Most discussions about plastic pollution state that the problem is that plastic never breaks down. A new study overturns that assumption and argues that the problem is that this is always the case, at least to some degree.
In this study, the researchers introduce the concept of “plastic particle footprint.” This is a mass of plastic micro- and nanoparticles that ends up entering the environment when certain items disintegrate. There is growing evidence that these plastic particles pose a risk to human and environmental health, but until now there has been no way to incorporate these concerns into standard research methods.
The researchers apply their concept to four everyday manufactured objects, demonstrating how the footprint of plastic particles can fundamentally change consumers’ understanding of the sustainability of different choices. “Carbon footprint is only part of the story,” says Valerie Guilard, a member of the research team and a researcher at the University of Montpellier in France.
The plastic particle footprint is the mass of unused plastic required to make a particular item, minus the amount of plastic that is molecularly destroyed at the end of that item’s life (such as by incineration or, in rare cases, by microorganisms for truly biodegradable plastics).
No one has proven that macroplastics do not break down into microplastics in the medium to long term, so we have to assume that they do, the researchers argue. In other words, in the long run, all plastics will become microplastics. “This contamination is irreversible, so a precautionary approach is required,” Gillard argues.
The researchers analyzed data from published life cycle analyzes of four common objects: kettles (one made of 30% plastic and the other 50% plastic), beverage containers (glass, plastic, or aluminum with a plastic liner), wooden boxes (wood or plastic), and T-shirts (cotton or polyester, a type of plastic).
The researchers suggest that different plastic emissions could guide consumers’ choices when the carbon footprint is equivalent, as is the case with the two kettles.
The items with the lowest carbon footprint do not necessarily have the lowest plastic footprint. A cotton t-shirt has a slightly larger carbon footprint than a polyester t-shirt, but its plastic footprint is negligible. Plastic bottles and aluminum cans require less energy to produce, so they have a smaller carbon footprint than glass bottles. However, glass bottles and aluminum cans emit fewer plastic particles. Additionally, the plastic lining inside aluminum cans can leach into the beverage and be ingested by consumers, ultimately making glass bottles look better and better.
In some cases, the trade-off may not be so clear-cut. Reusable plastic crates save 280 grams of greenhouse gas emissions compared to their wooden counterparts, but result in an additional 21 grams of plastic particle pollution. Which is worse overall? How many grams of carbon dioxide is equivalent to 1 gram of plastic pollution?
To quantitatively weigh options, future research will need to link a given mass of plastic particles to a given cost to society, such as through health effects. The timescale of impact also needs to be carefully considered. The carbon footprint of an item is often concentrated in the manufacturing and use stages, but in the case of plastic bottles and polyester clothing, more than 90% of plastic particle emissions occur after the item is disposed of. “circlee “We are building a plastic storehouse with a toxic debt that will be passed on to future generations,” Gillard said.
Source: Gillard V. Others. “A pioneering plastic particle footprint concept to address the challenges posed by plastic pollution.” scientific progress 2026.
Image: © Anthropocene Magazine. Generated by AI.
