Project

Two distinct polymers, Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) and Polyester, have been selected to be investigated in PLASTACTS. The rationale behind these choices is grounded in their significance as abundant sources of microplastics in the environment, each with distinct properties contributing to their environmental impact.

EPS, a foam plastic material, is frequently discovered in the marine environment. EPS enters the environment through various pathways, including transportation, storage, cutting of construction material, escape from landfills, and littering. It contributes significantly to marine litter due to its lightness, low density, and readiness to fragment. EPS disperses widely and quickly, making it challenging to retrieve, especially during beach cleanups. Its impact on the marine environment occurs through rivers, stormwater, wastewater treatment plants, direct littering, and structural damage at sea. The unique properties of EPS, such as small fragments being easily carried by the wind and adhering to surfaces when wet, add to the complexity of addressing this environmental concern [1]. In addition, EPS is a non-biodegradable polymer and takes hundreds of years to decompose in the environment, leading to a persistent microplastic pollution [2].

EPS contamination is extremely widespread and microplastics have been isolated from several matrices, including marine water, freshwater, beaches. On average, 23.0% and 17.2% of plastics on beaches and in marine surface waters are composed of EPS, respectively [3]. A sampling campaign of the Po River identified as EPS more than 30% of all microplastics collected, mostly in the shape of foam, granules and fragments [3]. High level of EPS microplastic abundance was found on island beaches and a huge microplastics contamination with heavy metals were detected, suggesting the propensity of EPS microplastics to adsorb and concentrate environmental pollutants, acting as a vehicle of contamination for living organisms [4].

This prevalence is indicative of a broader issue, as the demand for and extensive use of EPS on land and at sea has led to a significant waste problem. European data from 2016/2017 highlights the magnitude, revealing that approximately 530,000 tonnes of EPS waste were generated from construction and packaging. Despite this, the recycling rate for EPS stands at 27%, with the predominant disposal method being incineration [1].

Moreover, EPS hold an intrinsic higher potential toxicity with respect to polystyrene, due to its synthesis procedure, which involves treating polystyrene with air and hazardous toxic chemical additives like benzene derivatives [5]. Probably correlated with the presence and leaching of these toxic chemicals, EPS microplastics showed higher level of cytotoxicity, with respect to polystyrene microplastics, in the coelomocytes of Astropecten indicus, a common seastar [6].

Polyester, a synthetic polymer, significantly contributes to the pervasive issue of microfiber pollution. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced during the use and washing of textiles made from polyester [7]. Hundreds of milligrams of microfibers per kg of polyester textiles are release due to laundering, according to recent studies [8,9] The abundance of polyester-derived microfibers extends across a range of environmental matrices, encompassing freshwater bodies, marine ecosystems, and to a lesser extent terrestrial environment [10,11]. These microfibers, due to their synthetic nature, exhibit a persistent quality, resisting breakdown and contributing to prolonged environmental impact. The durable and resilient nature of polyester microfibers amplifies their presence in various ecosystems, adding complexity to the challenges associated with mitigating their environmental effects [12].

The combination of EPS and Polyester represents a comprehensive approach to understanding the diverse sources of microplastics in the environment, addressing both fragmentation and fiber release. Both EPS and Polyester are prevalent in different environmental matrices, making their study crucial for a holistic understanding of microplastic pollution. The non-biodegradable nature of EPS and the resistance of Polyester to breakdown contribute to the persistent presence of these polymers in the environment, amplifying their impact.

References:

[1] Turner, A. (2020). Environmental Science & Technology, 54(17), 10411-10420.

[2] https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/expanded-polystyrene-is-a-waste-nightmare-but-could-non-eps-seafood-packaging-reduce-ocean-pollution/ 

[3] Hamsun H.S. Chan, Christelle Not. Environmental Advances 11, 100342, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100342

[3] Fiore, L., Serranti, S., Mazziotti, C. et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 48588–48606 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18501-x

[4] Xie, Q., Li, HX., Lin, L. et al. Ecotoxicology 30, 1632–1643 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02329-7

[5] Thaysen Clara, Stevack Kathleen, Ruffolo Ralph, et al. Frontiers in Marine Science 5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00071

[6] Abhinandan Barua, Arunodaya Gautam, Soumalya Mukherjee, et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters 2, 100031 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2021.100031

[7] Šaravanja A, Pušić T, Dekanić T. Materials (Basel) 15(7), 2683 (2022). doi: 10.3390/ma15072683

[8] De Falco F, Cocca M, Avella A, Thompson R.C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 54(6), 3288–3296 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06892

[9] Sillanpää, M., Sainio, P. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24, 19313–19321 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9621-1

[10] Gavigan J, Kefela T, Macadam-Somer I, et al. PLOS ONE 15(9), e0237839 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237839

[11] Catherine Stone, Fredric M. Windsor, et al. Science of The Total Environment 718, 134689 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134689

[12] Iroegbu A.O.C., Ray S.S., Mbarane V., et al. ACS Omega, 6(30), 19343-19355 (2021). doi:10.1021/acsomega.1c02760.