Tiny plastic particles are transported by water in streams, rivers, lakes and seas. The smallness of these particles gives them a (relatively) large surface area. Tiny bodies with a large surface area constitute a common adsorption surface.
Tiny plastic particles photographed by an electron microscope
In previous lists I referred to plastic pollution and the dangers that plastic remains cause on land and especially in the sea: plastic parts of various sizes are eaten by fish, sea turtles, birds and marine mammals And the results are disastrous, I also wrote about small plastic particles that are eaten As if they were fish eggs. In some of the responses to the lists there were claims that "today there is plastic that breaks down in the environment", and not it... There are types of plastic that break down quickly, break down without breaking down, that is, the plastic breaks down into small to tiny parts but remains plastic in its chemical composition.
Now a study is being published that shows that the damage is greater: tiny plastic particles are carried by water in streams, rivers, lakes and seas, the particles are so tiny that they cannot be identified even under simple magnification, the researchers called them "microplastics". The smallness of these particles gives them a (relatively) large surface area, tiny bodies with a large surface area constitute an excellent adsorption surface, due to the properties of the "microplastic" various toxins are adsorbed to it that are present in low concentrations in the system / environment, the continuous adsorption increases the concentration of toxins on the " Microplastic" and thus every tiny grain becomes a drop of concentrated poison.
It turns out that most of the toxins attached to "microplastics" are PSB molecules. polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs that are in the environment due to many years of using and spreading the materials without supervision. Materials that today are forbidden to use, but considerable amounts of which are found in every corner and everywhere on the globe
..
Richard Thompson is a marine ecologist. To test the effect of the "microplastics" he added different types and sizes to a solution that applied common pollutants in the sea, it turned out that the various "microplastics" concentrated the toxins, worms that build from waste on the seabed showed an 80% increase in the concentrations of toxins in their bodies following the addition of the "microplastics" to the environment.
These worms form the basis of the food chain, this means that anyone who eats the worms will increase the concentration of toxins and so on... In other words, the "microplastic" is once again a factor in the concentration of toxins and their transfer up the food chain. In other clear and extreme words: plastic kills.
In countries that are considered "developing" (Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and others) there is a ban on the production, sale and use of plastic below a certain thickness. With us... volunteers clean up what the "user crowd" scatters and pollutes without restraint.
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal, ecologist,
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America.
For details: Tel. 0505640309 / 077-6172298,
Email: assaf@eilatcity.co.il
6 תגובות
For those who ask "what's the harm"?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36435288
Dear Dr. Rosenthal,
You have not yet answered my simple question: what type of plastic does the article refer to?
Without this information, the article is simply not serious, and does not allow for reference.
The differences in the amount of use of the types of plastic is huge.
Is it possible that the article refers to a type of plastic that constitutes 0.1% of the total use of plastic?
If so, what significance does the finding have?
What actions can be taken to reduce the damage, if the type of material is unknown?
The protection of the environment is too important an issue to be treated with such superficiality!
Dr. Rosenthal,
two questions:
1) Can you provide a link to the above study?
2) Plastic is a general name for a huge variety of materials, which differ chemically from each other in an extreme way. It is assumed that the adsorption properties are also significantly different. What microplastics does the study talk about:
Polyethylene? Polypropylene? Polycarbonate? nylon? PVC? polyester?
The solution for pollution is dilution
If the microplastics do concentrate the toxins, isn't that better than a uniform distribution of the poison in the entire lake? Especially if the microplastics sink or float to the surface of the water, then they can be collected and together with the toxins.
An important article, although it only shows one side of the coin without emphasizing to the readership that research is needed to establish unequivocally that microplastics, which absorb toxins, are actually an environmental hazard rather than an environmental blessing. How is a greeting? Biofilms are everywhere and especially enjoy developing on small bodies with a large surface area relative to volume. Those biofilms mostly contain microorganisms that specialize in breaking down the material found on them. Thus, in microplastic saturated with poison, it is likely that the normal flora that will develop on it will be of microorganisms that feed on and break down that poison.
The idea is not new and certainly not mine. Modern bioreactors contain microbodies such as the microplastics that Dr. Rosenthal reports on in the article. The purpose of those small bodies (floc) is exactly this - to increase surface area to volume so that bacteria will settle on the surface and break down the unwanted substances in the environment that the body absorbs.
Finally, I find the following quote from the article a bit odd:
"The particles are so tiny that they cannot be identified even with simple magnification"
In the electron microscope image shown, bodies are seen at a magnification of 200 times (definitely a simple magnification of light microscopes). Not only that, the scale of 100 microns (not 0.1 mm) in relation to the bodies shows that some of them can also reach sizes of almost half a mm. Half a mm can be seen with the naked eye - which makes the original quote I brought even more puzzling.
I will state again, as I opened my response, that the article is correct and definitely shows one side of things and there is a lot of point in it. The plastic pollutes and kills. At the same time, things are not as clear-cut as they are presented in this article.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar