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 PaintCare March 31, 2026
Marylanders can now recycle their leftover paint with PaintCare ! PaintCare is a nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that have passed the paint stewardship law. The Maryland PaintCare program launched on April 1, 2026, making it the thirteenth jurisdiction to pass paint stewardship legislation. With the addition of Maryland, PaintCare now serves one-third of the U.S. population. PaintCare operates a network of over 100 drop-off sites across the state where households and businesses can recycle their leftover paint at no additional cost. Most drop-off sites are located at local paint retailers, making it convenient for Marylanders to responsibly dispose of their leftover paint. To find a drop-off site near you, visit the drop-off site locator on PaintCare’s website. PaintCare offers a large volume pickup (LVP) service, which provides free pickups of 100 gallons or more of eligible paint products. Those with large quantities of paint are encouraged to use this service to responsibly dispose of leftover paint. Large volume pickups can be requested through the large volume pickup request form. The paint stewardship law requires a fee, called the PaintCare fee, to be added to the purchase price of new paint. The fee is based on container size and funds all aspects of the program. This includes paint collection and recycling, consumer education, and program administration. The PaintCare fee in Maryland is as follows:
By Brynn O'Connor | Your Arlington March 26, 2026
As the cost of recycling continues to rise across the country, the community will decide how to cover the costs at the ballot box this weekend. Arlington is an environmentally conscientious community. It’s been ranked at number two in a list of the “ top 10 greenest towns ” in Massachusetts. Town leaders, employees, and residents have created climate goals and are putting policies in place to achieve them, such as electrifying transportation , building energy-efficient homes , and expanding recycling across the town. So when the town announced at the beginning of the year that paper cups would be added to the list of recyclable items , many celebrated it as a step toward a greener Arlington. Environmentally speaking, it is something to celebrate. But at a time when recycling is becoming more expensive than ever, the question arises: Is this progress the town can afford? “The recycling commodity market continues to falter, with our recyclables generating less and less revenue to offset the cost of their processing,” Town Manager Jim Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington. The collapse of the recycling market The pivotal shift of the recycling market dates back to January 2018, when China, the largest importer of waste, enacted its National Sword policy ; extreme limitations on shipments which denied recyclables mixed with trash, the wrong type of and low-quality recyclables. At the beginning of this year, Feeney spoke at the Jan. 12 Select Board meeting to discuss the town’s trash and recycling budget for fiscal year 2026, during which he explained the recycling streaming costs and consequences of the declining commodity values. “Now, we have to pay roughly $125 per ton to have our recycling stream processed at a Materials Recovery Facility, also known as a M.R.F.” Feeney explained during the meeting. A new contract, a new reality As many in town now know, the town signed a new waste hauler contract with Waste Management , effective as of July 2025. With this new contract, according to Feeney, the town now owns its recyclables and can profit from the materials it collects, but only when commodity prices are strong. When municipalities send their waste products to MRFs, the blended value of their commodities, from cardboard, plastics, mixed paper, and more, is subtracted from the charge per ton, meaning the town’s final tab depends on the strength of the recycling market. “If the blended value exceeds the charge, the town would see the revenue… if it doesn’t, then we pay the net difference between the two,” said Feeney in the meeting. From $0 to $500,000 In January 2025, when the town was still bidding and receiving proposals for its new solid waste contract, the market value for the blended commodity items was approximately $67 (see diagram on Your Arlington website). Meaning, Arlington had both expected and budgeted to pay $58 per ton to process its recyclables. In addition to China’s National Sword policy, the country is currently in a “K-shaped” economic recovery following the Covid-19 pandemic, which has resulted in fewer household sales, fewer packages, and fewer shipping boxes. According to the Northeast Recycling Council , in 2025, commodity values went down for every recyclable item. “Through the first five months of fiscal year 2026, we’ve been paying, on average, $100 per ton to process our recycling,” Feeney said. In a report sent to YourArlington, Feeney estimated that if current trends continue, the town could face at least $185,000 in additional costs in fiscal year 2026, based on roughly 4,400 tons of recycling. The report indicates the town could spend as much as $500,000 to handle its recyclables this fiscal year—a striking increase from fiscal year 2025, when those costs were effectively zero. Before signing the new waste hauler contract, Arlington relied on JRM Hauling for trash and recycling collection – which was acquired by Republic Services in 2022. Under this contract, the hauler covered the recycling processing fees. While many municipalities have been faced with the effects of the declining recycling market for years, Feeney explained why Arlington has been insulated by a buffer that protected the town’s budget until this recent fiscal year. “Our old waste hauler [JRM] was looking for a contract extension prior to their acquisition by Republic. We agreed to the extension at the time, but only under the same terms, so we experienced an additional three years without bearing a cost for processing our recycling.” Covering the cost: what residents should know With Arlington’s recycling shifting from being cost free to a major budget burden, the issue at hand is how the community will cover these rising costs — a decision that may ultimately come down to how residents vote in this weekend’s town election. Feeney wrote that there may be a fee increase in the future for residents who request a second recycling cart from Waste Management, but otherwise, the town does not have plans to introduce a new recycling fee or raise taxes specifically to cover these costs. “At present we are absorbing this cost into the existing budget, and have updated budget projections for the upcoming fiscal years to reflect this experience,” Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington. Recycling and trash collection are paid for out of the town’s General Fund, which also supports schools and other municipal services. That means the rising cost of recycling is factored into the town’s overall budget, including the proposed $14.8 million tax override on this year’s ballot . Balancing cost and climate goals While the outcome of this weekend’s vote could shape how these costs are managed, early data is already offering a look at how Arlington’s new recycling and trash collection system has been working. According to Feeney, early tonnage numbers have indicated that the town is experiencing a decrease in both trash and recycling waste streams under the new cart program. However, there has been a more “pronounced decrease” on the trash side than recycling—an encouraging sign that disposal costs could fall and help offset the new recycling expenses. The town now faces a crossroads where its environmental goals meet budget limitations and shifting markets—and where the cost of recycling is measured not just in good intentions, but in dollars. Read article on Your Arlington's webiste.
By Megan Quinn | Waste Dive March 26, 2026
Northeastern states concerned with contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in sewage sludge are moving forward with new projects and proposed legislation meant to better manage the material in 2026 and beyond. During a Northeast Recycling Council webinar on Wednesday, officials from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Maryland Department of the Environment offered updates on how their states are managing PFAS in sludge. They also offered perspectives on how looming landfill capacity issues, proposed infrastructure projects and state legislation could influence how these states — and neighboring states — handle this material in the immediate term. Disposal capacity concerns prompt infrastructure plans in Maine Maine has been in the spotlight for several years for how it handles PFAS in sludge and in landfill leachate in the state. It was the first state to ban the land application of sewage sludge in 2022, and several projects are moving forward in 2026 that are meant to manage regional disposal capacity for the material as landfill space dwindles. That pressure on disposal capacity is expected to build as more Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states consider similar sludge fertilizer prohibitions due to PFAS concerns, said Susanne Miller, Maine DEP’s director of the bureau of remediation and waste management. “Right now, everything’s going to a landfill because there’s nowhere else to put it in Maine, and this is a big problem,” she said. Casella Waste, which operates the state’s Juniper Ridge Landfill, has been seeking a landfill expansion for several years, but that matter has been tied up in court. “Without an expansion, it’s going to be running out of capacity in about 2028 which is just around the corner.” One project to address capacity issues is the state’s first biosolids dryer , which is being built at WM’s Crossroads Landfill to reduce liquid volume of the material. That project, originally expected to come online sometime in 2025, is now expected to open in the second quarter of 2026, Miller said. It has a capacity of up to 200 tons a day and up to 73,000 tons a year. That project could handle up to 83% of Maine’s municipally generated biosolids, she said. The dryer is meant to help create a closed-loop system, she said. Sludge from wastewater plants will be treated in the dryer, and landfill leachate and dryer liquids will be treated onsite via a foam fractionation system that is already in operation at the landfill, she said. Treated water goes to a nearby wastewater plant, and sludge from that wastewater plant then returns to the dryer. Another proposed PFAS management project, a sludge processing plant by Aries Clean Technologies, could also be in the works in coming months. It aims to use a gasification and oxidization process to remove PFAS from sewage material and significantly reduce biosolids volumes in the process. The company built a similar facility in New Jersey in 2024. The project is currently under permit review, which Miller said will likely include a DEP review, public comment period and public hearing. The proposal has faced some public pushback over potential traffic, odor and pollution concerns, Maine Public reported . “With any kind of new technology relating to waste or that takes in a waste stream, there’s controversy and concern about it, and so we need to go through the entire permitting process to get to the point where the department is able to determine if an application can be granted,” Miller said. Meanwhile, the Portland Water District, which Miller says is Maine’s largest wastewater treatment facility, is also exploring its own treatment system for sludge. It’s an effort to reduce reliance on limited landfill capacity and unpredictable disposal costs, she said. The water district is considering a few different technologies like anaerobic digestion, drying and thermal treatments such as pyrolysis to reduce the amount of biosolids for disposal. “With the prices going up to go to landfill and the space at landfills shrinking, they want to take destiny into their own hands,” she said. According to DEP, several other sewer districts are working on similar projects. York Sewer District is planning a 2028 pilot project meant to use supercritical water oxidation technology to help destroy PFAS and reduce wastewater sludge volume. Meanwhile, landfill operators in the state have been subject to new PFAS leachate testing rules since September. A new law requires operators to test for PFAS in landfill leachate and report results annually to DEP. Wastewater dischargers that accept leachate must also maintain leachate records to report to DEP each year. Though these projects hold promise, Miller emphasized that source control efforts are just as important to reduce the amount of PFAS-containing materials entering landfills and being treated at wastewater treatment plants. The state has already passed laws that phase out intentionally added PFAS in certain products, with the list of applicable products expanding through the next few years to include artificial turf and outdoor gear by 2029 and most types of products by 2032. Maryland moves forward with biosolids ban bill Maryland is focusing on its own efforts related to PFAS in biosolids through new regulations and state legislation, said Thomas Yoo, chief of MDE’s biosolids division. The state generates about 600,000 wet tons of sewage sludge a year, and about 56% of that is hauled out of state for either land application or landfilling, mainly to Virginia and Pennsylvania, he said. Maryland has about 250 agricultural sites that are permitted to take sewage sludge, but in 2023 the state put a hold on issuing any new land application permits. It also began requesting PFAS data from out-of-state permittees bringing biosolids into the state and terminated permits for those that did not provide that data, he said. Maryland also requires all wastewater treatment plants where land applied biosolids originate to sample for PFOS and PFOA . About 50 biosolids generators are submitting this data, he said. The state already has recommended limits for PFAS in land applications , but a bill moving through the state legislature, SB 719 , would set enforceable limits starting in 2027. The bill calls for prohibiting land application for sludge that has a total concentration of PFOA and PFOS above 50 parts per billion and calls for other source tracking and mitigation plan measures. The neighboring state of Virginia passed a set of bills on March 11 with a similar intent. If signed by the governor, the bills would regulate the levels of PFAS in biosolids and would prevent the use of biosolids as fertilizer beginning in 2027 if levels of PFOA and PFOS are too high. Yoo says Maryland will continue to focus on state-level options for managing PFAS in biosolids as it awaits U.S. EPA guidance on the matter. The EPA released a draft risk assessment in January 2025 that found farmers who used the sludge may be at risk of exposure, but consumers who eat food from those sources may face less risk. The draft report says certain PFAS may leach from sludge when it’s land applied, disposed of in a landfill, or incinerated. The agency has not yet finalized the assessment. Read the article of Waste Dive