Education | Trash Hero World

It’s snowing plastic in the Alps

by Martyna Morawska on 16/02/2022 No comments

In a new study, Empa researcher Dominik Brunner, together with colleagues from the Utrecht University and the Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics, investigated the amount of plastic present in precipitation over the period of a month.

According to the study, nanoplastics can spread aerially over a 2,000-kilometre radius resulting in around 43 trillion tiny plastic particles ending up in Switzerland every year. This could equate to 3,000 tons of nanoplastics annually, ranging from the remote Alps to the urban lowlands. “These estimates are very high relative to other studies, and more research is needed to validate them”, according to Empa. Nonetheless, the results of Brunner’s work are the most accurate assessment of nanoplastic air pollution ever made.

To count the plastic particles, Brunner and his colleagues developed a method that determines the level of contamination in collected samples. The scientists examined a small area at an altitude of 3,106 metres at the top of the Hoher Sonnenblick mountain in the Austrian Hohe Tauern National Park. Every day and in all weather conditions, they removed part of the top layer of snow at 8am and carefully stored it to check for plastic residue.

The origin of the tiny particles was traced using European wind and weather data. It was established that the largest emission of nanoplastics into the air happens in densely populated, urban areas. About 30 percent of the measured nanoplastic particles on the mountaintop came from a radius of 200 kilometres, mostly from cities, while around ten percent of the particles were blown in from more than 2,000 kilometres away, partly from the Atlantic.

It is estimated that more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced worldwide, around 60 percent of which has ended up either in a landfill or the natural environment. This plastic is eroded by weather effects and abrasion into micro (less than five millimetres in diameter) and nanoparticles (less than 100 nm in diameter). Due to their size, their movement in air can be best compared to gas. This means they are easily inhaled into our lungs, as well as ingested through contaminated food and water sources. Once in the body, their size allows them to potentially cross the cell-blood barrier and thus enter the bloodstream. The health implications of this are only beginning to be studied.

The triple threat of single-use masks

by Seema on 04/08/2021 No comments

One of the main – and most effective – measures to control the spread of COVID-19 is the use of face masks. Placed over the nose and mouth, their function is to contain respiratory droplets which transmit the virus and stop them spreading to other people. There are various grades of mask, but it is widely accepted that outside of a clinical situation, fabric, non-medical masks provide an acceptable level of protection – single-use, surgical masks are not necessary.

Yet globally we are using an estimated 129 billion single-use masks every month. Assuming each of these weighs 4 grams, that’s 516,000 metric tons of unrecyclable, hazardous waste generated every 30 or so days. If only 1% of this ends up as litter (a conservative estimate), that means 23 billion masks have entered our rivers, oceans and forests in the 18 months since the pandemic began. And of course, there are hundreds of thousands of tons of additional contaminated waste for municipalities to handle, assuming they have the capacity to do so.

These are frightening statistics – and ones that are borne out by our experience doing cleanups all over the world in 2020 and 2021. Trash Hero chapters pick up single-use masks and other PPE every week – and their findings have been covered in the media. This month, we put in place a system to record the number of masks we find at the network level, in order to raise awareness about what we see as the triple threat of single-use masks.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Trash Hero World (@trashheroworld)

Research has shown that single-use masks not only have devastating impacts on the environment, but also on society and on our health.

WHERE DO THEY GO?
Single-use masks are made from plastic, usually polypropylene or polyurethane, and are considered unrecyclable. But they should not be disposed of loose in the general waste, due to the risk of contamination. According to the World Health Organisation, they need to be double bagged in yet more plastic.

Cities and local communities have had to deal with the outcomes: the health risk from incorrect disposal as well as a huge burden of non-recyclable waste – if a waste management infrastructure even exists, which is not the case in much of the Global South.

Face masks used in a clinical setting are handled by special waste management facilities that deal with medical waste – usually through incineration. It is unusual for separate PPE collection facilities to exist for the general public, but if they do, it means rates of unsustainable and toxic incineration have increased proportionally.

HEALTH RISKS
A recent study has shown that tiny microplastics are shed from single-use masks both during and after use. Aside from the wearer inhaling these microplastics at close range (with unknown impacts on their health), contaminated nano-particles are being released into the surroundings. Once airborne, these particles can be carried up to 95km away from the source.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus (responsible for COVID-19) is able to survive much longer on the surface of plastic (around 3 days) than in respiratory droplets (around 3 hours). This means that single-use mask fibres are a transmission vector for the virus, extending its reach over longer times and distances. According to the report’s authors, “the transmission route through airborne microplastics is expected to influence, not only individual countries, but also larger regions and the whole world.”

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Finally the impact on the natural environment from single-use masks is much the same as any other plastic. Wherever they end up, on land or in the ocean, they can entangle wildlife and cause poisoning through ingestion (that is carried up the food chain). Their slow demise into microplastics happens over centuries, all the while leaching toxic chemicals into the water or soil.

ALL OF THIS IS AVOIDABLE!.
When not in a clinical environment, or not clinically vulnerable, switch to a reusable mask: wear, wash and repeat. If made from multi-layered thick cotton, a reusable mask can be used safely for years and has minimal impact on the environment, especially if made from material you already have.

Staying on track: our tool to separate real and false solutions to the plastic crisis

by Seema on 12/07/2021 1 comment

As Trash Heroes, we come across many ideas on how to “solve” plastic pollution. Every week some new technology or product is heralded by the media as the way out of the plastic crisis. And our inboxes are filled with companies requesting to work with us or promote their latest “sustainable initiative”.

It can get confusing, especially with the marketing hype that often surrounds these innovations. Plant plastic! Chemical recycling! Clothes from plastic bottles! Plastic as fuel! Plastic offset! There are, of course, many others.

To understand which measures will really work in the long term, it’s important to look at the bigger picture and put them in the context of a zero waste model. And that’s exactly what we have been doing in the second round of our Zero Waste Communities volunteer training, which ran from May – June 2021 in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The four-part series – again held with the support and expertise of GAIA Asia-Pacific, Let’s Do It Foundation, YPBB Bandung and Zero Waste Europe – looked at the topics of waste separation, greenwashing and the dos and don’ts of recycling at the systemic level. We also started to explore waste as a complex or “wicked” problem, with participants going on to map the issues where they live. With this know-how they will better be able to assess – and eventually address – the waste situation in their local area.

As part of the course content, we created a tool to help anyone evaluate a proposed waste management solution and decide whether or not it was worth pursuing (click on the images above to see it in detail).

Participants used it to assess some popular ideas – and were surprised to discover that most failed the test. Although the conclusions may be uncomfortable, the tool allows people to understand the reasons why these are so-called false solutions. In essence, they do not reduce or prevent waste. They merely offer a delayed or alternative means of disposal, or a different material to throw away. They distract from the problem with quick fixes, rather than deeper, structural change.

In the live sessions, we also learned what would pass the test and be considered a real solution – and that these are often very simple ideas that do not get the same media coverage. It’s part of our mission at Trash Hero to make sure these real solutions are more widely known and adopted.

We’ll publish the full course in four languages on social media and here on this site over the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are sharing the PDF version of the tool here in different languages for anyone to use. We’d love to hear how you get on – ping us @trashheroworld. Please do read the notes before you attempt any assessment, and remember this is only a guide!

False Solutions Tool – English
Petunjuk Solusi Palsu – Bahasa Indonesia
เครื่องมือประเมินแผนการปลอดขยะ – ภาษาไทย

Our thanks to Dr. Enzo Favoino from Zero Waste Europe, Kadri Kalle from Let’s Do It Foundation, Miko Aliño from GAIA Asia-Pacific and Dr. Nattapong Nithi-Uthai of Trash Hero Pattani, whose input in shaping the final version of the tool was invaluable.

The Story of Plastic

by Seema on 22/04/2021 No comments

To celebrate Earth Day, we are sharing this great animated short from The Story of Stuff Project. It is a companion to the feature length documentary, “The Story of Plastic”, released last year.

It shows how litter on beaches and straws in turtles’ noses are just a tiny visible part of the problem with plastic. Discover the rest of the story here – and then check out how you can watch the full documentary.

Carbon footprint of reusable Trash Hero Bottles found to be 95% less than single-use plastic bottles

by Seema on 07/12/2020 1 comment

We all know that switching to reusables instead of single-use for everyday items like cutlery, food packaging and water bottles avoids a lot of plastic. Reducing waste and pollution is usually the main motivation for people who choose to reuse.

In addition to this, a recent study has also quantified the climate positive impact of the Trash Hero reusable bottle, by avoiding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with single-use plastic, as well as the money saved in the long term.

In 2019, René Mettler, a masters student at ETH Zürich, carried out research into the cost-efficiency of reusables vs. single-use systems of delivery. In one of the case studies, he compared the carbon footprint of consuming single-use plastic bottles of drinking water with refilling a Trash Hero stainless steel bottle with the equivalent amount of water at a hotel in Thailand. It was shown that the reusable system not only avoided plastic waste, but also reduced costs and greenhouse gas emissions. [René Mettler (2019). How to tackle the plastic crisis – a project-based cost efficiency assessment.]

How this was worked out
The study looked at the full life cycle of the two types of packaging systems only, not the water used to fill them. “Full life cycle” means: extraction of materials, production, use, disposal and any recovery of materials.

300 “usage cycles” were measured for each option, i.e. 300 single-use plastic bottles vs. 300 refills of the Trash Hero bottle.

The calculations were made using the following key assumptions:

Plastic bottles come in a standard weight and size (600ml, made up of 17.4g mixed plastics).
A fixed amount of water, heated to 60°C, is used for cleaning the reusable bottles and the 20 litre reusable drinking water tanks used to fill them. Note: the study was conducted in Thailand where it is not possible to drink water from the tap.
Emissions from transport are neglected as they are expected to occur within both systems on a comparable level and to be relatively small overall.
All plastic bottles get recycled at the end of their life.

This last is a very generous assumption, given that global recycling rates for PET bottles are around 25% and far less in many countries. It means that the figures used are very conservative.

A more likely scenario for ‘end of life’ is that the bottles end up either in landfill, burned openly or in an incinerator to “recover energy”, or discarded on land or in water (the bottles pictured, left, were collected at a single Trash Hero beach cleanup in Koh Lanta, Thailand).

However, it was decided not to include these options in the calculation. The range of factors that determine any waste management scenario is very wide and much depends on the local context. Singling out any one could lead to the relevancy of the data being questioned. Instead, plastic bottles are given the fairest possible chance, with some material always being recovered.

The researcher has however confirmed that taking into consideration the more likely end-of-life alternatives would always lead to an increase in the calculated carbon footprint of plastic bottles. This is in addition to the negative health impacts caused by disposal and incineration, both of which release toxic chemicals (in the form of ash, fumes or microplastics) into the atmosphere and food chain.

Crunching the numbers
Working with the above assumptions, and rounding to the nearest gram, the study found that a single use plastic water bottle creates approximately 56g of CO₂ emissions during its short life.

Meanwhile, the Trash Hero bottle and a reusable container used to dispense drinking water together release about 909g of CO₂. But of course these bottles can be – and are – reused. Refilling a Trash Hero bottle generates only 2g of CO₂ emissions – around 28 times less than drinking from single-use plastic.

Using these numbers, we can say that after only 17 refills, the Trash Hero bottle starts to have a positive effect:

➤ 1 Trash Hero bottle + 17 refills creates: (909g) + (17 x 2g) = 943g CO₂ emissions in total
➤ 17 single-use plastic bottles create: 56g x 17 = 952g CO₂ emissions in total

So when you switch to a Trash Hero bottle and refill it 17 times, the greenhouse gas footprint is already less than that of the 17 single-use plastic bottles of drinking water you would have used instead. Any further refills result in a “saving” of CO₂ as more plastic bottles are avoided.

This net saving is equal to 56g – 2g = 54g of CO₂ every time you choose to refill rather than purchase a plastic bottle of water.

Over one year, if you refill once per day and avoid buying any plastic bottles of water, you will have reduced your CO₂ footprint by just over 19kg!

Of course, this is actually a very small percentage of your overall annual carbon footprint – try not to drive to the refill point or order a steak with your water! – but as a direct comparison between packaging systems, the Trash Hero reusable option reduces your impact by around 95% vs. single-use plastic.

The conclusion
This is the first climate impact study done on the Trash Hero bottle and our refill programme. In the particular case considered, at a hotel in Thailand supplying drinking water to its guests, the reusable delivery system had a significantly lower rate of carbon dioxide emissions (95% less) than single-use plastic bottles, with sustained use (more than 17 refills).

In terms of the overall carbon footprint of an individual, the impact of switching to reusable bottles from single-use is likely to be very low, especially factoring in other activities such as transport or diet. However in the context of packaging and delivery systems, the climate positive impact of using the Trash Hero bottle is clear. At scale, small changes such as this can become important. A report in Science Daily in 2019 notes that “emissions from plastics will reach 17% of the global carbon budget by 2050.”

We also know that switching to the Trash Hero bottle reduces plastic waste and saves you money by avoiding bottled water. So we can say for our bottle, these are the new 3 Rs:

REDUCE plastic waste
REDUCE climate impact
REDUCE costs

To work out exactly how much you could reduce, or already have, we have created two bottle impact calculators, linked to this study. The first is for individuals and the second is for hotels to work out the savings made by replacing plastic water bottles in their rooms with the reusable Trash Hero bottles. Give them a try: you may be surprised at the results!

————

René Mettler’s Master Thesis was jointly supervised by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zürich) and the sustainability solutions provider, South Pole. It analysed the cost efficiency of waste management and reusable packaging projects. One of these projects was the Trash Hero bottle programme, as implemented in a hotel in southern Thailand. The results showed that the bottle programme does not only lead to environmental benefits such as avoided plastic waste and CO2 emissions, it also saves costs. Our thanks to volunteer Caroline Schweisgut-Heimgartner for her help with interpreting the data.