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

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.