The group think around here is so crazy. Should we be using less single use plastic, especially the thin films? Absolutely. But the environmental impacts of mining all that metal and making all that glass to replace plastic with, plus the added energy for transporting the heavier packages and the cost of increased spoilage and product lost to dented cans and broken bottles, dwarfs the negative impact of the plastic replacements.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Also, I haven’t seen enough research on where environmental plastic comes from. While they’re are some benefits to just using less plastics, less packaging where we can, it would be much better to focus on the larger sources

Realistically what I’ve seen for larger sources of microplastics is:

industrial waste
tire dust
clothing

I already have a lint trap on my washer outlet and see there are a few filters meant to trap much of the manmade fibers that come off in the wash, to dispose of in the trash rather than back into the environment with treated wastewater. I have no idea whether that would actually be helpful but the filters aren’t that expensive, and it’s one of the few options under my control.

Increased standards on industrial waste cleanup are always a good idea. However a lot of this may be in undeveloped countries

If laundry is a significant source of micro plastics in the environment, we need to figure that out and add filters or something

We really really need to figure out something with tire dust, since it will continue to get worse as more people can afford personal transportation. I did read one article about filtering runoff near roads making a big difference but it was light on details and I’ve only seen something like that once

[–] yacht_boy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I actually work in the wastewater industry and from what I'm reading, a properly functioning sewage treatment plant already captures a very high proportion of microplastics. This widely cited study noted above 98% removal efficiency at one plant.

We're already at approaching 2 log (99%) removal without actually trying to. It doesn't seem improbable to me that with a few relatively modest tweaks to the system we could get 3 log removal (99.9%). Getting to 4 or 5 log removal is likely where things will get really expensive and challenging. But for now, a 2-3 log removal is probably good enough to focus on other sources like tire fragments/dust that typically pass directly to receiving waters with no treatment at all.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Good to know, thanks. While I don’t know how my system does with this , the treatment facility is new-ish and was supposed to be state of the art.

But then we’re back to needing to know more about the sources of environmental microplastics, then figure out how to cut them