Concerned about microplastics? Research shows one of the biggest sources is car tyres
A lot of the emphasis on reducing microplastics has focussed on things like plastic bags, clothing, and food packaging.
But there’s a growing body of research that shows one of the biggest culprits by far is car tyres.
It’s increasingly clear that we simply cannot solve the issue of microplastics in the environment while still using tyres — even with electric-powered cars.
"Tyre wear stands out as a major source of microplastic pollution. Globally, each person is responsible for around 1kg of microplastic pollution from tyre wear released into the environment on average each year – with even higher rates observed in developed nations.
"It is estimated that between 8% and 40% of these particles find their way into surface waters such as the sea, rivers and lakes through runoff from road surfaces, wastewater discharge or even through airborne transport.
“However, tyre wear microplastics have been largely overlooked as a microplastic pollutant. Their dark colour makes them difficult to detect, so these particles can’t be identified using the traditional spectroscopy methods used to identify other more colourful plastic polymers.”
"Microplastic pollution has polluted the entire planet, from Arctic snow and Alpine soils to the deepest oceans. The particles can harbour toxic chemicals and harmful microbes and are known to harm some marine creatures. People are also known to consume them via food and water, and to breathe them, But the impact on human health is not yet known.
““Roads are a very significant source of microplastics to remote areas, including the oceans,” said Andreas Stohl, from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, who led the research. He said an average tyre loses 4kg during its lifetime. “It’s such a huge amount of plastic compared to, say, clothes,” whose fibres are commonly found in rivers, Stohl said. “You will not lose kilograms of plastic from your clothing.””
“Microplastics are of increasing concern in the environment [1, 2]. Tire wear is estimated to be one of the largest sources of microplastics entering the aquatic environment [3,4,5,6,7]. The mechanical abrasion of car tires by the road surface forms tire wear particles (TWP) [8] and/or tire and road wear particles (TRWP), consisting of a complex mixture of rubber, with both embedded asphalt and minerals from the pavement [9].”
https://microplastics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43591-021-00008-w
#car #cars #urbanism #UrbanPlanning #FuckCars @fuck_cars #environment #microplastics #pollution #plastics
You quoted the introduction, not even their conclusions. That’s not how scientific papers work.
Your post amounts to mostly baseless fear mongering while ignoring the real data you actually link to:
(TWP = tire wear microplastic particles)
I interpret that as there are clear signs of it being an issue but further research is required to actually find out how big the issue actually is.
I tried to read the paper for more details but I’m not very well versed in risk assessment of substances, so I barely understood it.
I don’t see what’s wrong with quoting the introduction. Generaly, literature reviews are more reliable than a single study, and the introduction is a mini literature review.
I guess if op was writing a scientific paper, they ought to cite the original research to give credit to the right people. And maybe it would be better to cite a proper review article in a Lemmy post, but I think what op did was fine.
Because the motivation is mostly a formality, not the actual contents of the paper.
I’d generally agree but not if the paper they’re citing adds new information that (at least partially) invalidates/updates the literature.
If I wrote a paper that said in its introduction “It is generally believed that x is the cause for y. So and so have found weak evidence in [42] and someone else similarly weak evidence in [69]. Someone else still theorised the effect could be greater than assumed in [1337].” and then found out in the paper that x does not cause y at all.
Don’t you think it’d be disingenuous to quote the introduction and leave out all of the conclusions when talking about the effects of x?
To me, that’d be an obvious lie by omission.
In this case, it’s not quite as bad as the paper does not conclude the literal opposite of what was quoted but its conclusion is quite a bit more differentiated than the “TWP bad” of its motivation.
@Atemu @lemming934 What was more of interest was that literature review and overview of the state of research, rather than the specifics of the research itself.
Currently, a lot of the public disclosure around microplastics focusses on things like plastic bottles and bags. There’s little public discussion around the impacts of driving and tyres.
Whereas, in the academic discourse, there is an acknowledgement that one of the top sources of microplastic pollution is from tyres and asphalt, particularly in waterways.