Bakelite, and it sparked a boom in durable and affordable consumer goods. Soon, companies started selling different kinds of plastic. At first, most of it was marketed as sturdy and reusable. One television ad from 1955 — about a made-up homemaker named Jane in a made-up place called Plasticstown, USA — touts how plastic containers are ideal for families because they won’t break if kids accidentally drop them.

But soon, the messaging started to change. In 1956, the industry learned about a new way to boost sales — and profits. At the plastics industry’s annual conference in New York, Lloyd Stouffer, the editor of an influential trade magazine, urged executives to stop emphasizing plastics’ durability. Stouffer told the companies to focus instead on making a lot of inexpensive, expendable material. Their future, he said, was in the trash can.

Companies got the message. They realized they could sell more plastic if people threw more of it away. “Those corporations were doing what they’re supposed to do, which is make a lot of money,” says Heather Davis, an assistant professor at The New School in New York who’s written about the plastics industry.

Garbage is dumped at the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, New York, in 1989. David Cantor/AP/AP hide caption

Throw-away living was a foreign concept in 1950s America

But getting people to throw away items after a single use took a lot of work.

Adults in the 1950s had lived through The Great Depression and World War II, and they were trained to save as much as possible, Davis says.

“It was a really difficult sell to the American public in the post-war period, to inculcate people into a throwaway living,” she says. “That is not what people were used to.”

A solution companies came up with was emphasizing that plastic was a low-cost, abundant material.

A 1960 marketing study for Scott Cup said the containers were “almost indestructible,” but that the manufacturer could still convince people to discard them after a few uses. To counter any “pangs of conscience” consumers might feel about throwing them away, the researchers suggested a “direct attack”: Tell people the cups are cheap, they said, and that “there are more where these came from.”

A few years later, Scott ran an advertisement saying its plastic cups were available at “‘toss-away prices.”

In a 1963 report for another plastics conference in Chicago, Stouffer congratulated the industry for filling dumps and garbage cans with plastic bottles and bags.

“The happy day has arrived,” Stouffer wrote, “when nobody any longer considers the [plastic] package too good to throw away.”

Workers remove garbage floating on the Negro River in Manaus, Brazil. Edmar Barros/AP/AP hide caption

A booming market hit a consumer backlash

By the early 1970s, plastics were booming. The market was expanding faster than the “rosiest of predictions,” and its growth prospects were “out of sight,” an executive at the chemical company DuPont told the Chamber of Commerce in Parkersburg, West Virginia , in 1973. Soon, big soft drink companies introduced plastic soda bottles.

But the industry faced a growing public-relations problem that was especially threatening to beverage companies, whose names were stamped on the packaging: Plastic litter was becoming an eyesore across the country.

“Even if you’ve convinced people that maybe the disposability of plastics isn’t such a bad thing, people are still seeing this waste out in public,” says Bart Elmore, a professor of environmental history at Ohio State University.

So drink makers went on offense. Elmore says they fought bans on throw-away bottles and joined the plastics industry in pushing recycling as an environmental solution.

However, multiple investigations, including by NPR , have shown that plastics industry representatives long knew that recycling would probably never be effective on a large scale. Officials have said they encouraged recycling to avoid regulations and ensure that demand for plastic kept growing.

Trade groups for plastic companies say those investigations don’t accurately reflect today’s industry.

There isn’t evidence that drink makers were part of those internal discussions about recycling’s viability. But Elmore says they should have had enough information at the time to know recycling was a risky bet.

In 1976 — two years before big soft-drink makers introduced plastic soda bottles — a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that “substantial recycling of plastics is unlikely in the near future.” That echoes the agency’s 1975 draft report that found “recycling of plastic bottles is unlikely to be commercially feasible.”

“To make a gamble like that, where public agencies and public documents are saying this at the time, I think raises real questions about culpability, accountability in an era when I think a lot of people are asking for that,” Elmore says.

Less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled globally. As countries try to negotiate a global waste agreement, activists and scientists are focusing a lot of their attention on chemical and fossil fuel companies that make plastic. But Elmore says consumer goods companies like beverage makers also deserve scrutiny, because they use a ton of plastic packaging and rank as some of the biggest plastic polluters globally .

“If they take a stand, one way or the other, it has a huge global impact,” Elmore says.

A business group called the American Beverage Association said in a statement to NPR that one of its highest priorities is creating a so-called circular economy where plastic is recycled and reused to prevent waste.

An aerial view of Buffalo, New York, facing Lake Erie. Bruce Bennett/Getty Images/Getty Images North America hide caption

A lawsuit aims to hold a major plastic polluter accountable

The disposable culture that was fostered by the plastics industry is playing out in places like the Buffalo River, which empties into Lake Erie in western New York. Plastic debris litters the banks of the river, and it breaks down into fragments called microplastics that accumulate in the lake , contaminating drinking water for about 11 million people .

One morning this spring, volunteers met at the river to clean up some of the pollution. “We see plastic tops, bottles, we have single-use plastics from takeout food,” says Jill Jedlicka, who leads Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, a nonprofit that organized the event.

It’s constant work. The debris that volunteers collected will be replaced in weeks by more plastic trash. “It’s an onslaught,” Jedlicka says.

A lot of the plastic waste around the Buffalo River is packaging sold by the food and beverage giant PepsiCo, according to a lawsuit that New York State Attorney General Letitia James filed last year against the company. New York prosecutors say plastic pollution around the Buffalo River is a public nuisance, and that Pepsi contributes to the problem by selling tons of single-use packaging.

Activists say lawsuits like the one New York filed against Pepsi are a way to try to hold corporations accountable.

In a court filing, Pepsi said it isn’t responsible for the Buffalo River pollution, and that it shouldn’t have to warn people that plastic waste poses environmental and health risks.

“Consumers are more than capable of purchasing a beverage or snack product, consuming it, and placing the packaging in a recycling or waste bin,” the company said.

Researchers say companies often blame consumers when plastic waste gets into the environment.

Pepsi said in statements to NPR that “no single group or entity bears responsibility for plastic pollution,” and that it is trying to improve recycling and reduce how much new plastic it uses.

However, in its latest sustainability report, Pepsi said its use of new plastic increased slightly in 2022 , partly because recycled material was expensive and hard to find. Pepsi isn’t alone: Despite growing public pressure, companies increased their use of new plastic by 11% between 2018 and 2022 , according to data compiled by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

“There is so much that the plastics industry needs to do to improve the sustainability of plastics,” says Shelie Miller, a professor at the School for Environmental Sustainability at the University of Michigan. But she says consumer culture is also part of the problem.

“If our stance is, consumers should be able to consume whatever they want in whatever quantity they want and it’s someone else’s job to deal with it,” Miller says, “that’s not a path toward sustainability.”

Microplastics and nanoplastics have been found throughout the human body – how worried should we be?

Professor of Animal Development, Leiden University

Postdoctoral Researcher, Molecular Biology and Nanotoxicology, Leiden University

Disclosure statement

Michael Richardson receives funding from the Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO) a Dutch Government funding agency for science.

Meiru Wang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Leiden University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The world is becoming clogged with plastic. Particles of plastic so tiny they cannot be seen with the naked eye have been found almost everywhere, from the oceans’ depths to the mountain tops . They are in the soil, in plants, in animals and they are inside us. The question is: what harm, if any, are they causing?

When plastic trash is dumped in a landfill or the sea, it breaks down, very slowly. Sunlight and waves cause the surface of the plastic to become brittle, and particles are shed into the environment. Collectively known as “small plastic particles”, they range in size from five millimetres or smaller (microplastics) to less than one-thousandth of a millimetre (nanoplastics). The smallest can only be detected with special scientific instruments.

It remains unclear how microplastics and nanoplastics get inside living things, but several entry points have been suggested. For example, they might pass through the gut from food or drink contaminated with small plastic particles. Or they may be breathed in, or absorbed through the skin.

Our research suggests that, for some animals at least, nanoplastics are bad news. We injected plastic nanoparticles into chicken embryos. We found that the particles travelled quickly in the blood to all tissues, especially the heart, liver and kidneys. They were also excreted by the embryonic kidneys.

We noticed, too, that plastic nanoparticles tend to stick to a certain type of stem cell in the embryo. These cells are essential for the normal development of the nervous system and other structures. Any damage to stem cells could put the development of the embryo in jeopardy.

We suspect that the chicken embryo stem cells have substances on their surface, called “cell-adhesion molecules”, which stick to the polystyrene nanoparticles that we used. We are following up this finding, because when nanoplastics stick to cells and get inside them, they can cause cell death and even serious birth defects in chickens and mice.

Similar studies cannot, of course, be carried out on people, so it is not yet possible to say what the implications of our animal research are for humans. What we do know is that nanoplastics are found in the blood of human beings, in other bodily fluids and several major organs and key body tissues.

In recent years, microplastics and nanoplastics have been found in the brains , hearts and lungs of humans. They have been discovered in the arteries of people with arterial disease, suggesting they may be a potential risk factor for cardiovascular disease. And they have been detected in breast milk , the placenta and, most recently, penises .

Chinese researchers reported earlier this year that they had found microplastics in human and dog testes . More recently, another Chinese team found microplastics in all 40 samples of human semen they tested. This follows an Italian study that found microplastics in six out of ten samples of human semen.

Our fear is that microplastics and nanoplastics might act in a similar way to deadly asbestos fibres. Like asbestos, they are not broken down in the body and can be taken up into cells, killing them and then being released to damage yet more cells.

Reassuring, for now

But there is a need for caution here. There is no evidence that nanoplastics can cross the placenta and get into the human embryo.

Also, even if nanoplastics do cross the placenta, and in sufficient numbers to damage the embryo, we would expect to have seen a big increase in abnormal pregnancies in recent years. That is because the problem of plastic waste in the environment has been growing enormously over the years. But we are not aware of any evidence of a corresponding, large increase in birth defects or miscarriages.

That, for now, is reassuring.

It may be that microplastics and nanoplastics, if they do cause harm to our bodies, do so in a subtle way that we have not yet detected. Whatever the case, scientists are working hard to discover what the risks might be.

One promising avenue of research would involve the use of human placental tissue grown in the laboratory. Special artificial placenta tissues , called “trophoblast organoids”, have been developed for studying how harmful substances cross the placenta.

Researchers are also investigating potentially beneficial uses for nanoplastics. Although they are not yet licensed for clinical use, the idea is that they could be used to deliver drugs to specific body tissues that need them. Cancer cells could, in this way, be targeted for destruction without damaging other healthy tissue.

Whatever the outcome of nanoplastics research, we and many other scientists will continue trying to find out what nanoplastics are doing to ourselves and the environment.

Microplastics
Environmental pollution
Nanoplastic

Stephen Knight Lecturer in Medieval Literature

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Social Media Producer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

INTRODUCTORY OFFER: 50% OFF FOR 3 MONTHS Learn more →

Recycling Plastic Is a Dangerous Waste of Time

The recycling industry—and the world at large—has yet to fully reckon with a bombshell study that dropped last year.

By now, you probably know that plastic recycling is a scam. If not, this white paper lays out the case in devastating detail. To summarise, amid calls to reduce plastic garbage in the 1970s and ’80s, the petrochemical industry put forth recycling as a red herring to create the appearance of a solution while it continued to make as much plastic as it pleased. Multiple paper trails indicate that industry leaders knew from the start that recycling could never work at scale. And indeed, it hasn’t. Only about nine percent of plastic worldwide gets recycled, and the US manages only about six percent.

As bad as this is, the situation might actually be much worse. According to an emerging field of study, the facilities that recycle plastic have been spewing massive amounts of toxins called microplastics into local waterways, soil, and air for decades. In other words, the very industry created to solve the plastic-waste problem has only succeeded in making it worse, possibly exponentially so. While the study that kicked off this new field received some press coverage when it appeared last year, the far-ranging import of its findings has yet to be fully integrated into environmental science. If the research is even close to accurate, and to date it has not been substantively challenged, the implications for waste management policies across the globe will be game-changing.

For a start, no one has fully documented the massive amounts of microplastics (MPs) at issue here. As I’ll demonstrate below, not only do plastic recyclers appear to be a major source of MP contamination, they may very well be the number one source of primary microplastic pollution on the entire planet . So, from an environmental perspective, recycling plastic could be doing far more harm than good. Even some environmentalists are coming around to this view.

From a legal perspective, MP pollution poses an existential threat to the plastic recycling industry itself. Changing case-law precedents make it easier than ever for individual entities like recyclers to be held liable for environmental malfeasance. And this threat couldn’t come at a worse time for the sector. It’s already reeling from market forces wreaking havoc on its business model, in addition to a series of PR disasters (like the white paper above) turning public opinion against it.

Finally, if plastic recycling really is a net negative, what then? Humanity still faces a dire plastics waste problem. We’re making 400 million metric tons of this non-biodegradable material a year, nearly half of which is in the form of single-use items that go directly into the trash, and we’re on track to hit 1,100 million metric tons by 2050 . Policymakers need to do something, but what?

The reflexive answer from environmentalists is “Make less plastic!” That sounds reasonable, but on closer inspection, it lacks widespread feasibility. Vital industries like healthcare and agriculture would grind to a halt without the benefit of single-use plastics, not to mention the ubiquity of reusable plastics in just about every aspect of modern life. Realistically, with the dream of recycling our way out of this problem rapidly fading, the less-than-perfect yet practical solution of waste-to-energy—that is, burning plastic garbage as fuel—needs to be reevaluated.

Best Laid Plans

Facilities that recycle plastic—known in the business as reclaimers—sort items by type and colour and then feed them into shredding and grinding machines, reducing them to small shards. Before being melted down to create recycled plastic, the shards are vigorously washed to remove dirt, labels, adhesives, and other foreign bodies. Reclaimers then filter this wash water and discharge it, into either open water sources or municipal water-treatment systems.

The process involves heavy machinery like knife mills that subject plastic items to enormous mechanical force, generating a lot of dust. It’s logical to hypothesise that this dust contains high levels of microplastics, usually defined as particles between five millimetres and one micron in diameter. (Particles smaller than one micron are considered nanoplastics.)

Enter Erina Brown, a young grad student at the University of Birmingham who wanted to use her recently earned Master of Sciences degree in Sustainability and Environmental Studies to investigate real-world problems. After the study she conceived and helmed briefly made her micro-famous last year, Brown described her philosophy as a scientist to a podcaster: “I think one of my bugbears is when academia stays solely within academia and doesn’t really leak into industry or public knowledge or anything.” So, she decided to investigate “the potential for a plastic recycling facility to release microplastic pollution and possible filtration remediation effectiveness.”

In interviews, Brown has repeatedly noted that she and her team were fortunate to have been granted admittance to the study site at all, because recyclers have a reputation for secrecy and distrust of outsiders (more about that in a moment). In exchange for access, the research team granted the UK reclaimer where the study took place anonymity, which to date it has maintained. By chance, the UK reclaimer—a relatively new, state-of-the-art facility—was upgrading its water filtration system at the time. So Brown’s team took MP samples from wash water discharge points both before and after the new installation.

Even with the new filtration system, the study found that the plant’s discharge water contained upwards of 75 billion particles of MPs per cubic metre, far exceeding the team’s expectations. To put these results into perspective, pre-filter, about 13 percent of all the plastic garbage entering the facility was leaving it via MPs in the wash water; post-filter, that figure was about six percent. Extrapolated yearly, that comes to 2,933 metric tons of MPs discharged pre-filter and 1,366 metric tons discharged post-filter.

More troubling was the size of the microplastics. The team measured for particles as small as 1.6 microns. In some samples, they found 95 percent of particles were under ten microns (the size of a human blood cell) and 85 percent were under five microns. Ingesting particles smaller than ten microns is known to be hazardous to marine life, and scientists believe it may pose risks to humans as well. Further, Brown believes that numerous particles smaller than 1.6 microns—many of which are nanoplastics—probably eluded measurement altogether. “We logically know—obviously we didn’t prove it in this study—but we logically know that there would be a lot of particles under 1.6 microns as well that didn’t show,” she told an interviewer.

Finally, the team found high levels of microplastics in the air inside the plant, and 61 percent of these particles were smaller than ten microns. Particles of this size can enter human lungs and cause disease, a problem that came to light about 20 years ago among workers in nylon flocking plants and became known as “ flock worker’s lung .” Since neither the suspected nanoplastics nor the atmospheric MPs were included in the study’s total discharge volume, the authors believe the results probably represent an underestimate. “I was incredibly shocked,” Brown told the Guardian . “It’s scary because recycling has been designed in order to reduce the problem and protect the environment. This is a huge problem we’re creating.”

Given the plant’s state-of-the-art credentials, Brown doubts that other reclaimers around the world are doing a better job at preventing MPs pollution. Nor could she foresee any technological fix. To filter and capture such small particles, reclaimers would need to install full-fledged wastewater-treatment machinery—an economically unfeasible option that, in any case, would still fail to address the atmospheric microplastics.

Crunching Numbers

While decrying the absurdity of plastic recyclers producing the very pollution they were designed to forestall, none of the study’s press coverage went so far as to call for a moratorium on reclaimer activity. Most took a stance similar to that of the Washington Post , which under the subhead “Keep recycling” wrote: “Despite the study’s findings, experts emphasized that the answer isn’t to stop recycling.” The story then quotes Judith Enck, a former senior EPA official who now heads the advocacy group Beyond Plastics : “This is not a major reason why we have such a significant problem with microplastics in the environment. … But it’s potentially part of it and there’s an irony to it because it involves recycling.”

Wait, irony, sure, but not a major reason? According to what data? Enck does not say. To check her claim, I decided to explore the matter a little further. In a news story on the conservation website Mongabay , one of the study’s co-authors, Deonie Allen, makes an informed guess about the amount of MPs the world’s reclaimers might be disgorging: “This means that global plastic recycling could be producing about 2 million metric tons of microplastic waste each year.”

Okay, that seemed like a good place to start. According to this business directory , there are 3,065 reclaiming plants in operation around the globe. Two million divided by 3,065 comes to 653 metric tons from each plant per year, or about half what the anonymous UK plant was thought to be producing after the new water filter installation. Keep in mind that most plants probably don’t benefit from such recent technology. Also keep in mind that this figure excludes particles smaller than 1.6 microns.

On the other hand, we don’t know the size of the anonymous UK facility. It may be a particularly large one, with correspondingly higher MP output. Also, the samples from Brown’s study may have been outliers, or their methodology may have been skewed, or other mistakes may have been made. In truth, the estimate that 6–13 percent of the total amount of plastic entering the facility exits in the form of MPs in the wash water does seem a little high, even given the harsh mechanical friction the plastic garbage undergoes.

With all these variables in mind, 653 metric tons of MPs coming from each plant for a total of two million metric tons per year globally seems like a fair ballpark estimate. Let’s work with that. Now, how does two million metric tons compare with other sources of microplastics? Environmental science divides MP pollution into two broad categories: primary and secondary. Primary microplastic pollution occurs as a byproduct of the wide variety of polymers we use in everyday life: laundering and wearing synthetic fabrics; microbeads in cosmetic products; vehicle tyre abrasion; city dust from the soles of shoes; fishing gear used in the ocean; road markings; paint coatings; marine vessel coatings; athletic field turfs; pellet losses during transportation; and sludge from sewage treatment plants used as fertiliser.

Secondary microplastic pollution happens at a slower pace, from MPs leaching into soil and groundwater from plastic items in landfills, illegal dumping of plastic garbage in oceans, and random litter blowing around on land or floating in the sea. The amount of secondary MP pollution is difficult to estimate because no one is sure how much illegal dumping goes on.

One study put the total amount of primary-microplastic pollution at three million metric tons a year. Another study estimated 3.2 million metric tons a year. In other words, if my math is correct, plastic recycling alone may very well generate two-thirds of the total amount of primary microplastic pollution on the entire planet from all those sources mentioned above combined. That sure sounds like a “major reason” why we have such a significant problem with microplastics in the environment to me.

Dirty Work

One astonishing aspect of this story is the muted response it elicited from the recycling industry. When an Australian broadcaster asked Brown how the UK plant reacted to her groundbreaking study, she had this to say: “So we didn’t actually get a response from the plastic recycling facility once we’d published the research. I think we were really lucky in the first place to gain access to take samples because a lot of the waste industry—and within that the plastic recycling industry—is so closed-doored and quite secretive, both outwards towards the public and within the industry.” Apart from a few quotes from petrochemical types in the news coverage, the industry hardly reacted at all. And what little it did say was flimsy.

In a short issue brief , the Association of Plastic Recyclers countered that Brown’s study failed to mention that reclaimers in North America “typically” route their wash water into municipal water-treatment plants that solve the problem by capturing the microplastic runoff. While it’s true that many recyclers channel their wash water to treatment plants, even the best of these facilities only capture about 90 percent of MP particles, while less efficient plants in developing countries perform far worse . In any event, this solution makes no sense, because even if water treatment plants captured 100 percent of all MP particles, they almost always ship their microplastic-infused sludge byproducts to farms where they are used as fertiliser. So, the MPs would enter the environment through soil. Agriculture contamination of this sort has already resulted in a lawsuit in Britain .

The brief then adds that “nearly all North American” reclaimers (plants on other continents go conspicuously unmentioned) use a process called Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) to remove MPs from wash water. Yet the brief offers zero evidence to support this claim. In fact, a literature search reveals that DAF has seldom, if ever, been proven to filter MPs. According to a 2024 paper : “Studies evaluating the efficacy of DAF in removing MPs under various circumstances, such as MP density, size, shape, and composition, have not been conducted. As a result, it is now difficult to provide correct and thorough observations for this technology’s elimination of MPs.”

The sad truth is that, unlike paper, glass, and metal recycling, the science underpinning plastic recycling has always been, at best, questionable. From the beginning, the industry’s own chemists repeatedly told them it wouldn’t work . Most types of plastic can’t be recycled at all, and the ones that can become more toxic during the process . “The reality is that plastics can only be recycled—or more accurately ‘downcycled’—once, rarely twice,” the white paper concludes . It then becomes trash just like virgin plastic. Recycling merely delays its journey to a landfill or worse.

In recent years, the industry has tried to change the narrative by touting so-called “advanced” recycling, sometimes called “chemical” recycling, but so far none of this tech has panned out either . Even some of the industry’s own trade journalists say it will never work under any circumstances. For decades, recyclers got away with these failures because, up until 2018, they were selling almost all their trash to China and calling it “recycled,” even though, in reality, tons of it were being incinerated, landfilled, or dumped in waterways. The reclaimers were basically skimming the most profitable plastic items off the top and then exporting the rest. In addition to exposing plastic recycling’s inherent flaws and pretty much destroying its business model, the China ban also pushed the industry into some dubious behaviour.

To understand this behaviour, a little background is necessary. Recycling enjoys a “green” eco-friendly brand identity that can distract from the fact that it’s an offshoot of the waste-management business, a sector with longstanding and notorious ties to organised crime . While the vast majority of recyclers are honest, law-abiding citizens, sketchy things do still happen with some regularity. In 2017, New Jersey, home to some of the world’s first reclaiming facilities, issued a report exposing mob corruption in recycling, a practice partly made possible by a lax regulatory framework designed to attract private investors when the industry was young. Other US states experiencing similar corruption include California and Arizona , West Virgina , Minnesota , and Louisiana . As recently as last year, underworld elements infiltrated Germany’s Aurubis , one of the world’s largest recyclers, and stole millions in precious scrap metal, a swindle that may have involved the company’s CEO and at least two board members.

When China closed its doors in 2018, developed countries in the West resorted to diverting millions of tons of garbage to Southeast Asian countries—often whether they wanted it or not , a practice that unleashed environmental havoc on the region. A web of organised-crime groups, shady middlemen, and legitimate recycling companies used falsely labelled containers, circuitous shipping routes to obscure ports of origin, and garbage disguised as other products to fool these nations into accepting our trash . One of the biggest culprits is California, paradoxically because of its strict green laws. A 2011 state law requires California cities and counties to “recycle” 75 percent of their waste but does not specify how to accomplish this goal. Many officials there feel they have no choice but to export their way to compliance.

Blood in the Water

Thanks to decades of primary and secondary microplastic exposure, every human being alive now teems with the stuff. They’ve been found in every human organ, including the brain, the placenta, testes, breast milk, and sperm. Science is still trying to figure out the health repercussions, but MPs are thought to induce endocrine disruptions that lead to reproductive problems, cancers, and inflammatory and immunity diseases. Nanoplastics and MPs have been blamed for playing a role in plummeting fertility rates and in spiking cases of cancer among younger patients in their 30s and 40s, the latter of which some physicians are now calling an epidemic .

Given this growing body of science, Brown’s landmark pilot study, the studies that followed it , and additional studies surely in the works could all blast open a pathway to devastating legal consequences for plastic recyclers. The sharks smell blood in the water. Trial attorneys are already salivating and sharpening their knives . Risk managers, the experts who advise insurance companies, are worrying openly in print . And insurers, currently fleeing the sector in droves, may grow even more reluctant to write policies for these facilities.

Unfortunately for plastic recyclers, legal precedents set by ongoing PFAS “forever chemical” litigation offer a paradigm that will be easy for plaintiffs’ attorneys to follow. Litigation targeting large chemical companies that manufacture PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl) chemicals is a juggernaut currently steamrolling through courtrooms all over the US and the world . These substances—called “forever chemicals” because they don’t naturally break down in the body—include some 15,000 compounds used to make products more resistant to water stains and heat. They’ve been linked to cancer, liver conditions, birth defects, and many other health problems. Legal scholars predict payouts in these lawsuits could well exceed the $200 billion paid by Big Tobacco in the 1990s.

A great deal of overlap exists between microplastic pollution and PFAS pollution. According to a risk-management company, some MPs are made of PFAS, such as polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) and polyvinyl fluoride (PVF). Some plastic products, such as synthetic textiles, can be coated in PFAS. Some PFAS may be added to microplastics during manufacturing, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). And one type of PFAS, known as polymeric PFAS, can break down into MPs in the environment.

A key innovation of PFAS litigation involved using site-specific pollution identifiers to hold large manufacturers liable for their chemical products. Many PFAS lawsuits began as investigations into military bases where periodic fire drills spread flame retardants containing forever chemicals into the environment. Some see a similar roadmap for litigation against plastics manufacturers. “The plaintiffs in these cases are using innovative legal arguments, particularly related to public nuisance theories of harm, to successfully bring these cases forward,” according to a white paper . “We think these new legal strategies will also open the door for plastic litigation.”

An Industry Week article adds:

Given the ubiquitous nature of microplastics in the environment, regulatory agencies and plaintiffs alike may cast a wide net when identifying potentially responsible parties. But even before we have robust microplastic regulations, plaintiffs are already using existing laws to find ways to target plastics in the environment, from citizen lawsuits to challenging claims regarding sustainability and recycling as they relate to plastics . [emphasis mine]

It won’t take long for ambitious plaintiffs’ attorneys to realise that they can use reclaiming plants as a pathway to enormous financial settlements from deep-pocketed plastic manufacturers in the same way that their colleagues used military bases to target PFAS manufacturers. Unfortunately, unlike petrochemical companies, recyclers can’t afford to write multibillion-dollar cheques.

In fact, the plastic recycling industry is in such bad financial shape that it’s been reduced to begging governments to guarantee its markets. To cite just one example, at a European industry conference last year where many grievances were aired, Caroline van der Perre, managing director of the Belgium-based recycling firm RAFF Plastics, called for regulators to extend “the obligations to use recycled materials.” Further, so-called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws and regulations, popular rallying points for industry lobbyists, usually contain language that guarantees and safeguards markets for recycled plastic.

“Just Incinerate It All”

So, if we can’t recycle our way out of the plastics garbage deluge, what’s the alternative? Most environmentalists say the obvious answer is to tackle the problem at its source by manufacturing less plastic, particularly the single-use kind. “[S]olutions include enacting bans on single-use plastic bags and unrecyclable single-use plastic food-service products ,” runs a typical bromide .

Leaving aside the question of whether or not large-scale single-use bans are even politically feasible given the enormous influence of the oil and petrochemical industries, such solutions contain two fatal flaws. First, single-use accounts for only 50 percent—at most—of all plastic manufactured, so even if somehow all of it were banned, we’d still have a significant problem. And second, the medical world alone would grind to a disastrous halt without single-use plastics. Realistically, unless civilisation plans to return to life in grass huts, plastics will remain an essential pillar of modern life for the foreseeable future.

With what appears to be the imminent departure of plastic recycling, waste-to energy solutions will move up a notch on the list of viable policy options. Burning garbage for fuel has been happening around the globe at scale for many years, especially in places where room for landfilling is scare, like Europe and Japan. The waste-to-energy (WtE) option achieves three positives:

It solves our rapidly growing plastics disposal problem.
It displaces the need to extract other petroleum fuel products.
It is far more renewable than coal, oil, or gas (because much of it is biomass).

Further, the need is practically limitless. According to this Reuters investigation , the cement industry alone could incinerate every scrap of plastic garbage produced in a year.

Because burning trash creates CO 2 greenhouse gas, environmentalists generally hate WtE. But this is a complex issue, since landfilling garbage leads to huge emissions of methane, which has 28–36 times more impact on global warming than CO 2 . In other words, there’s a case to be made that burning trash for energy produces fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than landfilling. Such a case hinges on how clean WtE incinerators burn, and this remains a point of contention. Depending on which side you believe, WtE incinerators produce CO 2 somewhere between the rate of coal, the dirtiest burning fossil fuel, and diesel, the cleanest burning one. In any case, with regard to greenhouse-gas emissions, there’s widespread agreement that WtE options fall somewhere within the spectrum of fossil fuels.

In essence, this argument boils down to weighing the risk of greenhouse gases against the risk of microplastics in our bloodstreams. To me, the threat of MPs seems far more immediate, especially given the likelihood that avoiding WtE options will do little to curtail CO 2 emissions. Most growth in new greenhouse-gas emissions occurs in developing countries that are burning coal for power, and developing countries are not about to stop developing any time soon. Those incinerators are going to burn something . Why not solve at least one problem by switching them from coal to trash?

Proponents of WtE and environmentalists bicker endlessly over whether burning biomass garbage is “carbon neutral.” The answer to that question lies beyond the scope of this essay, other than to say it’s starting to feel like a debate over where to place the deck chairs on the Titanic. We may be past the stage where we can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good regarding this pressing global issue.

At least one forward-thinking environmentalist thinks likewise. In September of last year, Erina Brown appeared on the podcast Rubbish Talk . One of the show’s two hosts, Alasdair Meldrum, who possesses impeccable green credentials, said the following about microplastics and recycling:

I used to deliver the Institute of Waste Management’s “Waste Smart” course, and it was all about waste hierarchy and sustainability. And one of the things I used to do, just to make a point, was I always used to say to people “We should stop recycling plastic. We should just incinerate it all. We should just capture the energy because it’s effectively oil—recover the energy. We’re wasting our time recycling.” You know because one of the challenges you’ve got in the UK is everybody assumes we can recycle plastics really well. In actual fact, it’s probably one of the hardest materials [to recycle] we’ve got. It’s light, it’s hard to collect, it’s expensive to collect, and really expensive to process. It’s got a lot going against it in terms of the actual recycling. And, you know, if you add into that about what we were saying about the microplastics, in the end we’re potentially creating a big issue there. Then maybe we do need to look at that a bit more closely and say: is it worth doing all that effort in terms of recycling plastic? The waste-to-energy guys love me at the moment for saying that! [all laugh]

Yes, laughter seems to be the only bearable response here; the alternative is terminal despair. Brown’s study contains a strong element of Greek tragedy. Like Oedipus, in trying to avoid our fate, we have only made it inevitable. Instead of evading plastic pollution, we have helped to inject plastic toxins into every living thing on the planet.

How we extract ourselves from this tragedy needs to be debated. But the fate of plastic recycling shouldn’t be. It deserves to be sent straight to the same graveyard as Prohibition and integrated busing, two other grandiose 20th-century ideas that didn’t just fail miserably but also made the problems they sought to fix demonstrably worse.

A police car graffitied with "ACAB" (all cops are bastards) is set alight during the George Floyd riots.

Stop Decriminalising Crime

When a gap opens between what the law punishes and what society believes should be punished, people lose respect for the law and are more likely to violate it.

After October 7 with Pamela Paresky

Pamela Paresky interviews Israeli intellectuals, politicians, servicemen, and others in the wake of Hamas's October 7 attacks on Israel.

The Quincy Institute’s Middle East Fantasies

The positions adopted by the think tank’s scholars during the war in Gaza are illustrative of its overall Middle East agenda: appease Iran and demonise Israel.

Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah

Updates on the military situation facing Israel, especially the possibility of all-out war with Hezbollah.

In Defence of Manifest 2024

The Guardian’s reporting on a gathering of heterodox thinkers is truly lamentable journalism.

Podcast #239: Justin Trudeau’s Ominous Online Harms Act: ‘Minority Report’ Comes to Canada

Jonathan Kay talks to Atlantic Magazine staff writer Conor Friedersdorf about a censorious government bill that would allow officials to investigate Canadians for things they haven’t done yet.

From the Blog

Rebalancing the gender narrative with dr warren farrell: quillette cetera episode 35, canada’s elusive unmarked graves: a third-anniversary update, what an honest conversation about gender sounds like, what we’re reading in may.

Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.

On Instagram @quillette

Share full article

Water containing small plastic particles that look like colorful confetti being poured into a glass.

How to Minimize Your Exposure to Microplastics

Furniture, clothing and food packaging can all shed tiny particles that can end up in our bodies.

Credit... Ryan Jenq for The New York Times. Set design by Laura Woolf.

Supported by

By Sarah Sloat

Published June 7, 2024 Updated June 18, 2024

Matthew Campen, a toxicologist at the University of New Mexico, wasn’t surprised when his team found microplastics in human testicles during a new study . The tiny particles had already been found in human breast milk, lungs and blood. At this point, Dr. Campen said, he expects to find them in every part of the body.

The particles are so small that it’s easy to ingest or inhale them. Scientists still aren’t sure how that might affect human health, but some early research points to cause for concern: One 2021 study found that patients with inflammatory bowel disease had more microplastics in their feces than healthy subjects, while another recent paper reported that people with microplastics in their blood vessels had an increased risk of heart complications.

We can’t directly control many of the microplastics we’re exposed to — the materials used in car tires, food manufacturing, paint and many other products can all create plastic particles. But if you’re worried about microplastics, there are simple steps to take to minimize your exposure somewhat, experts say.

“You’re not going to get to zero, but you can reduce your levels,” said Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies how chemicals affect health.

Curbing microplastics in the kitchen

Microplastics are produced when plastic items degrade or are intentionally added to certain products, like microbeads in body scrubs. When they get into water and soil , microplastics enter the food chain.

There are several ways to reduce your exposure through food, including by avoiding highly processed meals. One study of 16 protein types found that while each contained microplastics, highly-processed products like chicken nuggets contained the most per gram of meat. The researchers said that could be because highly processed foods have more contact with plastic food-production equipment.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Implications of Plastic Use
Uncovering the perils of plastics
INFOGRAPHIC: How plastic bags damage the environment
Plastics and Human Health
Microplastics found in human blood raise new concerns on health impact
Knowledge on the effects of plastic use on health and environment among

VIDEO

Pls stop using plastic case 🙏 #phonecases #carbonfiber #cars #carbon
Exposing Problems From Toxic Chemicals in Plastics
Study: more plastic waste due to coronavirus
Plastic problems: How much plastic a family of 5 uses in a week
Plastic and its impact on our health
I got Plastic Surgery and Now I REGRET it 😱 (YE KYA KAR LIYA) ?

COMMENTS

Plastics in the Ocean Affecting Human Health
Over a few decades, humans have managed to dump tons upon tons of garbage into the ocean. Of the most devastating elements of this pollution is that plastics takes thousands of years to decay. As a result, fish and wildlife are becoming intoxicated. Consequently the toxins from the plastics have entered the food chain, threatening human health. In the most polluted places in the ocean, the ...
Four IUCN economic case studies show the impacts of plastic pollution
National case studies. Four national level economic case studies are available: for Mozambique, South Africa, Thailand, and Viet Nam. The important economic sectors of fisheries and tourism were studied, using different lenses to examine how plastic pollution causes detrimental economic impacts at national and local levels.
The plastic pollution crisis
Here it has negative effects on marine life of all kinds, and ultimately causes harm to humans too. Up to 12 million tonnes of plastic debris is entering the global ocean every year: 2 the UN calls it 'a planetary crisis'. The highly populated, semi-enclosed Mediterranean basin is one of the global hotspots for marine plastic pollution.
The World's Plastic Pollution Crisis Explained
Production increased exponentially, from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to 448 million tons by 2015. Production is expected to double by 2050. Every year, about 8 million tons of plastic waste escapes into the oceans from coastal nations. That's the equivalent of setting five garbage bags full of trash on every foot of coastline around the world.
PDF Case Study: Mapping Microplastic Pollution in Search of Solutions
in-and data can help us understand how to achieve those goals. Government: The U.S. EPA is using the dataset to study microplastics in sediment, tissue, and wastewate. and to work towards the designation of plastics as a pollutant. Policy groups: The Center for Biological Diversity has used the dataset to argue fo.
Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030
21 October 2021 Climate and Environment. Plastic pollution in oceans and other bodies of water continues to grow sharply and could more than double by 2030, according to an assessment released on Thursday by the UN Environment Programme ( UNEP ). The report highlights dire consequences for health, the economy, biodiversity and the climate.
PDF Plastic Pollution Case-study: Barbados
use plastics by banning Legal and Policy Framework in Barbados 5 and use. Conclusion and Recommendations 8 Summary: • Plastic pollution constitutes a major threat to the sustainable use of the resources on which Barbados relies heavily for tourism and fishing. • Political, economic, and social stability have given Barbados a relatively high
Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and
Plastics have become a severe transboundary threat to natural ecosystems and human health, with studies predicting a twofold increase in the number of plastic debris (including micro and nano-sized plastics) by 2030. However, such predictions will likely be aggravated by the excessive use and consumption of single-use plastics (including ...
Plastic waste: Challenges and opportunities
The advantageous properties (from a use-phase perspective) of plastic resulted in an enormous increase of the use of plastic over the last decades — compared to the 1950's we use more than 20 times as much plastic per year nowadays (United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2018).Besides this rapid growth of plastic consumption plastic also has entered many different sectors and ...
Case Studies and Recent Update of Plastic Waste Degradation
Plastic degradation is mainly of the following three types, photodegradation, oxy-photodegradation, and bioremediation (Shah et al. 2008; Sangale et al. 2012 ). Photodegradation requires UV light or high-energy radiation to degrade plastic. Its rate of initiation is very slow; once the plastic started degradation, then it propagates very fast.
Science & Case Studies
Science & Case Studies ... Plastic particles are generally the most abundant type of debris encountered in the marine environment, with estimates suggesting that 60% to 80% of marine debris is plastic, and more than 90% of all floating debris particles are plastic. This document is a state-of-the-science review - one that summarizes available ...
Plastic Waste Management: A Case Study From Dehradun, India
Plastic Waste Management Initiative At Dehradun, India. Arya Mitra , an Earth5R volunteer from Dehradun took the initiative to go about the Global Plastic Waste Crisis from his hometown. He conducted a sequence of 10 cleanup sessions, analysed the waste collected and provided the material. His views on why he wanted to join the project were ...
Plastic Pollution: A Perspective on Matters Arising: Challenges and
Plastic pollution is a persistent challenge worldwide with the first reports evidencing its impact on the living and nonliving components of the environment dating back more than half a century. The rising concerns regarding the immediate and long-term consequences of plastic matter entrainment into foods and water cannot be overemphasized in light of our pursuit of sustainability (in terms of ...
Case Study: Marine Plastic Debris and Solid Waste Management in Peru
Introduction. The negative impact of plastic debris on marine ecosystems and species is a global challenge. While the causes vary by region, most scientists agree that poor solid waste management is a leading factor. This is particularly true in the developing world, where infrastructure has not kept pace with economic growth.
Metabolic Cascade for Remediation of Plastic Waste: a Case Study on
Microplastics have emerged as an ubiquitous pollutant with severe environmental and human health hazards. Over the decades encountering these pollutants, microorganisms have evolved with the tool(s) to degrade different classes of plastic polymers. Several enzymes including depolymerases and lipases have been studied for the reduction of plastic toxicity. Since the degradation of plastic is a ...
The plastic health map: A systematic evidence map of human health
In Fig. 7, we focus on studies evaluating health effects of plastic chemical exposure in general-risk populations and have excluded 1) experimental studies, 2) studies involving special risk of exposure due to occupation or ingestion/poisoning events and 3) case studies and case series as no analysis was performed between exposure and health ...
Consumer Awareness of Plastic: an Overview of Different ...
Plastic makes our society more practical and safer. It is hard to consider eliminating plastic in some sectors, such as the medical field. However, after use, plastic waste becomes a global problem without precedents, and when not properly disposed of, it can cause several socio-environmental problems. Some possible solutions are recycling, the circular economy, proper waste management, and ...
Plastic pollution and infectious diseases
The versatility and resistance of plastic allowed for its massive use during the second half of the 20th century. Plastic is hardly degradable and—because waste management is often inefficient—around 55% ends up either in landfill or in nature. Plastic mismanagement thus durably pollutes the environment. Although several studies have pointed out the effect of microplastic and nanoplastic ...
Health Effects of Microplastic Exposures: Current Issues and
Most studies on microplastics have focused on developing standardized methods for monitoring the occurrence, distribution, and movement of microplastics in the environment, as well as developing microplastic substitutes; however, although humans are exposed to microplastics via various routes, research on the adverse effects of microplastics in ...
Politics and the plastic crisis: A review throughout the plastic life
1 INTRODUCTION. Plastic is everywhere. It is an essential material in the infrastructure of modern societies. Its design versatility, low cost, formability, light weight, and bioinertness have made it the material of choice in a broad range of applications from smartphones to food packaging and 3D printing (Andrady, 2015).It also contributes in different ways to the construction of a more ...
Plastics industry worked for decades to create a throw-away culture
Plastic became ingrained in modern life in large part because the plastics industry started working in the 1950s to convince people to embrace the material as cheap, abundant and disposable. The ...
PDF Case Study on Plastic Roads
Plastic waste, or plastic pollution, is 'the accumulation of plastic objects (e.g.: plastic bottles and much more) in the Earth's environment that adversely affects wildlife, wildlife habitat, and humans. With no improvements to managing waste beyond what's already in place today, 99 million tons of uncontrolled plastic waste
Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas
There remains a lack of academic studies that compare the full life-cycle impacts of plastic products against their alternatives across the full range of products in use. In this context, life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful method for assessing the environmental impact of comparable products, and this methodology can easily be applied to ...
(PDF) Plastic Waste in India: overview, impact, and measures to
usage of plastic for anthropogenic activities has expanded many f olds and India alone generated around. 3.3 million metric tonnes of plastic in the financial year 2019. 79 percent of the plastic ...
Microplastics and nanoplastics have been found throughout the human
When plastic trash is dumped in a landfill or the sea, it breaks down, very slowly. Sunlight and waves cause the surface of the plastic to become brittle, and particles are shed into the environment.
Recycling Plastic Is a Dangerous Waste of Time
The recycling industry—and the world at large—has yet to fully reckon with a bombshell study that dropped last year. By now, you probably know that plastic recycling is a scam. If not, this white paper lays out the case in devastating detail. To summarise, amid calls to reduce plastic garbage in the 1970s and '80s, the petrochemical ...
How to Minimize Your Exposure to Microplastics
Swapping out plastic cutting boards with wooden ones could also reduce your exposure. Heat, including from dishwashers and microwaves, can also cause plastic products to break down. In one 2020 ...

Geology and Human Health Topical Resources

Plastics in the Ocean Affecting Human Health

The Three Plastic Islands

Sources of Plastic Toxins Entering the Oceanic Food Chain

Plastics getting to Humans Impacting Health

Prevention of Contamination

The Role Humans Play

Related Links

CORE COMPONENTS

The plastic pollution crisis

Where does ocean plastic come from?

The plastics life cycle

The impacts of plastic pollution on biodiversity and human health

Confronting the issue: a harmonised methodology and a global agreement

The Mediterranean: plastic pollution hotspot

The need for knowledge: PlastiMed project

Taking action

Acknowledgements

The World's Plastic Pollution Crisis Explained

Children Play among Plastic

Media Credits

Production Managers

User Permissions

Interactives

Related Resources

Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030

Solutions to hand

Recycling not enough

Making the case for change

Growing problem

Economy

Report on Priority Microplastics Research Needs: Update to the 2017 Microplastics Expert Workshop

State of the Science White Paper: A Summary of the Effects of Plastics Pollution on Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife

Tern Island Preliminary Assessment and Technical Support Document

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Opportunities to Address Tire Wear Particles in Waterways

Microplastics Expert Workshop Report

Summary of Expert Discussion Forum on Possible Human Health Risks from Microplastics in the Marine Environment

Plastic Waste Management: A Case Study From Dehradun, India

Clean-Up And Classification Of Plastic Waste

Waste Data Utilised For Research Work And Creating Awareness

Plastic Waste Management Initiative At Dehradun, India

Plastic Waste Data Collected In Dehradun

Burning Of Plastic Waste

How To Solve The Global Plastic Waste Issue?

Case Study: Marine Plastic Debris and Solid Waste Management in Peru

Introduction

The Global Challenge

Explore USAID's LINKS sites for learning and knowledge sharing

Consumer Awareness of Plastic: an Overview of Different Research Areas

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review

Sustainability trends and gaps in the textile, apparel and fashion industries

Health risk of human exposure to microplastics: a review

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Results and Discussion

All the Research Areas

Environmental Science

Engineering

Materials Science

Conclusions

Data Availability

Code Availability

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent to Participate

Consent for Publication

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Health Effects of Microplastic Exposures: Current Issues and Perspectives in South Korea

Jungwoo Sohn

Changsoo Kim

Graphical Abstract

INTRODUCTION