Microplastics: The What, Where, Why And Impact

August 23, 2023

Today's guest blog is authored by Craig Coker is a Senior Editor at BioCycle CONNECT and a Principal at Coker Composting and Consulting near Roanoke VA. The original post can be read here.

Among the organics recycling challenges du jour is the potential presence of microplastics in compost and digestate. Two-part article series starts with an overview and ends with findings of current research. Part I


Food waste disposal bans have been implemented in four states (New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont) and diversion requirements are established in six others (California, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland). There are also food waste landfill bans and/or diversion policies in a number of communities (San Antonio TX, Boulder CO, Hennepin County MN, Seattle WA and New York City). The oldest of these diversion requirements is in Vermont, which passed its Universal Recycling Law in 2012 and which covers both commercial and residential sources of food wastes.


Over the past 10 years, the organics recycling industry (which includes composting, anaerobic digestion, and diversion to animal feed) has come to recognize that plastics contamination from food packaging is a significant challenge to the implementation and growth of these diversion practices. Plastic packaging is ubiquitous in



the American food distribution system. Many different types of plastics are used in food packaging, as shown in Table 1.

Recovering packaged food wastes for reuse or recycling requires either mechanical depackagers or human labor for source separation, both of which are likely to achieve variable and imperfect separation efficiency (do Carmo Precci Lopes et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2018). Depackaged and source separated food wastes may contain missorted plastic packaging with varying levels of contamination (Porterfield et al., 2023). Plastic contamination in organics recycling — especially in food waste feedstocks — has led to concerns about microplastics.



What Are Microplastics?

Microplastics (MPs) are small plastic fragments that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in size — slightly larger than one-eighth inch. A subcategory of microplastics is nanoplastics, synthetic polymers with dimensions ranging from 1 nanometer (nm) to 1 micrometer (μm). For perspective, a compost bacterium is about 1,000 nanometers in size and the width of a single human hair is 20 to 200 μm. Examples of MPs are shown in Figure 1.

There is no consensus on the definition of nano and microplastic particles in relation to human health (Vose, 2022). MPs are directly released to the environment or secondarily derived from plastic disintegration in the environment (Lai, 2022). In a 2021 Spanish study, five polymers represented 94% of the plastic items found in the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: polyethylene, polystyrene, polyester, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and acrylic polymers in order of abundance. Polyethylene was more abundant in films, polystyrene in fragments, polypropylene in filaments, and fibers were dominated by polyester (Edo, 2022).


How Are Microplastics Formed?

MPs can be introduced to agricultural soils through products engineered to be small, such as plastic-coated controlled release fertilizers, treated seeds, and capsule suspension plant protection products. They can be introduced via plastic mulching, contaminated soil amendments, irrigation water, atmospheric deposition, roads and litter (Porterfield et al., 2023 and citations within).

MPs can also be formed during and as a result of food waste depackaging, a separation process. In its simplest form, separation is a binary process, splitting a feed material into two components. These components could be called the extract (or that which you are trying to recover) and the reject (that which you do not want). The objective of a binary materials separator is to split a feed material into two different components by exploiting some difference in the material’s properties.


Separation of materials requires identifying the appropriate characteristic by which separation can be done — or what material property will be exploited to achieve separation. This could be called the “code,” or signal, to tell a machine how to separate materials. The ability of a human or a machine to identify a property’s characteristic and to perform some function, actively or passively, on that material as a result of that information could be called “switching,” or separating the material according to that characteristic (Vesilind, 1984). For example, depackaging commingled food wastes uses density as a code and can use force as a switch to separate packaging, then uses compressive strength (hardness) as a code and pressure as a switch to push organics through an extrusion plate or separator screen.


Depackaging source separated food wastes is very labor-intensive if done by humans. As a result, a number of depackaging equipment systems have come to the U.S. organics recycling market (Coker, 2019; Coker, 2021). The methods used to separate foods from their packages include extrusion (similar to how pasta and ground meat are made), vertical hammermills (force applied against a vertical punch-plate screen), horizontal paddle separators (squeezing the packaging between paddle and containment shell), and centrifugal force separators. There are no data available on which depackaging methods produce MPs or in what quantities, but it is reasonable to assume that machines exerting more force on packaged foods risk higher production of MPs due to shattering of brittle plastics like some high-density polyethylene (HDPE ) and polypropylene.


Health Effects of Microplastics

The research on the health effects of microplastics has focused, to date, on direct exposure. MPs in composts and digestates used as soil amendments are a secondary pathway of exposure, which has not yet been studied to any extent.


Inhalation and ingestion are the two primary routes of exposure to MPs. Inhalation causes physical damage to the lungs and ingestion is thought to have potential impacts on the immune system, liver, energy metabolism and reproduction. There are no comprehensive studies of MPs in the diet, although MPs have been found in seafood/fish, salt, beer, honey, milk, rice, sugar and seaweed (Vose, 2022).


In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a report to evaluate the evidence of risks to human health associated with exposure to nano and microplastic particles (NMP) in drinking water. A key observation is that MPs are ubiquitous in the environment and have been detected in environmental media with direct relevance for human exposure, including air, dust, water, food and beverages.


There is increasing awareness of the occurrence of MPs in air and their implications for human health. Studies of the inhalation of MPs should include consideration of their biokinetics, as their intake depends on their size, shape, density and surface chemistry, which influence their deposition in the alveolar regions of the lungs. Better characterization is needed of the properties of MPs in air, such as the fractions that contribute to airborne particulate matter and their absolute concentrations. The current lack of such data limits characterization and quantification of the impact of human inhalation of MPs.


Ingestion of MP has been reported in a variety of foods and beverages. An assessment of overall human exposure to MPs is complicated by the limited availability of data on the occurrence of MPs measuring <10 μm in water, food and beverages. Observations from particle and fiber toxicology indicate that particles <10 μm are probably taken up biologically. Most of the available studies on the occurrence of MPs in water, food and beverages reported particles measuring >10 μm, which are unlikely to be absorbed or taken up.


The WHO assessed the quality, reliability and relevance of data on both exposure and effects for their possible contribution to a risk assessment of MPs. The assessment scores indicated that the available data are of only very limited use. Several shortcomings were identified, the most important of which was the heterogeneity of the methods used. It is recommended that standard methods be developed and adopted to ensure that the research community can reduce uncertainties, strengthen overall scientific understanding and provide more robust data for assessing the risks of human exposure to NMPs (WHO, 2022).


Environmental Effects of Microplastics

MPs are categorized as emerging persistent pollutants that occur widely in various ecosystems. MP measurements reported in the literature are 10’s to 1,000’s of particles per dry kilogram of agricultural soils, similar to levels found in composts and digestates (Porterfield et al., 2023). Microplastics in soils have been found to increase soil aeration, water repellence and porosity but to decrease soil bulk density and aggregate sizes (e.g., de Souza Machado et al., 2018b, 2019; Kim et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2020).


MPs’ impacts on terrestrial plants (particularly crops) are poorly understood. Given the persistence and widespread distribution of MPs in the soil, they have potential impacts on terrestrial plants (Wang et al., 2022). Due to their small size and high adsorption capacity, MPs can adhere to the surfaces of seeds and roots, and thus inhibit seed germination, root elongation, and absorption of water and nutrients, and ultimately inhibit plant growth. MPs, especially nanoplastics, can be absorbed by roots, and be moved to stems, leaves, and fruits. The adherence and accumulation of MPs can induce oxidative stress, a complex chemical and physiological phenomenon that occurs in higher plants (vascular) and develops as a result of overproduction and accumulation of reactive oxygen species. They also can induce toxicity to plant cells and to genetic material in plants, leading to a series of changes in plant growth, mineral nutrition, photosynthesis, toxic accumulation, and metabolites in plants tissues. Overall, the phytotoxicity of MPs varies dependent on their polymer type, size, dose and shape, plant tolerance, and exposure conditions. The accumulation of MPs and subsequent damage in plants may further affect crop productivity, and food safety and quality, causing potential health risks (Wang et al., 2022).


Soil microorganisms can be affected by MPs. There are effects on species dominance, diversity and richness reported in the literature (e.g., Blöcker et al., 2020; Fei et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2020) and MPs have been found to cause oxidative stress and abnormal gene expression in earthworms (which can consume and transport MPs) (Cheng et al., 2020).


Even compostable plastics can be a source of MPs. Not all certified compostable packaging fully composts in all facilities due to variability in the technologies and processes used at each facility (USEPA, 2021). The European compostable plastics standard (EN 13432) defines a material as compostable, if 90% (by weight) of the material is fragmented (disintegrated) into particles <2 mm, i.e., below the limit at which particles “count,” after 12 weeks of standardized composting and fully mineralized by 90% within 6 months. The remaining 10% may be transformed into biomass or simply be fragmented into microplastic (Steiner, 2022).

 

Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.


Share Post

By Angelina Ruiz November 7, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) held their annual event from October 7 – 8 in Boston, MA. Renamed the Rethink Resource Use Conference, the name reflects an update in the approach of managing materials and discussing key strategies to drive sustainable practices forward in communities. “The new name, Rethink Resource Use, makes us consider how we can leave a more positive impact. NERC brings together professionals from across the materials management chain to improve management practices and ensure the health of the people and the environment. The event aims to mobilize others to take action and engage people in recycling programs, community engagement, trends, and more,” said NERC’s Executive Director, Megan Schulz-Fontes. Gathering together leaders from academia, government, and the sustainable materials industry, the conference was a great way to reconnect through networking and learning opportunities. RRU DAY ONE Material Shifts and New Terrain On Tuesday morning, October 7, Schulz-Fontes welcomed attendees to Boston and expressed that she was looking forward to having meaningful discussions and making connections with people around the industry. With great speakers from across the world, a wide range of important topics would be covered from innovations in infrastructure to technology. She also thanked talented colleagues who evaluated this event and made it even better, welcomed emerging professionals, and emphasized that it is important to acknowledge that human practices are shifting and evolving, and new programs and regulations are coming online to address the growing waste problem. We need to safeguard public health and biodiversity to help life on earth. Schulz-Fontes then introduced John Fischer, Deputy Division Director for Solid Waste Materials Management for the Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection, who made the opening remarks, reflecting on Massachusetts’ Solid Waste master plan. He pointed out that they set an aggressive reduction goal—to reduce 1.7 tons of waste by 2030. While they have seen progress in certain areas, waste has continued to rise. So, they are reviewing it now to see how they can shift elements for greater progress. Massachusetts has been successful in food waste reduction (from small businesses and residents) with a waste disposal ban and recycling market grants, as well as loans to try to build the infrastructure. He said they have also seen success in their mattress disposal ban and an increase in textile recovery since implementation in 2022. There is also a long-standing disposal ban on construction waste to ensure more effective separation. In 2020, diversion was at 15% and increased to 20% in 2025. They would like to get to 30% by 2030. Fischer also pointed out that the Massachusetts DEP needs to take a comprehensive approach and grow market funding. They have collaborated with state and local health officials to create best practices with food containers and replace single waste food service ware to reusables. There are growing suites of market recycling program grants, including market reduction innovation grants launched this year. Smaller and more flexible grants could grow waste diversion over time and help facilities grow at scale. He said that while they are looking at doing the best they can to manage waste, the goal is to learn from colleagues in other states and in the business communities. David Allaway, Senior Policy Analyst, from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, gave the keynote address, first pointing out that about 20 years ago, they started taking a deeper look at their solid waste and recycling program and the connection with the waste and climate situation. Because of that, it caused a shift in programming. Going back to 2004, the Department was tasked with looking at solid waste management opportunities—recycling and waste prevention was primarily reducing in other states but not Oregon. The community was ready for climate protection, but emissions reductions don’t count. That was the beginning of Oregon’s Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (CBEI) and the results were an eye opener and the inventory has been updated since to look at current trends. The key takeaways from this was that all studies point in the same direction—materials matter! The production and use of materials does have a profound impact on our environment. Most impacts occur upstream of use and disposal. Recycling and composting can be helpful but alone are insufficient. From this, Oregon’s 2050 Vision and Framework for Action was born. This also included end of life materials. Allaway explained that the legislative report and technical supports were published last fall. For Oregon: Materials are driving growth in emissions Most emissions occur pre-purchase (most in food and vehicles and parts) Sector based emissions have flattened while consumption-based emissions have grown Emissions are out of state but not out of reach Oregon Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Solid Waste Management) includes: Landfill methane reductions Recycling improvements Expand composting Prevent wasting of food Plant-rich diets Upstream packaging EPR Reduce embodies carbon He pointed out that not all materials are equally beneficial to recycling, and not all recycling pathways are equally beneficial. Maximizing recycling is not the same as optimizing recycling. Lifecycle impacts versus material attributes begs the question; how well do popular material attributes correlate with reduced environmental impacts? When comparing different packages based on recyclability, recyclable packages are better for the environment, however, downstream impacts must be taken into consideration. Recycling and composting are a means to an end—the conservation of resources and reduction of pollution, however, not all are effective. Design your programs to maximize them instead of just chasing tonnage diversion targets. Is education effective? It depends on how recycling is communicated and how local authorities think about it and treat it. Whether it is advanced through policy through broader benefits, it depends on you and what choices you make and the paths take in the coming years. Discussions on EPR After the welcome remarks and morning keynote, focus turned to “EPR for Packaging State of Mind: Lessons and Progress in the Northeast” Moderated by Kevin Budris, Deputy Director for Just Zero, the discussion featured Jason Bergquist, Vice President of U.S. Operations for RecycleMe; Erin Victor, PhD, Member of the Senator George J Mitchell Center Research Team at the University of Maine; Shannon McDonald, Natural Resource Planner at the Maryland Department of the Environment; and David Allaway, Senior Policy Analyst for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Bergquist kicked it off by talking about the current EPR landscape in the U.S. Seven EPR packaging bills have been passed and 10 states have introduced legislation for EPR for packaging from 2024 to 2025; this number continues to rise. Those that have been signed into law include Oregon and Maine (2021), Colorado and California (2022), Minnesota (2024), and Washington and Maryland (2025), with implementation ranging from July 2025 to July 2029. California has the most ambitious goals—by 2032 100% of all packaging must be recyclable or compostable, 65% of all single-use plastic packaging to be recycled, and there should be a 25% reduction in packaging. He said that challenges producers face in the west are when is a producer a producer, when is a package a package, where should the focus be (fees, targets, modulation plans). There are always different definitions, two different scopes, bottle bill vs non-bottle bill, primary, secondary, tertiary—which is in scope? Victor covered the research she’s been doing the past couple of years. Her research approach included a qualitative case study of the emergence of Maine’s EPR for packaging legislation situated within a larger 24-month ethnographic research project on the politics of disposable packaging. Maine is a primarily rural state and much of it relies on drop off centers. However, the state has yet to meet the 50% waste diversion goal, so something more needs to be done. She did explain that there have been disruptions to Maine’s materials management system that have been a challenge: centralized waste planning agencies disbanded, Green Fence/National Sword, COVID, and the shuttering of the Coastal Resource of Maine facility in Hampden. Maine’s packaging journey started in 2019 when the DEP recommended EPR for packaging. In 2021, the state passed the first in the nation EPR law, the rules were adopted in 2024, and in 2025, the goal is to define ‘readily recyclable’ and selecting a stewardship organization. She emphasized that it is critical to have a strong commitment to stakeholder outreach, maintain municipal operational control over materials management, look at the need for more transparent and robust data and the burden of reporting (for both producers and municipalities), and consider what elements of packaging regulation to address through market-based approaches versus command-and-control regulations. Fortunately, LD1423 was introduced this year which really updated and harmonized the program. She said that she is currently working on estimating the impact of tradeoffs in U.S. EPR rulemaking scenarios. Read the full article on Waste Advantage.
By Sophie Leone October 29, 2025
The Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association is a 501C(6) trade association comprised of leading pressurized cylinder producers. They are “working to advance industry interests through advocacy, sustainable stewardship development, education, and innovative collaboration on shared challenges that impact our industry, our customers, and consumers.” Advocacy, Sustainable Stewardship, Education, and innovation are the pillars of the work they do, including collaborating with state legislators, regulatory officials, and other industry associations, particularly related to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy work. To expand their impact on EPR legislation, PCIA established a nonprofit Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) called the Cylinder Collective, which recently launched its first cylinder collection program in the State of Connecticut. “The passage of the legislation in CT, as well as the subsequent implementation of the CT statewide cylinder collection program, allowed PCIA and its staff to gain experience in developing the local partnerships required to implement sustainable solutions at the local level.” David Keeling, Executive Director, Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association and The Cylinder Collective. NERC is thrilled to welcome the Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association to our diverse group of trade association members. We look forward to supporting their industry work and education efforts through collaboration and action. For more information on the Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association visit .
By Sophie Leone October 21, 2025
The Town of Stonington in Connecticut has a history dating back to the 1640’s. Today the town features an active community with miles of beach, historic homes, and a dedication to sustainability. Ensuring continued connection to the community, the Town holds over 30 boards, commissions, and committees that help regulate and advise the surrounding area. These Boards include Affordable Housing, Conservation Commission, Cultural District, Water Pollution Control, and more. Stonington is a member of the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority (SCRRRA). Being a member of SCRRRA provides the Town with cost savings on solid waste and recycling, access to specialized disposal services, public education programs, and grant opportunities. The regional approach to waste management gives Stonington and other member towns greater negotiating power and access to resources that would be more difficult to obtain alone. The Town of Stonington is committed to advancing sustainability and responsible resource management within our community. Through initiatives such as Pay-As-You-Throw curbside trash collection, textile and electronics recycling, and household hazardous waste events, they work to reduce waste and promote reuse. Stonington continues to expand its sustainability programs by exploring food scrap diversion and supporting regional collaborations that protect our environment and conserve natural resources. “As a proud new member of the Northeast Recycling Council, we look forward to sharing ideas and strengthening our community’s impact through innovation and partnership.” NERC is thrilled to welcome the Town of Stonington to our growing list of municipality members. We look forward to working with them to help continued education and accessibility for local recycling efforts For more information on the Town of Stonington visit .