We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Physical and chemical impacts of conventional plastic versus biodegradable glitters on freshwater primary producers
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers compared the effects of conventional PET glitter and two types of biodegradable glitter on algae, separating the physical presence of the particles from the chemical effects of what leaches into the water. While conventional plastic glitter caused physical harm, both types of glitter released leachates that affected algal physiology. The study shows that replacing traditional microplastics with biodegradable alternatives does not necessarily eliminate all environmental risks.
Primary microplastics, such as glitter, are being replaced with natural and/or biodegradable alternatives. When microplastics enter the environment, their physical presence and chemical leachate may alter the physiology of primary producers. Three experiments were set up to separate chemical and physical effects of different types of glitter: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), biodegradable modified regenerated cellulose (MRC) and synthetic mica, as well as a natural particle control (kaolinite) on the growth and physiology of Lemna minor (common duckweed) and freshwater microalga Chlorella vulgaris. Plants and algae were exposed to either fresh (chemical and physical effects), leachate from glitter (chemical) or aged glitter (physical). Overall, there was little impact of PET, synthetic mica or kaolinite. High concentrations of fresh MRC glitters, however, decreased root length, biomass and chlorophyll content of L. minor and decreased the growth of C. vulgaris. Some of these effects were also present when exposed to leachate from MRC glitters, but were less pronounced. Aged glitters of any type elicited almost no response in L. minor. Elemental analysis revealed high concentrations of metals in MRC glitter which may explain these responses. Short-term impacts of biodegradable glitters can arise due to a combination of their physical and chemical properties, but may lessen over time as their surface coating leaches. Understanding the impacts of primary microplastics labelled as biodegradable and environmentally safe is important in the context of current microplastics legislation especially regarding derogations for biodegradable microplastics. Also see: https://micro2022.sciencesconf.org/427308/document
More Papers Like This
All that glitters is litter? Ecological impacts of conventional versus biodegradable glitter in a freshwater habitat.
AI summary Read the abstract
A mesocosm experiment compared the effects of conventional PET glitter versus biodegradable alternatives (including modified cellulose and mica) on freshwater ecosystems, finding no significant effect on biodiversity but a reduction in algae photosynthesis from conventional glitter. The results suggest biodegradable glitter alternatives may be less harmful, though the effects of both types at higher concentrations or over longer periods remain unclear.
Physical and chemical effects of conventional microplastic glitter versus alternative glitter particles on a freshwater plant (Lemnaceae: Lemna minor)
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers compared the physical and chemical effects of conventional plastic glitter versus alternative biodegradable glitter on the freshwater plant Lemna minor, finding that both types can alter plant physiology through their physical presence and chemical leachates.
Stealth microplastics pollutants: Toxicological evaluation of polyethylene terephthalate-based glitters on the microalga Desmodesmus sp. and its color effect
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers found that PET-based glitter microplastics and their chemical leachates are toxic to the microalga Desmodesmus, with toxicity varying by glitter color, highlighting glitter as an overlooked source of primary microplastic pollution.
Ecotoxicological Assessment of “Glitter” Leachates in Aquatic Ecosystems: An Integrated Approach
AI summary Read the abstract
Leachates from nine types of commercial glitter were tested for toxicity in freshwater and saltwater model organisms across three soak periods up to 180 days. Photosynthesizing primary producers were most sensitive to glitter leachates, with some formulations causing significant growth inhibition, raising ecotoxicological concerns about this largely overlooked microplastic category.
Tiny, shiny, and colorful microplastics: Are regular glitters a significant source of microplastics?
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers examined whether conventional glitter products made from polyethylene terephthalate represent a significant source of microplastic pollution, finding that their widespread use in cosmetics, crafts, and textiles makes them a notable but underexamined contributor to environmental microplastic contamination.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.