Home washing machines: Source of potentially harmful ocean “microplastic” pollution

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=223&content_id=CNBP_028498&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=ccbd4075-93b0-4bbf-8e4c-ea333b130b1b

Home washing machines: Source of potentially harmful ocean “microplastic” pollution

“http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/es201811s">Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Worldwide: Sources and Sinks”

Environmental Science & Technology

Scientists are reporting that household washing machines seem to be a major source of so-called “microplastic” pollution — bits of polyester and acrylic smaller than the head of a pin — that they now have detected on ocean shorelines worldwide. Their report describing this potentially harmful material appears in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Mark Browne and colleagues explain that the accumulation of microplastic debris in marine environments has raised health and safety concerns. The bits of plastic contain potentially harmful ingredients which go into the bodies of animals and could be transferred to people who consume fish. Ingested microplastic can transfer and persist into their cells for months. How big is the problem of microplastic contamination? Where are these materials coming from? To answer those questions, the scientists looked for microplastic contamination along 18 coasts around the world and did some detective work to track down a likely source of this contamination.

They found more microplastic on shores in densely populated areas, and identified an important source — wastewater from household washing machines. They point out that more than 1,900 fibers can rinse off of a single garment during a wash cycle, and these fibers look just like the microplastic debris on shorelines. The problem, they say, is likely to intensify in the future, and the report suggests solutions: “Designers of clothing and washing machines should consider the need to reduce the release of fibers into wastewater and research is needed to develop methods for removing microplastic from sewage.”

The authors acknowledge funding from http://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/">Leverhulme Trust, http://sydney.edu.au/science/bio/eicc/about/">EICC (University of Sydney) and http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/">Hornsby Shire Council.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es201811s

[SugarShack]

1. It's a problem, switch to Seventh Generation or Purex or something more natural.

If you have a badly soiled piece of cloth, use the other to spot clean only before the wash. This really matters.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Or

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Or, wear clothing made of natural fibers

You know… wool, cotton, flax, silk…

[dipsydoodle]

6. Yes but with those you can't do this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig9rs5-hMeY

:hi:

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I actually played washboard at a friend’s sister’s wedding…

…but not nearly as fast as these guys!

[dipsydoodle]

8. That lot were very special

I didn't just find that at random - I've got the CDs and one of my pals has got their original 78's.

[stuntcat]

16. fantastic!

oh I just love that! :loveya: TY!

[reggie the dog]

10. hemp

[kestrel91316]

4. Easy solution: don't wear plastic.

[fegi052li]

17. Exactly

[Xipe Totec]

5. Wouldn't it be more accurate to blame the garments? nt

[Nihil]

9. Ah ... but that brings the blame back to the consumer rather than "someone else" ...

... and it negates the "get-out clause" of "better technology will save us".

As you so correctly point out, washing the same garments by hand
(yes Dipsy, even with a washboard!) will still release the microfibres
into the water and the dirty water will still be poured down the drain
so the plastic will still end up in the sea and hence in the organisms.

By blaming the washing machines, there is a major marketing incentive
for washing machine manufacturers, more pressure on consumers to buy
replacements before they are necessary, more "support" for the idea
that "Technology will save us! Hallelujah!" and buggerall improvement
to the actual situation.

:-(

[Xipe Totec]

11. Very astute observations!

:thumbsup:


Replace your 'antiquated' washing machine with a more eco friendly ______.

I wonder who funded the study...

[Celefin]

13. I'd recommend your post if I could!

You can't put it better than you did.

Never, ever make 'the consumer' aware of the fact he/she might have
to CHANGE habits and consume differently, less focused on low cost convenience and above all LESS. Kills our system, if you succeed.
Can't have that.

[Dover]

15. I think it is to coverup the REAL source of the problem-the petrochem. and semi-conductor industries

See my post below.

[Kolesar]

12. Dump the grey water in an onsite "leach bed", so it won't reach the rivers and ocean

One could use the wastewater to water the lawn. It may even be safe to put the grey water into a vegetable garden.

[Dover]

14. It's interesting that they are focusing on households rather than industry (petrochemical etc.)

I'd think that percentage-wise, industry would be much bigger polluters.

According to this article on 'plasticizers' in effluent, there is a broad sprectrum of sources, but their focus is
on industry:

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan-business/2011/06/18/306660/EPA-to.htm

EPA to tighten wastewater disposal rules

In an attempt to prevent the contamination of the country's underground water by toxic plasticizers, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) will announce stricter standards to regulate the disposal of wastewater by the petrochemical industry, chip makers and semiconductor manufacturers.

The new standards, still being drafted, will provide for stricter limits on the presence of ammonia, nitrogen, six volatile organic compounds, and six plasticizers — DMP, DBP, DEHP, BBP, DEP, DNOP — in the drainage systems of such plants. Even stricter control over the disposal by the chipset and semiconductor industries will be enforced, targeting toxic organic substances in general.

A total of eight plasticizers, including the six mentioned above as well as DIDP and DINP, were reclassified as Class I and Class II toxins in early June, but DIDP and DINP are not incorporated in the new standards that will soon be announced because their use is quite limited in the country.

The other chemicals are not covered by current standards because the substances can dissipate on their own and sewage processing plants can eliminate 90 percent of the plasticizers. However, the EPA has decided to incorporate these chemicals and the six plasticizers into the new standards anyway.

..//..

According to other EPA officials, plasticizers have been detected in the mud at river basins, and their sources could be either industrial wastewater or wastewater from ordinary households. Illegal disposal of waste and illegal garbage dumping can also be blamed, the officials added...cont'd

====================================

I'm assuming that "micro-plastics" (so named in the OP article) and "plasticizers" named in the article I'm posting here, are one in
the same.