Scientists caution against a reliance on mechanical devices to clear water bodies of plastic
Alan Williams, Senior Media and Communications Officer
An international group of scientists has cautioned against reliance on mechanical cleanup devices as a means of addressing the plastic pollution crisis.
The researchers – comprising a number of the world’s
foremost experts in plastic pollution, and including Professor
Richard Thompson OBE FRS from the University of Plymouth – say
they appreciate the clear and pressing need to tackle the millions of tons of
waste that have already accumulated in the ocean and waterways.
However, they caution that plastic removal technologies
used so far have shown varied efficiency in the amount of waste material they
are able to collect, many have not been tested at all.
In fact, some have been shown to harm quantities of
marine organisms – including fish, crustaceans and seaweeds – that far exceed
the amount of plastic captured, meaning their overall impact on the ocean is
potentially more harmful than helpful.
Writing in the journal One Earth, the
scientists say with plastic production projected to triple by 2060 the most
cost-effective and efficient way to prevent further pollution is to reduce
plastic production and consumption, and for essential applications of plastics
to design safe, sustainable products with a readily available and effective
pathway for end-of-life disposal.
They also assert that the environmental costs of leaving
plastic pollution in the ocean should be weighed against the full environmental
and economic cost of plastic removal technologies, and call for clear criteria
for such judgments to be incorporated in the United Nations Global Plastics
Treaty.
Their commentary has been published as world leaders
prepare to resume discussions on the Treaty at the third meeting of the
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution.
Previous
research by the University of Plymouth provides the first
independent evaluation of the performance of a Seabin device, which is designed
to continuously suck water inwards using a submersible pump which is then
filtered.
Hundreds have been installed globally and
are reported to have captured over 2.5 million kilograms of litter from calm
sheltered environments such as marinas, ports and yacht clubs.
The Plymouth study found that a total of
1,828 items, 0.18kg of litter, was retained by a device installed on the city’s
waterfront during 750 hours of operation between April and June 2021. This was
equivalent to 58 items a day, but the device also captured one marine organism
for every 3.6 items of litter.
In addition to the Seabin, the research
published in One Earth highlights that in recent years several
forms of cleanup devices have been developed to remove plastics from the
environment.
Sieving vehicles are a common sight on
tourist beaches, plastic trapping technologies have been deployed in harbors,
and various types of booms, watercraft vehicles, bubble curtains, or
receptacles have been positioned across rivers and estuaries.
In addition, there are innovations for the
open ocean and the seabed that use combinations of towed nets, autonomous
vessels and artificial intelligence.
However, the authors of the current paper
say that even if these technologies were to show signs of being truly
effective, they would barely scratch the surface of the global problem. Cleanup
practices could also lead to greenwashing through new schemes to offset the use
of plastics through plastic collection.
As a result, the international group is concerned that focusing too greatly on cleanup approaches will create more environmental risk, and be a distraction from the key priorities of the Plastic Treaty negotiations: plastic pollution prevention.
The full study – Bergmann et al: Moving
from symptom management to upstream plastics prevention: The fallacy of plastic
cleanup – is published in One Earth, DOI:
10.1016/j.oneear.2023.10.022.
The research was co-authored by scientists
from: Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research
(Germany); Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (Norway); University of Gothenburg, Stockholm University
(Sweden); Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Gyres Institute;
Earth Commons Institute, Georgetown University (USA); Aarhus University,
Roskilde University (Denmark); Cukurova University, Özyeğin University
(Turkey); University of Plymouth (UK); Manipal Academy of Higher Education
(India); Massey University (New Zealand).