This New Year we think everyone will be happy to say goodbye to 2020 and hello to 2021.
With the new year approaching, there is an opportunity for setting new personal goals and of course – New Year’s Resolutions!
This year rather than vowing to exercise more, save money, or maintain a healthier diet, why not try reducing your household waste and increasing your waste literacy?
At the U of T Trash Team these goals are our mission, and this New Year’s we want to help you make positive changes your waste habits. How? Through our Home Waste Audit!
During the Summer of 2020, we ran a Home Waste Audit as part of Plastic Free July. This audit was so successful that we decided to bring it back for New Years. So, if you’re looking to reduce your household waste in 2020 – join us!
What can you expect? The Home Waste Audit will run over the course of four weeks, from Wednesday January 13 – Tuesday February 9, with an introductory webinar on Tuesday January 12 (and results Tuesday February 23). Throughout, we will be there providing all the tools you need to learn more about your local recycling guidelines, ways to reduce your landfill waste, and of course, ways to reduce your plastic waste.
See below for a summary of results from July and examples of weekly waste. Participants spanned 2 countries, 4 provinces/states, and 8 cities.
Increasing our waste literacy is empowering. It enables us to make smart choices about the materials we buy, how we use these materials, and what we do with them once we when they reach end-of-life. Combined, these smart choices reduce waste and protect our environment.
Together let’s make 2021 a better year, with a common goal to reduce excess waste one item at a time, one household at a time. Start the year off right, with us, building habits that can last for many years to come.
If you have any questions about the Home Waste Audit or how to take part, please contact us at UofTTrashTeam@gmail.com. We hope to see you soon!
Written by Chelsea Rochman; Assistant Professor at University of Toronto, co-founder of the U of T Trash Team, and Hannah De Frond, Research Assistant in the Rochman Lab and member of the U of T Trash Team.
The story of a shared vision to raise awareness and reduce litter through research and creativity.
Have you ever noticed litter in or near the water and wondered if there was something more you could to do raise awareness of the problem while at the same time implementing a solution to tackle the challenge? This curiosity was what brought Chelsea Rochman and Susan Debreceni together in a partnership to tackle a global problem. It was just more than two years ago when Chelsea and Susan were inspired by the famous Mr. Trash Wheel in Baltimore and met up with a shared goal to bring a similar wheel to Toronto. Without a clue about how to do this, they began their journey.
At the time, Susan was working for Ocean Wise helping lead the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup and Chelsea was starting her career as an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Together, they knew that having a Trash Wheel in Toronto would capture the public’s attention and become an incredible centrepiece for an education and outreach program helping increase waste literacy in the local community and beyond.
To get started, they reached out to the inventors of Mr. Trash Wheel in Baltimore as well as PortsToronto, who own and manage several areas of Toronto’s waterfront. Immediately upon reaching out, both groups responded to learn more. Shortly afterwards, Chelsea and Susan were joined by Dr. Rafaela Gutierrez, an expert in social science and waste management. These conversations quickly turned into a feasibility study to see if Toronto was a good location for a Trash Wheel. Quickly, Susan, Chelsea and Rafaela gathered a team of 25 undergraduate and graduate students who all shared the same passion for increasing waste literacy. At the time, it was looking like the Don River would be the ideal location for such a device, but ultimately through the results of this study and many, many, many meetings and phone calls with a growing list of stakeholders, the team was struck with the realization that a Trash Wheel was not the best waste solution for Toronto at that moment in time.
Instead of calling it quits and throwing in the towel, they continued to brainstorm with PortsToronto about other waste capture options, including a Roomba like swimming vacuum, capture devices at the end of storm drains, litter skimming vessels and Seabins. Soon after, PortsToronto’s Sustainability Committee began an active discussion about Seabins and connected with the Seabin Project to learn more. Then, in the summer of 2019, two bins were installed in the Outer Harbour Marina.
It was only a matter of days into the initial Seabin trial when the bins were visited by dozens of curious visitors, generated several media interviews and removed 2000+ pieces of plastic from the marina. Everyone was thrilled and as a result we were off to the races and our Trash Wheel at the mouth of the Don River was turning into a plan for more Seabins along the Toronto waterfront.
In the early weeks of October, two additional Seabins were installed in Toronto’s Inner Harbour at Pier 6. On a cold and windy morning a group of local NGOs, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, the local Member of Provincial Parliament, and a Councillor of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation were brought together to celebrate the new bins. In front of the local group, the bins were introduced and demonstrated, and preliminary litter data from phase 1 was shared, all while enjoying hot coffee (in reusable mugs) and Beaver Tails (a famous and delicious Canadian pastry!).
This day was incredibly special and meaningful. It was not only a celebration of the new Seabins, it was also a celebration of how far our team had come and where we were headed. Over the last two years, our hard work and perseverance created a local community group – the U of T Trash Team – a dedicated and passionate team that includes undergraduate and graduate students, postdocs and dedicated staff. The U of T Trash Team’s mission is to increase waste literacy in our community and reduce plastic in our ecosystems.
As a group, the team has developed new waste-literacy school programming, scheduled to begin this year at Grade 5 classrooms across the Greater Toronto Area. The team also runs community outreach programming – including two annual cleanups per year in collaboration with Toronto Region Conservation Authority and Ocean Conservancy. Additionally, the team focuses on solutions-based research – including a pilot project installing lint traps in 100 homes in a small community to divert microfibers from Lake Huron, and working with industry to achieve zero pellet loss to Lake Ontario. And finally, the U of T Trash Team is a proud partner with PortsToronto on the Seabin pilot to “litter”-ally trap trash on its way out to Lake Ontario, preventing it from contaminating our waterways, our fish and our local drinking water.
Written by Chelsea Rochman; Assistant Professor at University of Toronto, co-founder of the U of T Trash Team, and Scientific Advisor to the Ocean Conservancy & Susan Debreceni; Outreach Manager and co-founder of the U of T Trash Team
This summer, three members of the Rochman lab (Chelsea Rochman, Kennedy Bucci, and Hayley McIlwraith) were lucky enough to spend two and a half weeks at the IISD-Experimental Lakes Area to conduct microplastic sampling.
What is the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA)?
If you’ve ever taken an undergraduate-level course in ecology or biodiversity, you’ve probably heard about this distinguished research station. The ELA is a system of 58 lakes set aside for research. It is located in a sparsely populated area of Northwestern Ontario, far from industrial development. Although the ELA was previously government-funded and run by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it is now privately owned and run by the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD).
In 1974, David Schindler (founding director of the ELA) and his colleagues conducted a simple, yet elegant experiment to better understand how algae can take over an entire lake, creating an algal bloom. They decided to split Lake 226 in half, and add nitrogen and carbon to one half, and nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorous to the other. When the algal blooms only appeared in the half with phosphorous, they knew that phosphorous was a key factor driving algal blooms. As a direct result of this experiment, countries around the world took action to limit the amount of phosphorous entering their waterways. This experiment demonstrates the importance of the ELA as a natural laboratory. Researchers can gather impactful evidence to better understand key issues affecting the natural world and then use this information to inform policy and encourage positive change.
What research were we working on at the ELA?
The goal of this summer’s project was to determine whether the remote lakes at the ELA are contaminated by microplastics. By now, we know that plastic is a globally ubiquitous contaminant: it’s been found everywhere from urban areas, such as the Don Valley River in Toronto, to more remote locations, such as the Mariana Trench and the Arctic. Sampling at the ELA gave us a unique opportunity to evaluate contamination in remote freshwater lakes.
Just how remote is the ELA?
The field station is located at the end of a 30 km gravel road off the Trans-Canada Highway. It consists of a meal hall, 3 dormitory cabins, a chemistry lab, and a fish lab. Due to its remote location, the camp is not connected to Ontario’s main power grid and thus remains completely off the grid: there is no cell service and very limited Wi-Fi (used for research purposes only).
What was daily life like at the ELA?
So, what’s it like to be a visiting student at the ELA? To live and work at this natural laboratory? In summary: it’s pretty sweet.
A typical day went like this: wake up early, get dressed, go to breakfast at 7:30 am, pet a dog (there were usually 1 or 2 waiting outside the dining hall), eat, meet with colleagues/supervisors to go over the plan for the day, travel to the sample site, collect samples, eat a packed lunch (always sandwiches), travel to next site, sample, travel back home, hopefully make it back for dinner (very rare, but there were always leftovers), participate in fun evening activity, pet a dog, sleep. Repeat.
Reaching our sampling sites could take 30 min to 2 hours, depending on the lake. To access each lake, we used a combination of driving, boating, canoeing, and portaging. The easiest site to reach was Lake 239, which was accessible by motorboat. The most difficult site to reach was Teggau Lake, where we paddled across Lake 239, portaged, paddled across Roddy Lake, and finally portaged another 1.2km before finally arriving at the site. Even though it was a long journey, we were lucky to have an amazing group of people that made the trip seamless and worthwhile.
By the time we returned to camp, we were always exhausted and hungry. Luckily, the camp chefs had prepared a delicious meal while we were away. And it never disappointed – the food was always plentiful and delicious. Some of our favourite meals included pizza, beach barbecues, and pumpkin pancakes.
After dinner, there was usually a fun activity for us to participate in. This included Wednesday night seminars where we learned about on-going projects at the ELA, sing-along bonfires, a paint night, art shows, and even a triathlon. These events were well-attended by everyone at camp, despite our long workdays.
While our days at the ELA were long and grueling, our stay was impactful. Every minute involved trying or learning something new, chatting with researchers and new friends, or simply enjoying the raw nature around us.
What’s next for our work at the ELA?
Our ultimate goal at the Experimental Lakes Area is to do a whole-ecosystem experiment. In contrast to typical laboratory experiments, this large-scale experiment would provide us with ecologically relevant information about the fate and the effects of microplastics. Similar to the famous algal bloom experiment, this project has the potential to influence global action on plastic pollution.
Written by Kennedy Bucci and Hayley McIlwraith, students and researchers in the Rochman Lab. Their work is in collaboration with multiple institutions, including: University of Toronto, Lakehead University, Queen’s University, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and, of course, IISD-ELA.
A preliminary look at what Seabins are collecting along Toronto’s waterfront.
This past August, PortsToronto installed two Seabins at Toronto’s Outer Harbour Marina and we visited them to count the litter they captured. This was done to help measure their effectiveness and better understand what litter is reaching our Great Lakes. Resembling underwater garbage cans, Seabins help clean the harbour by pumping water through a catch bag. This action removes, along with other contaminants, plastic litter greater than 2mm in length.
Although it was our first-time quantifying litter from Seabins, it wasn’t our first time counting and classifying trash. We’ve spent many hours over the past few years searching for plastic in an array of environmental samples. These experiences have taught us a lot, but one of the biggest takeaways is that plastic pollution is ubiquitous. With this in mind, we were prepared to spend the entire day counting; however, when we arrived at the marina, we were pleasantly surprised. Since we’ve both participated in community cleanups before, we expected to find large amounts of litter (as this was the trend for many cleanups in urban areas); however, upon arrival our presumption quickly changed. The water was clear and the docks were tidy… surely the Seabins wouldn’t have much to catch then, right?
Turns out appearances can be deceiving. Half a day later, we’d only finished the easy part: removing plastics larger than a nickel (what we classified as “big plastics”). It would take days to count all the “little plastics” too (those smaller than a nickel but equal to or bigger than a nurdle, small pre-production pellets used in the production of plastic products). Because of this, we decided to subsample and extrapolate the results. After another half day and some quick calculations, the results were in: nearly 2000 pieces of plastic between the two bins. Amazingly, it had all accumulated in less than 24 hours.
Much of this experience was surprising, from finding almost 2000 plastics in a seemingly clean environment to having a passersby ask us whether or not we’d found gold. (The answer, unfortunately, is still no). Overall, it was a rewarding learning experience, and a great chance to share our work with those at the marina. It was also a wonderful opportunity to learn more about how to mitigate plastic pollution – including microplastics. Together with other waste management systems, we feel Seabins are an effective form of technology to assist in protecting our bodies of water and are excited to see more innovative technology in the future.
Written by Annissa Ho and Lara Werbowski, two HBSc students at U of T who are members of the Rochman Lab and U of T Trash Team.
A sampling of the unique ways some of our team spent their summer.
Summer is over and school is officially back in session, which means students are returning to the classroom and swapping stories about all the fun they got up to over the summer season. Tales of trips to the beach, vacations to exotic locations and new adventures in fine dining– so many stories to share! For the U of T Trash Team, we spent our summer vacation a bit differently. From exotic trips to study litter in Vietnam, many hours in the lab analyzing microplastic samples, to a variety of field work and outreach activities, we sure had quite the memorable summer. This is just a sample of what some of our team got up to.
Nick Tsui: Nick had the opportunity to wade (quite literally) into field work and meet with many groups (including industry, government, and academic stakeholders). His most memorable experience? Getting caught in 60mm+ rainfall doing fieldwork (without a raincoat!).
Rachel Giles: Rachel joined Chelsea on a unique opportunity to visit Northern Vietnam and study litter and its impacts on mangroves in Vietnam’s Xuan Thuy National Park. There were many highlights on the trip, which included meeting lots of new friends, trying new and interesting local foods, and seeing mudskippers for the first time!
Jan Bikker: Jan spent her summer in the ABEL lab at McMaster as part of a collaborative study investigating the effects of microplastic exposure on fish behaviour. When not in the lab, she also got to help with fieldwork for two projects- one monitoring the population of the invasive round goby in Hamilton Harbour and the other looking at changes in the fish and zooplankton communities on a gradient away from wastewater treatment plants.
Lisa Erdle: Lisa spent time on Georgian Bay to investigate the effectiveness of washing machines filters at capturing microfibers. Nearly 100 volunteers in Parry Sound installed washing machine filters in their homes as part of a pilot program with U of T and Georgian Bay Forever.
Washing machine with filter attached
Lisa carefully examines her data in Parry Sound
Arielle Earn and Ludovic Hermabessiere: Arielle and Ludovic spent a day in the Rouge Valley during the 2019 Eco Exploration Event talking to many new people about microplastics. They were able to explore some of the beautiful conservation land and even spent time doing a small cleanup of the area, finding a straw, a coffee cup and many fragments of plastic surrounding the nearby stream. They also got to hear many stories from the people they talked to – including one about the folklore surrounding Bigfoot’s existence in Rouge Valley!
Alice (Xia) Zhu: Alice spent her summer analyzing data on microplastics from San Francisco Bay. Many different shapes and polymer types of microplastics were found in sediment, fish, surface water, stormwater, and wastewater from San Francisco Bay and Alice analyzed patterns in their characteristics to help determine the sources of microplastics to The Bay. She had a great time learning new ecological statistics and R functions. Fun fact: over 300 samples were analyzed in total, including 152 fish!
Ludovic Hermabessiere: Ludovic recently moved here from France and spent his first few months in Canada working at the Rochman lab with Raman spectroscopy. His work will help to analyze and identify potential plastic particles faster. Ludovic is also preparing the arrival of a new equipment to identify smaller plastic particles.
Kennedy Bucci and Hayley McIlwraith: This summer, Kennedy and Hayley left the traditional lab for a natural laboratory at the Experimental Lakes Area in Northwestern Ontario. They collected surface water, sediment, and air samples to look for microplastics in remote boreal lakes. They enjoyed life at the field station, canoeing and portaging to their sampling sites, and returning to camp in the evening for swimming, bonfires, and delicious meals prepared by the camp chefs.
Bonnie Hamilton: Bonnie spent a portion of her summer in the Canadian High Arctic to evaluate contaminant concentrations in Arctic char—a cold adapted Salmonid. This year, her trip was spent off-grid on the tundra at the mouth of the Lachlan River 150km west of Cambridge Bay. Some of the trip highlights included working with collaborators at DFO, UBC and the Arctic Research Foundation, Arctic wolf and grizzly sightings and sampling these beautiful fish!
Annissa Ho and Lara Werbowksi: Lara and Annissa got out of the lab and spent a day at the Outer Harbour Marina counting and categorizing trash collected by Seabins. Despite the smell, the activity attracted some passers-by and allowed Lara and Annissa to share their new knowledge of the trash in the marina! Overall, it was a great experience and the results were fascinating. Their favourite finding? One bin captured more than 1000 pieces of plastic in less than 24 hours!
Seabin in action
Annissa sorts through the collected debris
Many small fragments were found and counted
We can’t wait to see what our Trash Team gets up to this fall and winter season, likely it will be filled with more tales of field work, outreach events, and travels to see plastic pollution abroad.
Written by Susan Debreceni, Outreach Assistant for the U of T Trash Team.
A case study of plastic pollution and ecosystem health in Xuân Thủy National Park.
“Rice bag fragments: 2. Food wrappers: 7.”
This was our rhythm while counting litter along the northern coastline of Vietnam. For four days, we maneuvered through what seemed like a video game adventure—dodging obstacles while onboard a boat, trudging through mudflats and combing through the thickest of forests. I was with Dr. Chelsea Rochman and Rachel Giles from the University of Toronto, representing Ocean Conservancy on a research expedition in the beautiful mangrove forests of Xuân Thủy National Park, Vietnam. We were there to assess how the biodiversity of the environment and the livelihoods of nearby coastal communities are affected by plastic pollution.
Xuân Thủy National Park sits at the mouth of the Sông Hồng, or the Red River: a broader estuary ecosystem which supports mangroves, intertidal habitats and feeding grounds for important migratory bird species. The park, Southeast Asia’s first Ramsar Site, falls along the coast of the East Sea and is recognized as a fundamental site for conservation because of the ecological functions it performs as a wetland. Not only does it serve as a rich habitat for a variety of shrimp, crab, fish, razor shells and oysters, and supports numerous rare and endangered species, but it also provides economic prospects for the five coastal communes of Giao Thủy, a rural district in Nam Định Province. Here, the community is comprised of small-scale fishermen and farmers in aquaculture and agriculture, who contribute collectively to a network of food cultivation.
With trash flowing into the estuary from the Red River and marine debris washing up from the ocean, the park is becoming increasingly vulnerable to plastic pollution. Potential threats to the park include microplastics coming in from ocean currents, a growing human population and burgeoning tourism industry. Previous research on the park has also identified various challenges for the sustainable management of its valuable resources.
For these reasons, the Centre for Marinelife Conservation and Community Development (MCD) has raised concerns about the state of litter in the park. MCD is a leading Vietnamese nongovernmental nonprofit organization with extensive work within the Red River Delta, and Ocean Conservancy is excited to partner with an organization that has demonstrated expertise and success in bringing together local and national government, the private sector and other NGOs. We collaborated with MCD and also the Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands (VASI) to conduct a baseline assessment of the sources, fate, and effects of marine debris, including microplastics, in this region.
Fortunately for us, we had sunshine and only light rain during the week of field research. The on-the-ground work involved counting and categorizing all the litter we found within our research sites, as well as taking samples of sediment to measure microplastics. To begin understanding where debris may be coming from, we had selected key locations along the shorelines and tidal flats of the estuary and mangrove forest, at the mouth of the river and upstream along the Red River. We also counted crab holes at each site and measured the canopy cover and diameter of mangrove tree trunks as potential indicators of how waste might be affecting flora and fauna in the park.
What were some highlights in our field research? Besides the fact that we were located in this amazing corner of the world, we enjoyed the learning and sharing of information between our teams. When in the field, we paired up in working teams of two—Chelsea with Nguyễn Văn Công (MCD), myself with Ngô Thị Ngọc (MCD) and Rachel with Mai Kiên Định (VASI). Ocean Conservancy hoped to build capacity in MCD and VASI by transferring our science and methodology on how we research marine debris. Likewise, Công and Ngọc gave us insight into the debris we found and explained why some items were more common than others. Định, who is local to the province, shared his understanding of the land and lifestyle of farmers in the area. After long hours out in the field, we continued the conversations at nearby restaurants where we cooled off and dined on fresh seafood—including farm-raised clams, freshwater fish and jellyfish.
What were we not prepared for? Finding ourselves knee-deep in mud, amongst clams and sort-of-friendly crabs. Stumbling upon a graveyard of dead mangrove trees, tangled in plastic bags and fish netting. On one site along the shoreline, spiders hanging out tree branches joined us as we counted hundreds of pieces of foam. Thankfully, park rangers from Xuân Thủy National Park helped us navigate by boat, foot and car to access all of our sites. Needless to say, the research was very successful thanks to everyone’s eager helping hands and enthusiastic spirit in the field!
What were some of our findings? Marine debris was found across all of the 19 locations we surveyed. The five most common items were plastic food wrappers, plastic bags, fabric pieces and pieces of plastic rope and fishing nets. Overall, increased amounts of marine debris led to a decrease in the health of the ecosystem, although this was only significant for the negative relationship between quantity of marine debris and health of the mangrove trees. The results definitely show a lot of potential for future work to follow up on these trends.
We appreciate that MCD is first and foremost committed to making this work and learnings accessible to the public. In a conversation that Công and Ngọc led with Giao Thiện commune, we learned from fishermen about the ways in which pollution leads to the degradation of their land and harms not only people, but the ecosystem as a whole. I especially appreciated that everyone at MCD was eager to converse with me in Vietnamese as they answered my questions. As a Vietnamese-American only somewhat proficient in the language, I felt very much empowered to practice the vocabulary of environmental conservation in my mother tongue.
Ocean Conservancy hopes that this case study will inform local stakeholders to determine specific solutions addressing the vulnerability of Xuân Thủy National Park. We also envision that future research will advise national stakeholders as they develop a long-term strategy for Vietnam’s coastal wetlands. While there are still major gaps in the research that make it difficult to track environmental stressors and ongoing changes within the park, Vietnam is taking major steps to protect its wildlife and coastal communities.
Ever heard of “demon snowballs”? Likely not, and it is probably putting images in your head of something cold and wet. Well, these demon snowballs are generally wet – but are not formed by snow and are not wonderfully white. These “snowballs” are wet wipes, and are called demon snowballs by wastewater treatment plant operators because of the way they get stuck in wastewater infrastructure. How is this relevant to ocean lovers? Wet wipes are a common type of marine debris – entering the environment via untreated and treated wastewater.
Although you may throw your wet wipes in the trash can – which is the best thing to do with them – many wet wipes are marketed as “flushable.” Flushable, or non-flushable, wet wipes are manufactured as non-woven sheets of natural and manmade fibres – including cellulosic materials like rayon and/or plastics (Munoz et al. 2018). Wet wipes usually have a high wet-strength, because synthetic fibers retain their form, shape, and strength in a moist state. Maintaining their form, and being strong, are desired properties for wipe manufactures so the product will not fall apart while you use it.
When flushed, wet wipes enter the sewer systems, where they are assumed to move along with wastewater to treatment plants. However, their transport depends on various factors such as pipe diameter and slope, flow rate and velocity, plus the amount of product discharge.
If a significant amount of flushable wipes are discharged into a sewer system over a short period of time (a few hours), they will accumulate in drains, forming large “white” balls (a.k.a., demon snowballs), and lead to potential sewer backups. Holiday weekends, such as those in summer where people congregate, are an example of times when the amount and frequency of discharge at a single location may increase due to families and friends visiting each other. Likely not something you think about when you convene for a family weekend at the beach!
When we flush our products down the toilet, it absorbs and blends with other waste we send via our households such as food waste, fat, oil and grease (called FOG by plant operators), shampoo, human hair, and cosmetics. When flow is intermittent and low as our household plumbing, flushable wipes settle in our sewer pipes, accumulate over time, and can cause back-ups followed by sewer overflows. At treatment facilities, wipes clog and damage wastewater equipment such as screens, pumps, grinders, mixers, and sensors that require complete replacement or extensive repairs – hence demon snowballs.
As examples, in England and Wales, approximately 4,000 cases of pipe blockages and property flooding are reported each year (Jeyapalan 2017). In the USA, 400,000 basement backups and 50,000 sewer overflows are documented per year (USEPA 2001). The City of Toronto, Ontario has approximately 10,000 calls a year for reported blockages. Unfortunately, wastewater utilities from around the world have been reporting that wipes are responsible for most pipe blockages and pump clogs in sewer networks. These reports have been published as a series of articles in various languages, and in well-known newspapers such as New York Times (Caron, 2018),The Guardian (UK), and the National Post (Canada).
Consumers assume that “flushable” products must have been tested rigorously for their compatibility with household plumbing and sewer systems. In contrast, there is actually no standard definition of what is flushable, and no standard method to assess flushability. Wastewater engineers are trying to work with governments to help define technical characteristics of flushable products, so that we can clearly differentiate the products that are truly “flushable” from those that are not.
For now, to keep our plumbing “snowball free”, we must not treat wet wipes – whether they say “flushable” or not – like toilet paper. Their size, strength and material composition prevent them from breaking down in wastewater systems, and even if they break down, they may contribute to microplastic pollution in the environment. The bottom line – stop flushing wipes.
Blog written by Barry Orr, spokesperson for Municipal Enforcement Sewer Use Group (MESUG), of Ontario and Faith Karadagli, Associate Professor of Envrionmental Engingeering at Sakarya University, Turkey.
How preventing and removing plastic debris mitigates chemical pollution in our oceans
Turtles tangled in fishing nets, whales washed ashore with stomachs full of plastic bags. These are images we, unfortunately, see far too often. But what about the threats you cannot see? Plastic debris is not just a physical threat to marine life, it’s a chemical threat too.
Once in the marine environment, plastics can absorb chemical pollutants from surrounding waters and transport them great distances as they move around with ocean currents. When animals eat plastic, these chemical pollutants can leach into their stomachs, causing toxic effects. Many of these chemicals have been banned from production due to concerns about human and environmental health. However, some are so persistent in the environment that they are still found today.
Plastic products also contain chemical additives such as flame retardants, UV stabilisers and colorants which are added to the plastics during manufacturing. In our ocean, these chemical additives can leach into surrounding waters—posing another potential chemical threat to marine life.
In a recently published paper, we estimated the amount of chemicals that enter the ocean within common single-use plastic items and estimated the amount of chemical pollutants that can be removed from the environment via cleanups.
We looked at some of the most common plastic items found on beaches during the International Coastal Cleanup: beverage bottles, bottle caps, styrofoam foodand drink containers, cutlery, grocery bags, straws/stirrers and food wrappers. Using International Coastal Cleanup data, the average weight of each item, and estimates of mismanaged plastic waste in 2015, we calculated the total weight of each item that entered the oceans in 2015. We then used the percent weight of chemical additives in each item to estimate the mass of chemicals that entered the ocean as a consequence of this plastic debris.
We estimate that combined, these seven plastic items contribute more than 87,000 metric tons of plastic debris to our oceans and carry with them 190 metric tons of 20 different chemical additives. If plastic pollution continues to increase, this value could almost double to 370 metric tons of additives by 2025. This might not sound like very much, but these seven items account for only about 1% of the estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic entering the oceans every year!
Furthermore, we estimated how plastic cleanups contribute to chemical cleanup by removing those absorbed chemical pollutants. For this, we compared coastal and open ocean locations using Hong Kong and Hawaii as coastal case studies and the North Pacific and South Atlantic gyres as open ocean case studies. Here, we focused on Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) because they are commonly found in plastic debris, despite having been banned for decades.
To estimate total chemical load on plastics in each location, we multiplied the mass of microplastics (g/m2) found in each area by the mass of PCBs found on microplastics (ng/g) in each area. Our results showed that chemical cleanup is more effective on shorelines compared to the open ocean, removing 85,000 times more PCBs in a stretch of coastline in Hong Kong than the same size area of the North Pacific gyre. This might come as a shock, particularly as the gyres are well known to contain large amounts of plastic debris, however, the amount of microplastic per square meter is generally much greater on the shoreline. Although the concentration of PCBs might be high in some open ocean locations, the important factor is how much plastic can be removed per unit area. The more plastic removed, the more chemical removed.
Thus, if we can prevent plastic from entering the environment and cleanup what is already there, we can also mitigate chemical pollution. This reiterates the value of reducing our plastic footprint and participating in coastal cleanups. Cleanup of plastic pollution goes beyond what the eye can see. Cleanup of plastic pollution is also cleanup of chemical pollution!
New research suggests microfiber emissions from the wash can be reduced with new technology
Synthetic microfibers are just one of many types of microplastic pollution; however, microfibers are one of the most common types of microplastic pollution that we find in the environment.
Where do they come from? There are likely many sources of microfibers to the environment, and they include clothing, furniture, carpeting, and cigarette butts.
They are ubiquitous. We find these tiny fibers in samples from headwater streams, rivers, soils, lakes, sediments, ocean water, the deep-sea, wildlife, arctic sea ice, seafood, drinking water and table salt. In our own samples from the Laurentian Great Lakes, our research lab sometimes find more than 100 microfibers in an individual fish. Such widespread exposure raises concerns about effects to wildlife and human health.
But, there’s good news! There are simple solutions to help reduce the number of microfibers that enter our environment each day. Some of these include changing the way we do our laundry–YEP–our laundry.
When we wash our clothing in the washing machine, little bitty fibers come off into the wash water. This is just like when fibers come off our clothing in the dryer and collect in the lint trap. YES, microfibers are indeed a major component of laundry lint! In the washing machine these fibers exit our homes with wash water and travel to a nearby wastewater treatment plant. There, many of them will settle into the sewage sludge, but some will remain in the final treated wastewater effluent that is released directly into local watersheds, lakes and oceans. Although washing our clothes in washing machines is just one source of microfibers to the environment, we know that it’s a significant source. For example, in the city of Toronto, we estimate as many as 23 to 36 trillion microfibers may be emitted to Lake Ontario watersheds each year!
So, coming back to the solutions—what can we do about it? Our research group wondered the same thing and decided to test multiple mitigation strategies for washing machines to see just how well they captured fibers in the wash, diverting them away from the environment.
What did we find? We found that technologies available on the market today work! Upon washing fleece blankets with and without a Lint LUV-R after-market filter (a, pictured above) or a Cora Ball (b, pictured above), we found a significant reduction in microfibers in washing machine effluent. The after-market filter reduced microfibers in washing machine effluent by 87% and the Cora Ball by 26%.
Our study suggests that these technologies are one effective way to reduce microfiber emissions to the environment. While more studies are needed to understand the contributions of microfibers from other sources and pathways to the environment, we know that washing machines are one pathway for microfibers to reach the environment. Why not help reduce emissions now by changing up your laundry habits today?
For more information, please read our paper published this year in Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Written by Dr. Chelsea Rochman, assistant professor at the University of Toronto and Scientific Advisor to Ocean Conservancy
Evaluating the impact of multiple mitigation strategies to help stem the tide
Plastic pollution has become so pervasive that it is found in seafood, bottled water, beer, table salt and even the air. Hundreds of animals become entangled in discarded plastic debris and fishing gear. Ingestion of plastics by marine organisms can hurt or kill them, and may also be acting as a pathway for the transfer of harmful contaminants through food-webs, with biological implications for all life affected. The economic costs of plastic pollution affecting tourism, fisheries and shipping sectors are estimated to be at least $8 billion USD annually.
Currently, the problem of plastic pollution is being met with a suite of mitigation strategies, such as single-use bans, improving recycling capacity and waste management, substitution of products with “eco-friendly” alternatives and more. These actions are currently being implemented at the national level but the problem is so enormous that the international community has recognized that more action is needed, and urgently. Still, little work is being done to evaluate the impact of these many mitigation strategies being proposed and implemented, and how their impacts will vary in different economic and societal contexts. Without this understanding, we risk wasting vast quantities of money, time, and social and political capital in attempting to preserve the integrity of the world’s ecosystems.
With a group of experts from across the world, including some from Ocean Conservancy, we aim to contribute to this knowledge gap by providing science-based evidence of the most effective strategies to reduce the leakage of plastic into our oceans. Our work will build on the inclusion of Plastic pollution in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and feed into an international agreement to establish a coordinated and effective strategy to drastically reduce plastic emissions into the environment.
How we will make a difference
We are conducting an evaluation of the impact of several plastic pollution management interventions. These include plastic-use reductions, broad-scale investments in waste management infrastructure, the implementation of a circular plastic economy and the cleanup of existing post-consumer plastic waste, including abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear from the environment.
We are using ecological modelling techniques and an impact forecasting approach (sometimes referred to as ‘wedges’) to evaluate mitigation strategies at both the country and global level. This means that we can measure how much an action—such as single-use plastics bans—will have on reducing the leakage of plastic into the environment compared to if we did nothing (business as usual). Our analyses will support and inform countries to help them choose the best strategies to reduce plastic pollution, within the bounds of their resource capacity, social context and uniquely local sources of plastic debris.
If we are to achieve meaningful reductions of plastics in our oceans, we need to have a toolbox of effective solutions that can be implemented at multiple geographic scales, economies and levels of governance. The aim of the Plastic Pollution Emissions Group is to help find those solutions in a meaningful way.