Search Results for: microplastics
Microplastics-NOAA-GreatLakes4
Microplastics-NOAA-GreatLakes
Microplastics-NOAA-GreatLakes2
Microplastics-NOAA-GreatLakes3
More Progress Needed on Attacking the Threat of Microplastics in the Great Lakes

Photos courtesy of NOAA
By David Long
A January 2021 story by the Capital News Service headlined “Microplastics threaten Great Lakes, and not just the water” was one of the first I have seen recently about the threat of microplastics to our precious fresh waters. However, microplastics have been reported in the Great Lakes for more than 15 years.
Researchers started to get interested in microplastics around 2012, but outside the scientific community, microplastic pollution in the Great Lakes hasn’t gained much interest. How much has been done to reduce microplastics? How much has been done to make the general public aware of this serious and growing threat?
In 2016, there was official acknowledgement that plastic debris and microplastics were becoming an environmental and, potentially, a health hazard in the Great Lakes basin. In September 2016, the International Joint Commission (IJC) published a workshop report with 10 recommendations on microplastics in the Great Lakes. The report’s problem statement underscored the seriousness of the issue: “Microplastics come from many sources that are part of our everyday lives and are present in the Great Lakes. These microplastics may cause a range of adverse environmental and human impacts which we are only beginning to understand.”
Neither the IJC nor others have taken significant action on the report’s recommendations. This is not surprising, since many of the recommendations are extremely difficult and expensive to implement. Some recommendations would take millions of dollars even to launch. But we cannot afford to hesitate. Here are some of the workshop recommendations and my status report on each.
IJC Recommendation: Communicate results of research to share information with the public of all ages and decision makers, through the development of Great Lakes-focused educational materials.
Progress: Few K-12 educational materials have been developed on microplastics. There is still very little general public awareness of microplastics issues. Broad communication about microplastics problems and solutions is not happening. Numerous universities around the Great Lakes have been conducting research on microplastics, but results have largely been communicated only within the scientific community. Many environmental organizations have organized beach cleanups annually, although these are generally not targeted towards microplastics.
IJC Recommendation: Encourage prevention of plastic marine debris through changing behavior by using education, outreach, policy and market-based instruments.
Progress: Implementing this recommendation is a daunting task because changing behavior is extremely difficult. Recycling programs have expanded but a 2019 EPA report estimates only 10% of single-use plastic is recycled. Much single-use plastic goes into landfills and the aquatic environment, ultimately becoming microplastics. Operation Clean Sweep has been operating for 25 years. Plastic item manufacturers pledge to prevent plastic pellets, flakes, or dust from entering the environment. This has been successful for manufacturers but does not address the single-use plastics end-of-life issues. Few market-based bans or fees have been enacted to reduce single-use plastics. The most successful ban is on plastic shopping bags, but it is usually a local effort, not state or national. And a Michigan law actually prohibits local governments from banning plastic shopping bags. Numerous beach communities have banned plastic straws.
There hasn’t been a state or Great Lakes regional effort to reduce single-use plastics. Great Lakes states took the lead on a phosphate detergent ban in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to a major reduction in nutrient pollution and reducing eutrophication of the Great Lakes. Could a single-use plastic ban by Great Lakes be effective?
IJC Recommendation: Assess the impacts of ecological and potential human health impacts using an ecological risk assessment framework (exposure/hazard).
Progress: Although slow, this is finally becoming one of the areas of greatest progress. In the last 5 years, universities and health organizations nationally have been researching the ecological and health impacts of microplastics. Universities around the Great Lakes region are leading the microplastics research efforts for freshwater. Recently published articles include material on microplastics in beer brewed with Great Lakes water and the quantity of microplastics found in bottled water and tap water. Recently, research has been published on impacts to various flora and fauna in aquatic environments.
We’re learning about the devastating impact of microplastics on plankton. The reproductive and digestive systems of zooplankton, near the base of the food chain, are being disrupted. Great Lakes fish are consistently found with microplastics in their tissues, circulatory, and digestive systems.
The study of human impacts from microplastics is both slower and more difficult. A December 2020 article in The Guardian reported a study by scientists in Italy who identified microplastics in the placenta of human babies. The full impact of these studies is not known, but the research is shocking. Finding microplastics in the placenta indicates there were microplastics in the bloodstream of the mothers.
It is documented that microplastics can be carriers of many pollutants. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are a large group of toxic organic pollutants that can attach to the microplastics and then can be transferred to aquatic organisms, enter the food chain and eventually enter the human body. It is very difficult to trace the pathway to humans, but we do know that concentrations of 14 organochlorine pesticides, 7 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 14 polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDEs) 4,4′-DDT and some PBDEs such as BDE 99 and BDE 209, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals like PFOS are all found in the human body.
IJC Recommendation: Compare and analyze existing programs and policies for reduction and prevention of plastic marine debris and promote those that are good models for plastics management.
Progress: In 2014, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collaboratively developed the first Great Lakes Marine Debris Action Plan, a land-based plan with 26 volunteer organizations participating. The 2018 summary document listed 53 actions in the plan. At the end of 2018, 22 actions had been acted upon. The Great Lakes Marine Debris Plan was very extensive, well-developed, and had many partners and very specific actions. The most disappointing part of the plan was the lack of industrial partners. The American Chemical Society was the only industrial partner identified. Could large industrial partners such as P&G, Unilever, Clorox, and SC Johnson have been recruited?
A new 2020 Great Lakes Marine Debris Action Plan was created by a voluntary, collaborative effort of 39 organizations from the United States and Canada to address marine debris through coordinated actions. This Action Plan encompasses work that will be undertaken in a five-year span (2020-2025). The plan will be re-evaluated and updated in a mid-year review. Again, there are few industrial partners that could make a positive impact and also help fund the plan.
IJC Recommendation: Invest in solution-based research, including innovative product development and water infrastructure improvements.
Progress: On their own, several textile manufacturers such as Nike, North Face, and Patagonia have been investing millions of dollars in research to understand the extent of the microplastics problem and how to reduce it. Also, some manufacturers such as SC Johnson, P&G, and Unilever have been working on plastic waste reduction for several years.
Very little research has been conducted on removing microplastics and microfibers from wastewater. Several universities have recently identified new methods to remove or degrade microplastics in wastewater. It will take billions of dollars for research to develop effective methods to remove or degrade the microplastics in the aquatic environment. This research needs to focus on the entire aquatic environment, both fresh and saltwater.
IJC Recommendation: Develop and/or adopt standardized sampling and analytical methods for microplastics. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed sampling and analytical protocols for microplastic particles in the size range of 0.333–5 mm that can be encouraged to be used in microplastics sampling and research. There is also a need to develop/utilize sampling and analytical methods able to measure plastic particles at sizes smaller than 0.333 mm.
Progress: Many universities and institutions have been developing analytical methods for sampling open water, drinking water, wastewater, and even beer. An excellent review of method by Joana Correia Prata, et.al, is in Methods for sampling and detection of microplastics in water and sediment: A critical review, found in the peer-reviewed journal Trends in Analytical Chemistry, which describes a method for measuring the microfibers from washing machine water. There has been great progress on methods, but little effort to collaboratively agree on standard methods. A review of Standard Methods of Water and Wastewater Analysis indicates standard microplastic methods have not been adopted by the three sponsoring organizations.
Communities, the media, and K-12 schools have been slow to recognize the serious issue of microplastics in the Great Lakes. Microplastics in the oceans are much more widely acknowledged; globally, more research is being done on marine environments.
What Can We Do to Make the General Public Aware of Microplastic Issues in the Great Lakes?
Can we convince plastic manufacturers and manufacturers of single-use plastic items to join the effort to educate and take responsibility for the items they manufacture so they don’t go into the environment? Will it take legislation on the federal or state level to have enough impact to reduce the volume of microplastic entering the Great Lakes? How do we influence Great Lakes States legislators to pass legislation to control the Microplastics waste entering the Great Lakes? How do we start to repair the harm that has been done to the Great Lakes and its ecosystem? These are critical questions to address if we’re to attack the microplastics problem seriously. Our Great Lakes deserve no less.
David Long is the founder of Environmental Sustainability Solutions, LLC (ESS), which provides consulting services for environmental sustainability.
Microplastics Invading the Food Chain

Photo: Possible microplastic mass in lower segment of Copepod
By David Long
The Great Lakes face many challenges. Some are well-known, such as Asian carp, but some are almost invisible, such as microplastics.
Small plastic detritus, termed “microplastics” or “microfibers,” are a widespread contaminant in aquatic ecosystems including the Great Lakes.
Research reported in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that marine microplastic debris can have a negative impact upon zooplankton function and health. It can be surmised that the zooplankton communities of the Great Lakes can also be negatively impacted by microfibers. A major concern is that since zooplankton is at the bottom of the food chain microplastics (microfibers) can cause a changes in the zooplankton community. This can harm Great Lakes fisheries.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defines microplastics as small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long that can be harmful to our aquatic life. They are created by the degradation of larger items, such as discarded single use plastic containers, effluent from wastewater treatment plants and even fallout from the air. Microplastics from wastewater treatment plants comes from discarded plastics, laundering fleece, synthetic fiber clothing, and waste from carpet cleaning. Microplastics in airborne dust can enter the water through wind and runoff from roads and other impervious surfaces.
Ingestion of microplastics by organisms, including mussels, worms, fish, and seabirds, has been widely reported, but the impact of microplastics on zooplankton remains under-researched. It is very difficult to identify microfibers in zooplankton. Microplastics are best identified using 3D bioimaging techniques to document ingestion, egestion, and adherence of microplastics.
Microplastics have been observed adhering to the external carapace and appendages of exposed zooplankton. Ingestion of microplastics can interfere with the digestive system. More research is needed to understand the impact of microplastic debris on zooplankton.
Microplastics and microfibers pollution is well documented in research from universities such as the University of Michigan, Notre Dame, The University of Chicago, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and the State University of New York, Fredonia. Researchers from these schools as well as the U.S. Geological Survey have documented the presence of microplastics and microfibers in the Great Lakes since 2013.
Researchers have seen the volume of microplastics and microfibers increase over the years. Microfibers and microplastics have been found in beer brewed with Great Lakes water and drinking water taken from the Great Lakes. It is estimated about 22 million pounds of plastics enter the Great Lakes each year. Unfortunately, there is no legislation that protects our valuable Great Lakes water from plastic pollution.
There are no known solutions for cleaning up microplastic pollution in our lakes and oceans. Plastic does not degrade, it only breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. The only solution for the future is to reduce the amount of single-use plastics and increase the percentage of plastic that is recycled. Currently only 9% of plastic in the United States is recycled. It is cheaper to make virgin plastic from oil than to recycle plastic. Until the economics change, the industry will continue to make virgin plastic from oil and the recycle rate for plastics will remain low.
David Long is the founder of Environmental Sustainability Solutions, LLC (ESS) that provides consulting services for environmental, sustainability.
The Geography of Hope Is Anchored in Our Precious Great Lakes

Photo of Maude Barlow by Michelle Valberg.
As the 53rd Earth Day approaches, it is difficult for some to look optimistically to the future. Accelerating climate change, microplastics fouling oceans and the Great Lakes, our stubborn reliance on fossil fuels, and a governance system resistant to the holistic environmental reforms we need are only a few of our worries.
But hope is more critical than ever—and two famous environmental leaders are sources of optimism.
In his 1960 Wilderness Letter, conservationist and author Wallace Stegner famously coined the phrase “geography of hope,” referring to the impulse that led Americans to the wilderness idea.
Now, in 2022, comes another prophet of hope, Maude Barlow. A lifelong and world-renowned champion of water, Maude has authored a book built on her career of activism. Its title, appropriately, is Still Hopeful: Lessons from a Lifetime of Activism.
“Hope often defies logic and gives us the strength to continue when all the ‘facts’ tell us things are hopeless,” Maude writes. “Hope helps us to put one foot in front of the other when despair would tell us not to move.” If, after decades of advocacy, Maude can remain hopeful, surely we who have not carried such burdens can do so also.
In the book, Maude tells stories of her work on many issues, perhaps most importantly her successful advocacy of water as a human right. Resisted by many governments, this idea faced enormous challenges, but in July of 2010, the work of Maude and allies resulted in a declaration of the human right to water by the United Nations General Assembly. The vote was 122 nations in favor, with 41 abstentions—no nation voted against the resolution.
“Hope often defies logic and gives us the strength to continue when all the ‘facts’ tell us things are hopeless,” Maude writes. “Hope helps us to put one foot in front of the other when despair would tell us not to move.” If, after decades of advocacy, Maude can remain hopeful, surely we who have not carried such burdens can do so also.
Save the Date: FLOW will host a livestream book event featuring Maude Barlow on Wednesday, June 15, from 6 to 7 p.m. Eastern. Registration information coming soon.
In this part of the world, our geography of hope is anchored in the Great Lakes. Despite centuries of neglect and abuse since European settlement began, these lakes remain majestic, a source of inspiration and wonder. We can do better for them, and I know we (FLOW and you) will do so.
We can’t afford to lose hope. Many reasons for hope persist. On Earth Day 2022, let’s make a vow of hope, and remain undaunted by the challenges we face.
Governor Whitmer Has Opportunity to Lead on the Environment

Photo: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Nov. 9, 2021, joined by Benton Harbor Mayor Marcus Muhammad and construction workers, visited the Benton Harbor site where the first lead service lines were being replaced after her expedited commitment to replace 100% of those lines in the city in 18 months.
As she begins her fourth year in office, Governor Whitmer has an opportunity to build on past environmental successes and set the tone for an historic year of accomplishment. Thanks to significant federal COVID-relief aid and a state economy performing better than forecast, Michigan has a rare abundance of funding to attack the state’s multibillion-dollar backlog of sewer, storm, and drinking water infrastructure needs and attend to other urgent environmental needs. Here are a few ways she can strengthen public health protections and restore our environment.
Declare “The Year of Water”: Setting the stage for an unprecedented year of action on water, the governor should declare 2022 “The Year of Water” for state government. The agenda for the Year of Water approach should be governed by two core principles:
(1) all Michiganders have a paramount fundamental public interest and right to safe, clean, and affordable water under Art. 4, Section 51 and 52 of the State Constitution; and
(2) Michiganders should expect their government to uphold its solemn public trust duty to protect state waters.
Create a “Clean Water Trust Fund”: A one-time investment in sewage and drinking water systems is not enough to assure clean, safe, affordable, and accountability when it comes to the rights of citizens to Michigan’s public water. A Clean Water Trust Fund, established by statute or state constitutional amendment, would provide a long-term answer for cities and rural communities. Modeled in part after Michigan’s constitutionally protected Natural Resources Trust Fund, which dedicates a portion of state oil and gas revenue to the purchase of recreational and ecologically important land for the public, a Clean Water Trust Fund would be one of the first of its kind in the nation.
End Water service shutoffs: The pandemic has underscored the danger to human health of cutting off water service to households unable to pay their bills. Water is essential to personal health, sanitation, and dignity. Governor Whitmer took action to assure water service to thousands of households early in the pandemic. This policy should be made permanent, with funding and the trust fund oversight required to back it up.
Remove all lead service lines and lead household connections in drinking water systems: The crises in Flint and Benton Harbor have made it clear that lead in drinking water is a major public health risk, especially to our most vulnerable Michiganders—children. The governor should set a goal of replacing all lead service lines and household connections statewide within the next five years.
Aggressively tackle threats posed by PFAS “forever chemicals”: With part of the federal relief funding, the governor should propose a three-year plan to clean up orphan PFAS contamination sites where no private polluter can be identified and should call for the legislature to restore Michigan’s polluter pay law to hold accountable those who have contaminated Michigan’s land and waters. Further, she should pledge state government leadership in promoting alternatives to PFAS in products and manufacturing and firefighting.
Developing a plan to prevent further microplastics contamination of Michigan’s waters—including the water we drink: In the United States, we ingest the equivalent of one credit card a week in plastic. Tiny breakdown particles from plastics use and disposal are an environmental and public health risk. The governor should convene a working group to come up with solutions that take effect at the earliest possible time.
Continue to protect and sustain Michigan’s Great Lakes and water resources from the effects of climate change: The governor launched an integrative approach to the Great Lakes, water resources, environment and energy in MI Healthy Climate Plan. To address the devastating effects of climate change, the state must accelerate and lead this effort by building resilient green infrastructure, identifying and improving protection of floodplains and wetlands, and promoting renewable and efficient energy and services, such as net-zero carbon buildings.
The year 2022 is a chance for the governor to secure her Great Lakes, environmental, energy, and climate legacy, and to make the Year of Water a turning point for the better in Michigan’s history.