Microplastics – recycling isn’t enough
A closed raw materials loop would save resources and energy and prevent plastic waste in nature. However, it is not that simple; we are still far away from an ideal solution. Thomas Büsse from the Fraunhofer IAP in Schwarzheide advocates a pragmatic solution.
Interview with Thomas Büsse, Fraunhofer IAP
Mr Büsse, you would like to deal with the two issues of recycling and microplastics in our environment separately. Why?
Thematically they cannot be grouped together—the phenomena do not really have a lot to do with each other. For instance, take a look at the German recycling system: most of the plastic waste is collected. This system works very well. However, the real difficulties arise elsewhere: How can the composite materials and the many other different materials in the rubbish be separated properly? This is a prerequisite for obtaining high-quality recycled products that can themselves be utilised again. The problem with microplastics, i.e. tiny plastic particles that accumulate in nature, is not connected to the recycling process.
Does this mean that microplastics are being created whenever the collection system fails?
This is partly true. But there is no need to speak of “failure”: some plastic products simply have short useful lives and some of them might be impossible to collect. Just take thin films that are used in agriculture as an example; or plastic bags that are blown away by the wind; or disposable drinking cups that are often handed out during festivals or marathons and that ultimately might end up in the hedge or in the water. Most of the plastics we use today decompose only after hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Once they end up in the environment, the forces of nature break them down over time into minuscule particles. Furthermore, large quantities of particles are created through abrasion or wear, which cannot be prevented at present due to the way certain products are used. And on top of that we have textile fibres. Microplastics can now also be found in human food, which means that they end up on our plates. And since considerable amounts of non-degradable plastics are generated every day, we are seeing more and more of it. This means that waste has been accumulating in the environment more or less since the middle of the last century.
How can this problem be solved?
An obvious solution would be to ban certain plastic products. But how could we possibly enforce such a regulation across the board? We should not ignore that plastics are not inherently bad. Most plastic products have a purpose, their properties make them valuable—they reliably protect food and other goods, they save energy due to their low weight etc. Increasing the prices of plastic products with a short useful life would also be an option; this is an area in which politicians need to take action.
So what can research do?
My suggestion is to increasingly produce more products out of materials that degrade much faster in nature than conventional plastics. Such products already exist today. If a disposable cup decomposes after two years and not after hundreds of years, at least the amount of plastic in the environment will no longer increase.
Why don’t we start immediately?
We already have good solutions in place for degradable plastics. Many products can indeed already be replaced. When it comes to other products, it is difficult to achieve the same properties that their conventional counterparts have, i.e. durability, a light weight, transparency or elasticity. This is where research must step in: it must find alternatives to plastics that exacerbate our problem with waste in the environment on a daily basis due to the fact that they are not part of the recycling loop, however well designed the loop may be. An improvement of the degradability of plastics that goes beyond what is already possible today should be the urgent goal of our increased research efforts. This would be a pragmatic and logical solution to this pressing problem humanity is facing.