Ban on microbeads offers best chance to protect oceans, aquatic species

September 16, 2015
Microbeads are bits of plastic so small that hundreds of them would be needed to cover a single penny. Credit: 5Gyres, courtesy of Oregon State University

An outright ban on the common use of plastic "microbeads" from products that enter wastewater is the best way to protect water quality, wildlife, and resources used by people, a group of conservation scientists suggest in a new analysis.

These are one part of the microplastic problem in oceans, freshwater lakes and rivers, but are a special concern because in many products they are literally designed to be flushed down the drain. And even at conservative estimates, the collective total of microbeads being produced today is enormous.

In an article just published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, scientists from seven institutions say that nontoxic and biodegradable alternatives exist for microbeads, which are used in hundreds of products as abrasive scrubbers, ranging from face washes to toothpaste. Around the size of a grain of sand, they can provide a gritty texture to products where that is needed.

"We're facing a plastic crisis and don't even know it," said Stephanie Green, the David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow in the College of Science at Oregon State University, and co-author of this report.

"Part of this problem can now start with brushing your teeth in the morning," she said. "Contaminants like these microbeads are not something our were built to handle, and the overall amount of contamination is huge. The microbeads are very durable."

In this analysis, and using extremely conservative methodology, the researchers estimated that 8 trillion microbeads per day are being emitted into aquatic habitats in the United States - enough to cover more than 300 tennis courts a day. But the other 99 percent of the microbeads - another 800 trillion - end up in sludge from sewage plants, which is often spread over areas of land. Many of those microbeads can then make their way into streams and oceans through runoff.

Microplastic poses a growing concern in oceans and other aquatic habitat. Credit: 5Gyres, courtesy of Oregon State University

"Microbeads are just one of many types of microplastic found in aquatic habitats and in the gut content of wildlife," said Chelsea Rochman, the David H. Smith Conservation Research Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California/Davis, and lead author on the analysis.

"We've demonstrated in previous studies that microplastic of the same type, size and shape as many microbeads can transfer contaminants to animals and cause toxic effects," Rochman said. "We argue that the scientific evidence regarding microplastic supports legislation calling for a removal of plastic microbeads from products."

Even though microbeads are just one part of the larger concern about plastic debris that end up in oceans and other aquatic habitat, they are also one of the most controllable. With growing awareness of this problem, a number of companies have committed to stop using microbeads in their "rinse off" personal care products, and several states have already regulated or banned the products.

The researchers point out in their analysis, however, that some bans have included loopholes using strategic wording. Many microbeads are used in that are not "rinse off," such as deodorants and cleaners. And some regulations use the term "biodegradable" to specify what products are allowed - but some microbeads can biodegrade just slightly, which may allow their continued use.

If legislation is sought, "new wording should ensure that a material that is persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic is not added to designed to go down the drain," the researchers wrote in their report.

"The probability of risk from microbead pollution is high, while the solution to this problem is simple," they concluded.

Explore further: New smartphone app will help consumers 'beat the microbead'

More information: Environmental Science and Technology, pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/acs.est.5b03909

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

New studies take a second look at coral bleaching culprit

December 7, 2016

Scientists have called superoxide out as the main culprit behind coral bleaching: The idea is that as this toxin build up inside coral cells, the corals fight back by ejecting the tiny energy- and color-producing algae living ...

Cosmic dust found in city rooftop gutters

December 7, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers with Imperial College London, the Natural History Museum in London, Project Stardust in Norway and Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, has found samples of cosmic dust in the ...

6 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SciTechdude
5 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2015
Ultimately everything we consume, swab or slather on is going to end up going down the drain after showering or defecating. They should all just be banned outright.
Bongstar420
3 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2015
Your waste water should not be discharged without purification...Microbead plastic looks super easy to clean up with common sand filtration.

Maybe you should be more concerned about the birth control residue in the effluent. Thats not so easy to filter out.
shavera
5 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015
The article addresses the fact that purification systems are not particularly designed to handle particles at this size. Yes, we could enhance our purification systems to control them, but we can also just stop using them too.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
Hey, somebody's making money! Do you want to kill Capitalism?
jim_xanara
1 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2015
An outright ban on the common use of plastic "microbeads" from products that enter wastewater is the best way to protect water quality, wildlife, and resources used by people, a group of conservation scientists suggest in a new analysis.


No, the best way to protect water quality and wildlife is with an extensive cull of humans and a global sterilisation plan!
mytwocts
not rated yet Sep 20, 2015
Hey, somebody's making money! Do you want to kill Capitalism?

Don't worry. They pay SciTechDude to defend their interests.
JX are you one of them as well?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.