thesis statement about plastic waste

Short Essay: Plastic Pollution

Pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues facing the world today, affecting air, water, and soil, and consequently, human health and biodiversity. Writing a short essay on pollution involves discussing the causes, effects, and possible solutions to this pervasive problem. Here’s a guide to help you craft a concise, informative, and persuasive essay.

Table of Contents

Title and Introduction

Title : Choose a compelling title that reflects the focus of your essay, such as “Choking on Progress: The Perils of Pollution.”

Body of the Essay

Solutions to Pollution :

Plastic Pollution Essay Example #1

Plastic pollution has become a pervasive and escalating environmental issue that demands immediate attention. The exponential increase in plastic production and consumption, coupled with inadequate waste management practices, has resulted in the widespread contamination of our ecosystems. This essay delves into the causes and consequences of plastic pollution, highlighting the urgent need for effective solutions.

Moreover, plastic pollution poses risks to human health. Microplastics, tiny particles that result from the degradation of larger plastic items, have infiltrated our food chain. Consuming seafood and other food products contaminated with microplastics exposes humans to potential health hazards, including the ingestion of toxic chemicals associated with plastics. Furthermore, the leaching of harmful additives from plastic products can lead to chemical exposure, with adverse effects on human well-being.

Plastic Pollution Essay Example #2

Plastic pollution has emerged as one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time. The excessive production and improper disposal of plastic waste have resulted in a global crisis that threatens ecosystems, wildlife, and human well-being. This essay discusses the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to plastic pollution, emphasizing the need for immediate action to address this escalating problem.

In addition to environmental impacts, plastic pollution poses risks to human health. Microplastics, small particles that result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, have been found in water sources, air, and even food. The ingestion of microplastics by humans through the consumption of contaminated seafood and other food products raises concerns about the potential health effects, including the absorption of toxic chemicals associated with plastics.

Addressing plastic pollution requires collaborative efforts and systemic changes. Firstly, reducing plastic consumption is essential. This can be achieved through promoting reusable alternatives, supporting initiatives that encourage the use of sustainable materials, and implementing policies that restrict the production and use of single-use plastics. Additionally, improving waste management practices is crucial, including the establishment of effective recycling programs, investment in infrastructure, and raising public awareness about proper waste disposal.

In conclusion, plastic pollution has reached critical levels, posing severe threats to ecosystems, wildlife, and human health. The causes of this crisis lie in the excessive production and improper disposal of plastic waste. To mitigate the impacts of plastic pollution, concerted efforts are needed to reduce plastic consumption, improve waste management practices, and foster innovation in sustainable alternatives. By taking immediate action, we can protect our environment and ensure a healthier and more sustainable future for generations to come.

Plastic Pollution Essay Example #3

Terrestrial ecosystems are also affected by plastic pollution. Land animals and birds can become entangled in plastic items or ingest them, resulting in injury or death. Plastic waste disrupts the balance of ecosystems, impacting biodiversity and overall ecological health.

Plastic pollution poses risks to human health as well. Microplastics, small particles that result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, have infiltrated various sources, including drinking water, air, and food. The ingestion of microplastics by humans raises concerns about potential health effects, as they can contain toxic chemicals and pollutants. Furthermore, plastic products often contain additives like phthalates and bisphenols, which can leach into the environment and pose potential health risks such as endocrine disruption and reproductive disorders.

Improving waste management systems is another vital aspect of addressing plastic pollution. This includes investing in recycling infrastructure, implementing waste separation programs, and raising awareness about proper waste disposal and recycling practices.

Additional Writing Tips

About mr. greg.

World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

To my mind, it is becoming increasingly popular to use eco-friendly materials to prevent waste spread globally. Throughout the years, plastic waste was an enormous problem because it contaminated lakes, oceans, rivers, grounds, and the environment in general. Undoubtedly, it also causes significant harm to human health due to the hazardous toxins it produces during its decomposition. It takes approximately 1,000 years to decompose plastic which presumes that if the present generation keeps consuming large amounts of plastic, further generations are unlikely to survive in such an environment (Tapan). Therefore, it is vital to take action now to prevent mass plastic consumption.

I think it is partially possible to dispose of the significant part of plastic waste and recycle it to use as a source of sustainable energy. The first step to reducing plastic use is simple for everyone: people should stop buying water bottles and replace them with glass ones or install water filters. This small contribution will decrease the level of pollution at the global level. Moreover, I presume recycling plastic is an excellent option to produce energy. Plastics have a high energy potential that allows producing electricity, synthetic gas, and even fuel. Thus, by rethinking the idea of using plastic in such a way, it is possible to stop planet contamination.

In addition, I believe that people have a responsibility to take care of the planet and control waste disposal. By taking small steps to reduce plastic consumption, we can allow the planet to live longer and make everyone’s lives more environmentally friendly. Unless people are aware of the consequences of plastic proliferation, there is a global threat to their health and the environment.

Tapan, Mirac. “Nature Can’t Do It All: How Long Does It Take for Our Waste to Decompose?” Daily Sabah , 2019. Web.

• Global Waste Problem and Its Solution
• Regulating Toxic Chemicals
• It is About Lake
• Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation
• Recycling's Management and Potential
• Climate Change Indicators and Media Interference
• Nature as Garden and Idea of Pristine Wilderness
• The Impacts of Hunting Prohibitions on People
• "How to Give up Plastics" by Will McCallum: A Book Review
• Renewable and Sustainable Energy in NYC
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, September 30). World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-without-plastic-steps-to-reduce-plastic-use/

"World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use." IvyPanda , 30 Sept. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/world-without-plastic-steps-to-reduce-plastic-use/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use'. 30 September.

IvyPanda . 2022. "World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use." September 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-without-plastic-steps-to-reduce-plastic-use/.

1. IvyPanda . "World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use." September 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-without-plastic-steps-to-reduce-plastic-use/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "World Without Plastic: Steps to Reduce Plastic Use." September 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-without-plastic-steps-to-reduce-plastic-use/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Plastic waste as a significant threat to environment – a systematic literature review

Materials which exceed the balance of their production and destruction lead to the deterioration in the environment. Plastic is one such material which poses a big threat to the environment. A huge amount of plastic is produced and dumped into the environment which does not readily degrade naturally. In this paper, we address the organization of a large body of literature published on the management of waste plastics being the most challenging issue of the modern world.

To address the issue of the management of waste plastics, there is a dire need to organize the literature published in this field. This paper presents a systematic literature review on plastic waste, its fate and biodegradation in the environment. The objective is to make conclusions on possible practical techniques to lessen the effects of plastic waste on the environment.

A systematic literature review protocol was followed for conducting the present study [Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 2009;51(1):7–15.]. A predefined set of book sections, conference proceedings and high-quality journal publications during the years 1999 to September 2017 were used for data collection.

One hundred and fifty-three primary studies are selected, based on predefined exclusion, inclusion and quality criteria. These studies will help to identify the fate of different waste plastics, their impact and management and the disposal techniques frequently used. The study also identifies a number of significant techniques and measures for the conversion of waste plastic materials into useful products.

Five fundamental strategies are used for the handling of plastic waste. These strategies include: recycling, depositing in landfill, incineration, microbial degradation and conversion into useful materials. All of these methods have their own limitations, due to which there is need to explore the studies for optimum solutions of the management of plastics waste.

Introduction

Plastic is a synthetic material which is widely used in a variety of different sectors. The word plastic is derived from a Greek word plastikos which means to be formed in different shapes ( 1 ). Plastic is a synthetic polymeric material with a high molecular weight ( 2 ), made from a wide range of organic compounds such as ethylene, vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, vinyl alcohol and so on. Plastics can be molded into different shapes in its soft form and then it sets into a rigid or slightly elastic form. The basic precursors for the production of plastic materials are obtained from natural gas, coal and petroleum ( 3 ). Owing to the unique properties of plastics such as: light weight, low cost, durability, robust, strength, corrosion resistance, thermal and electrical insulation, versatile fabrication and design capabilities which can easily be molded into assorted products; plastic finds a wide range of applications ( 4 ). Most of the common applications of plastic include packaging, construction, electronics, electrical goods, furniture, automobiles, households, agriculture and other industrial usages ( 3 ). Their advantageous effect on society is unquestionable and plastics can be judged extreme importance by their applications in public health and medical uses. Being light weight and biocompatible, plastic is a perfect material for once-usage disposable devices, which currently include 85% of medical equipment ( 5 ), including intravenous bags, disposable syringes, sterile packaging for tissue engineering as well as in medical instruments, joint replacements, and many more ( 6 ).

As an result of their extensive applications, the production of plastics has been expanded, particularly over the past 60 years. The plastics business has grown impressively since the innovation of new technologies for the production of polymers from a wide variety of petrochemicals. Plastics have significant advantages over other materials (i.e. wood, ceramics, metals, etc.) such as their lower cost, durability and low weight ( 7 ), therefore their extensive applications and disposal leads to numerous environmental issues. Approximately 4% of the world’s oil and gas produced is utilized as feedstock for plastics and about 3–4% is used in their manufacturing to provide energy ( 8 ). Despite having a number of benefits for human society, the plastics’ materials contribute an assortment of demerits ( 9 ). Plastics contains various types of toxic components as additive, such as di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), bisphenol A (BPA), poly halogenated compounds and heavy metals which pose a potential health risk to the humans ( 10 ). Most of these additives are shown to be easily immobilized in the environment and this leads to harmful effects on human health like the disruption of the endocrine system ( 6 ). As plastics are not readily degraded and are very stable in the ambient environment, their disposal in the environment has currently created a considerable pollution problem ( 11 ).

Presently, the management of waste plastics is a major environmental issue. Several strategies have been adopted for the handling of plastic waste which includes: recycling, depositing in landfill, incineration, microbial degradation and conversion into useful materials. Recycling of plastic is a costly and tedious practice because of the collection, sorting and processing of waste plastics, beside the low quality of the recycled goods limits their wide application ( 8 ). Land filling occupies productive land and renders it unfit for other applications. Incineration and pyrolytic conversion of waste plastic results in the emission of hazardous atmospheric pollutants including the polyaromatic hydrocarbons, CO 2 (a greenhouse gas) and persistent organic pollutants like dioxins ( 6 ). A major part of the solid waste dumped into the environment consists of waste plastics, and its quantity is rapidly increasing with increasing widespread use of plastics. This paper focuses on providing the reader with the necessary details (related to the research questions) about waste plastic and will contribute towards developing a thorough understanding about the use and applications of a particular waste plastic management technique.

The following are the main contributions of this research paper:

The research gives extensive insights about available waste plastics’ management techniques.

The paper outlines distinctive applications and uses of plastics for different purposes.

The primary concentration of the research is to recognize which methods are utilized for the management of waste plastics management.

The research also aims to identify available techniques used for converting waste plastics into useful products.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows; the section Research process give details of the research process used which is based on the guidelines for conducting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) ( 12 ). The results and discussions along with the answers to the research questions are briefly discussed in the Research questions section. The limitations of the present research work are given in the Limitations section. The paper concludes in the Conclusions section.

Research process

A great deal of research in various areas has been discovered through the SLR ( 13 ) and confirmed as an approach to examine and analyze issues objectively. The motivation behind the SLR is to methodically collect, interpret, evaluate and identify all the current examinations applicable to a predefined look into investigations for providing extensive information to the research groups ( 13 ). As indicated by the protocol adopted for the SLR ( 12 ) the three main phases are reporting, conducting the SLR and protocol development. The following sub-sections briefly discuss the protocol followed in the data collection process and conducting the SLR.

Research definition

The objective of this research was to have a deep understanding about available waste plastic management techniques and their uses, especially when converting them into useful products. The SLR gives a concise analysis of the techniques available for the management of waste plastics with a specific goal to encourage the comprehension for various procedures utilized as a part of industry and research. The review also focuses on the possible applications of plastics and different issues associated with waste plastics.

A series of steps were used to perform the SLR and to make the process more efficient and understandable. This formal process plays a fundamental role in the acceptance of the essence of the conclusion presented by the study. Figure 1 gives a preview of the steps followed in the process of conducting the SLR ( 14 ).

Principle steps involved in the SLR processes.

Research plan and method

Figure 2 introduces the protocol designed and the process for conducting the SLR. The protocol was developed by Barbara et al. ( 12 ). This study was conducted to help a PhD research project for planning to make comprehensive derivations on available techniques to lessen the effects of plastic waste on the environment. The writing audit was arranged and followed as indicated by the designed protocol.

Protocol developed and followed in the proposed study for conducting SLR.

The following sections elaborate the protocol and the data collected by following the protocol.

Research questions

The research questions (RQ) addressed through this literature review are given below:

What are the different uses and applications of plastics?

What are the different environmental impacts of waste plastics? What are the different types of techniques available for the management of waste plastics?

How the degradation of waste plastics take place in the environment? Which management technique is typically used for handling waste plastics?

Is it possible to convert waste plastics into useful products?

Search process.

For a methodical writing survey, arranging and directing a formal pursuit process is extremely vital. A sorted-out pursuit process makes it conceivable to exhume all the accessible advanced assets keeping in mind the goal to locate all related accessible writing that meet the required criteria. For this investigation an inquiry has been led to discovering important papers located in meeting procedures, books, journals, conferences and other online materials. In the present study several keywords related to the design and estimation of waste plastics based on the research questions (provided in the Research questions section) were searched in the digital libraries mentioned below. The search process is shown in Figure 3 .

Steps of the search process of keywords in the proposed study.

The Following libraries were searched for the studies related to the research ( Figure 4 ):

Libraries searched for the studies related to the proposed research.

Web of Science (webofknowledge.com/)

ScienceDirect ( http://www.sciencedirect.com )

SpringerLink ( http://www.springer.com/in/ )

Taylor and Francis Online ( http://www.tandfonline.com/ )

Wiley Online Library ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ )

US National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health (PubMed) ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ )

American Chemical Society (ACS Publications) ( http://pubs.acs.org/ )

The keywords for the search were decided by the authors. These keywords include “waste plastic fate”, “waste plastic impacts”, “waste plastic conversion”, “waste plastic management” and “waste plastic degradation”. Most of the papers were found by searching using only the keyword “plastics”. Other keyword strings created using terms “OR” and “AND” were also used to make sure that no relevant publication was missed out ( 14 ).

The proposed study and search process were for the years 1999 to September 2017. The search exposed a bulk of literature in the form of journal publications, conferences and other published material including books, magazines, etc.. All of the included digital repositories were manually searched using predefined keywords. The necessary bibliographic information and citations were carefully handled using Endnote software ( 15 ). It was decided to maintain a separate Endnote library for each digital source in the first search process, and then after filtering and excluding the duplications all of the libraries were merged into a single file library. This bibliographic information contains all the necessary information including author(s) name, title of article, journal/conference name, year of publishing and number of pages of the article.

After filtering, a list containing a total of 202 references were managed in the file of the Endnote library. The details of the overall search process in the specified digital libraries are outlined in Figure 5 . A total of 4457 titles were found. The duplications in these publications (more than one version of the paper) were removed. After that the papers were checked manually and then filtered by titles, filtered by abstracts and finally filtered by the contents. The initial selection filtering process was performed manually by titles and a total of 1528 articles were obtained. These 1528 articles were then filtered manually by abstract and a total of 380 articles were obtained. In the last step these articles were again filtered by contents and finally a total of 153 articles were selected. These articles were then used in the literature review based on the research questions defined and the details of these papers are shown in Figure 5 .

Search process based on keywords for articles in relevant libraries and their filtering.

Study selection

After obtaining a collection of papers through the search process it was considered necessary to further filter the papers according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, to be able to have only those materials which are exactly focused on the research questions to be answered. It was decided to include the literature sources in the review according to the following criteria:

These sources clearly discuss the use and application of plastic wastes.

These studies provide clear descriptions and context which is required to answer the defined questions.

The papers which referenced waste plastic only in the literature review section and were not actually providing any notable material in this context were excluded.

Study selection process

The study selection based on some defined criteria is a very complex process and consists of several steps. For this reason, the study selection was carried out in two stages. In the first stage the titles of the articles were checked manually according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and the irrelevant papers were excluded. In the second stage of the search process the articles were filtered by checking the abstract of the papers and as a result some papers were excluded as these were not relevant to the present research. And in the final stage the papers were filtered by checking their contents. Table 1 shows the papers selected after a three-stage filtering process. After that duplications in all individual libraries were excluded. Table 2 shows the final selected papers after excluding duplications and the filtering process. This process resulted in retrieving only the most relevant papers, explicitly passed through the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria ( 169 ).

Data sources, their search strategy and filtering of papers

Details of selected papers after final selection.

Final selected papers along with the titles and citations are given in Table 2 .

Table 3 shows the publication types which are in the form of book sections, conference papers and journal articles.

Publications types (book section, conference papers, and journal papers).

The graphical representation of year wise publications is shown in Table 4 . The time series data was tested with 95% confidence levels. When the p value was less than the significance level (0.05), the null hypothesis would reject it and this meant that a trend (change) existed. Analysis revealed that there is a more significant trend detected in the selected papers having a p-value 0.0001, showing the best analysis results with a standard deviation 13.54. This analysis shows the research in the area of waste plastics in a given range of years. According to the trend detection of the studies, there is a clear increase in research and publications after 2014, marking the increasing importance and application of waste plastics. Figure 6 represents this analysis for the selected papers in the range of the given years.

Year-wise breakup of selected publications (1999–2017).

Trend of waste plastic research (publications) from 1999 to 2017.

Quality assessment

After the literature selection process, the quality assessment of the selected papers was performed. In the defined protocol each of the paper was assessed against the quality criteria. All of the research papers were reviewed and the quality of the selected papers with respect to each research question was assessed. The following is the quality criteria (QR) defined against each research question.

The paper emphasizes different uses and applications of plastics.

The paper provides in depth detail of the environmental impacts and techniques used in the management of waste plastic.

The paper provides a clear description of how the degradation of waste plastics take place in the environment.

The paper clearly states process/technique (in general or for a specific waste plastic conversion into a useful product).

Each of the selected papers was read and analyzed manually by the authors. The separate quality criteria of each research question helped the authors to objectively assess the quality of the answers to the research questions provided in each of the selected papers. To quantify this assessment for further analysis, each paper was assigned weights against each research question based on the assessment of quality against the above-mentioned criteria. The weights were assigned in the following manner.

0 when the paper does not provide any information regarding the defined question.

0.5 for a question partially but satisfactorily explained in a paper.

1 for a question fully explained in the paper.

The total score shows the relevancy of each paper with our research. The percentage of each of the paper is taken out of the total papers selected (153 papers). Table 5 shows the quality assessment of the selected papers for each year (average).

Quality assessment of the selected papers for each year (average).

Data extraction

The required data related to the research questions were extracted from the papers after the quality assessment process ( Table 5 ).

The important data extracted is presented in the form of different tables, briefly mentioned as follows;

Table 2 identifies all finally selected papers, along with their titles, citation, paper type and year of publishing.

Table 3 publication types which are in the form of book section, conference papers, and journal papers.

Table 4 presents year wise distribution of the selected papers from the year 1999 to 2017.

Table 5 presents the quality assessment of the selected papers (average).

Table 6 identifies different types of plastic materials found in the environment.

Plastic types commonly found in the natural environment ( 10 ), ( 170 ).

Some measurements for the quality of papers with respect to the research questions

The following calculations were performed for all the four research questions defined. The summary statistics for the research questions of the percentage out of four are shown in Table 7 . The standard deviation shows that how the data are away from its means and the standard deviation represents the degree of dispersion. It actually finds out the variation in data. If there is no variation in the data, then the standard variation will be zero. The value of the standard deviation is always positive. It is represented by “σ”.

Summary statistics for research question on the input data and computed using the estimated parameters of the normal distribution.

Statistics estimated based on the input data and computed using the estimated parameters of the normal distribution are shown in Table 7 .

The skewness tells us that how the data are skewed. It is the degree of symmetry in the data. The skewness values must be in between the range of 1 and −1. Kurtosis explores the distribution of the frequency of the extreme data. Before finding the kurtosis there should be a need to find out the mean deviation. The statistics show that these values are within the range.

Results and discussion

The following sub-sections present a brief discussion on the findings of the proposed study and the literature review. The discussion and review are structured in four sub-sections, each of the sections presenting one of the defined research questions. The discussion encompasses all of the 153 selected papers according to the search criteria and their quality assessment is provided in Table 8 .

Quality assessment of the selected papers.

Natural polymers, for example, rubber, have been utilized by humans for a long time, however, since the 1800s when vulcanized rubber was found (in 1839). Worldwide plastic production has constantly increased ( 5 ). From 1950 to 2012 development of plastics arrived at the midpoint of 8.7% for each year, enhancing from 1.7 million tons to almost 300 million tons today. Overall production kept on growing between the 1970s and 2012 as plastics progressively supplanted materials like metal and glass. Plastic production in 2013 was 299 million tons, representing a 3.9% expansion over output in 2012 ( 171 ). In 2014 the production of plastics exceeded 300 million metric tons worldwide for every year ( 172 ). Demand for plastic due to consumerism and convenience, alongside the similarly low cost of producing plastic materials is growing. Recycling and recovery of plastic however, remained inadequate and huge amounts of plastics end up in oceans and landfills every year ( 173 ). Paper, glass and metal are progressively supplanted by plastic packaging, especially for food. Plastic packaging represented 30% by 2009 of all packaging sales ( 174 ).

As plastics consists of various types of organic monomers attached end to end their characteristics are determined from the nature and types of the repeating units. The plastic formed usually represents solid or semi-solid materials with various degrees of flexibility, strength, harness and other properties. In order to improve the plastic specific characteristics, durability and strength, various types of additives are also added. These additives and the nature of certain plastics is highly controversial due to health concerns ( 175 ). Plastics have become an indispensable resource for humankind, frequently providing a usefulness that cannot be effortlessly or financially supplanted by other materials. Plastic items have given advantages to society in terms of quality of life, employments and the economy. Most plastics are mechanically stable and last for a long time ( 175 ). In the medical field and in hospitals plastics play an essential role. In hospitals plastics are utilized on a huge scale. The day to day plastic waste production includes glucose bottles, I.V. sets, disposable syringes, B.T. sets; cannulas, catheters, etc., and disposable plastic aprons are discarded on a daily basis. Plastics might be convenient and easy for everyday use, however, their negative effects on our well-being cannot be neglected. Worldwide plastics continue to be discarded and are making huge amounts of trash, due its non-biodegradable nature ( 9 ). The most abundant and commonly used polymers worldwide which present 90% of the total production of plastic are polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyamides (PA) (nylons) and polycarbonate (PC). The health effects and uses of these commonly-used plastics are summarized in Table 6 . Significant amounts of plastic have aggregated in landfills and in the environment. Plastic waste in municipal waste streams represents about 10% by weight ( 7 ), ( 176 ).

The following is a list of studies including some in Table 8 on the use and application of plastics ( 5 ), ( 7 ), ( 9 ), ( 10 ), ( 17 ), ( 19 ), ( 24 ), ( 26 ), ( 39 ), ( 45 ), ( 48 ), ( 49 ), ( 51 ), ( 52 ), ( 53 ), ( 54 ), ( 55 ), ( 56 ), ( 57 ), 60 ), ( 83 ), ( 107 ), ( 108 ), ( 117 ), ( 122 ), ( 124 ), ( 144 ), ( 154 ), ( 155 ), ( 162 ), ( 163 ), ( 164 ), 167 ), ( 170 ), ( 171 ), ( 172 ), ( 173 ), ( 174 ), ( 175 ), ( 176 ). Keeping in mind the above studies, most of the common applications of plastics include packaging, construction, electronics, electrical goods, furniture, automobiles, households, agriculture and other industrial usages. In addition, a huge part of packaging plastic is disposable and is no longer utilized after its initial usage. Another extensive area of utilization is within the motor vehicle and the electronics industries. Plastic polymers are likewise used to manufacture paints and glues for utilizing in textiles. In modern society plastics satisfies various essential functions and we would not be able to live without plastic materials today. In medical apparatus, from prostheses to blood bags, the particular properties of a plastic decide its application. Plastics can likewise be favorable from an environmental and health perspective.

What are the different environmental impacts of waste plastics? What different types of techniques are available for waste plastics management?

For the last couple of decades, the uncontrolled utilization of plastics for different purposes, such as agriculture, industry, transportation and packaging in urban as well as rural areas has highlighted the significant issue of plastic waste disposal and its contamination. Plastic materials are of great concern in the environment because of their accumulation and resistance to degradation ( 170 ). Despite having various positive properties, from the waste administration point of view the plastics contributes an assortment of demerits ( 6 ). Traditionally, plastics in the ambient environment are not readily degraded and are very stable. Synthetic plastics lead to environmental pollution and are considered a big problem ( 8 ). Plastics provide risky human exposure to poisonous components, for example, DEHP and BPA ( 10 ). The plastic industry is essential for earning foreign exchange, but the wastewater effluents discharge from the plastic industry is a major problem. Such wastewater effluents result in objectionable odor emissions, surface and groundwater quality deterioration and poisoning the land, which indirectly or directly affects the aquatic life as well as the local inhabitants’ health ( 177 ). Harmful chemicals are released into the adjacent soil from chlorinated plastics, which seep into other adjacent water sources or groundwater. Landfill regions are continually heaped high with a variety of plastics. Many microorganisms in these landfills carry out biodegradation of some plastics masses. Plastic degradation results in the release of methane ( 178 ).

Several ecologically damaging and hazardous effects on the marine environment are caused due to plastic pollution. Wastewater effluents of the plastic industry are characterized by parameters such as turbidity, pH, suspended solids, BOD, sulfide and COD. Plastics are the most common elements found in the ocean. It is harmful for the environment as it does not decompose easily and is often ingested as a food by marine animals ( 156 ). In the digestive system of these animals the ingested plastic persists and lead to decreased gastric enzyme secretion, gastrointestinal blockage, decreased feeding stimuli, reproduction problems and decreased steroid hormone levels ( 179 ). Plastic waste is disposed of by recycling, incineration and landfill ( 170 ). Incineration and pyrolytic conversion of waste plastic results in the emission of hazardous atmospheric pollutants, including polyaromatic hydrocarbons, CO 2 (a greenhouse gas) and persistent organic pollutants like dioxins which causes global warming and pollution ( 9 ).

In the ocean organic pollutants are found in high concentrations in plastic particles. The chemicals that are toxic and found in oceanic plastic debris includes; nonylphenol (NP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organic pesticides such as bisphenol A (BPA), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) ( 159 ). Many of these compounds pose risks to wildlife and human health ( 180 ). These toxic chemicals cause health problems such as endocrine disruption, breast cancer, neurobehavioral changes, developmental impairment (hormonal imbalances, growth abnormalities and neurological impairment), arthritis, cancer, DNA hypomethylation and diabetes ( 101 ).

Plastics contain a wide range of chemicals, contingent upon the type of plastic. The expansion of chemicals is the principle motivation behind why these plastics have become so multipurpose, however, this has issues related with it. A few of the chemicals utilized in the generation of plastics can be absorbed by people through skin retention. A great deal is still unknown on how extremely people are physically influenced by these chemicals. A portion of the chemicals utilized in the generation of plastics can cause dermatitis on human skin contact. In numerous plastics, these poisonous chemicals are only utilized in trace amounts, yet noteworthy testing is frequently required to guarantee that the dangerous components are contained inside the plastic by idle material or polymers. Plastic contamination can also affect humans in which it may create an eyesore that interferes with enjoyment of the natural environment ( 178 ). Hayden et al. ( 170 ) carried out a study on plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly (ethylene terephthalate). They concluded from their study that plastic accumulation is a major environmental concern in the world’s oceans. PET is a major plastic used in food packaging, textiles and many other applications. PETs cause many environmental problems due to their accumulation in environment and their non-biodegradable nature.

The most common techniques used for disposal of plastic are recycling, incineration and landfill, each method has some drawbacks and disadvantages. A large area of land is required for landfill and secondary pollutants are released from incineration and landfill into the environment. Recycling is cost effective but there are less investment incentives for recycling facilities ( 9 ). The best option which is efficient and environmentally friendly for plastic waste disposal is biodegradation. On a commercial scale, there is no appropriate disposal of PET by biodegradation. However, significant research in biodegradation of polymers and producing biodegradable polymers is being conducted. Khan et al. ( 177 ) carried out a study to evaluate the wastewater effluents of the aminoplast industry situated in the Gadoon industrial estate in Amazai. The wastewater effluents were examined for turbidity, pH, suspended solids, BOD, sulfide and COD. The results showed that the wastewater effluent discharge from the aminoplast industry has a high concentration of BOD, which is harmful to the aquatic life when discharged without treatment. The study suggested that to keep the environment safe from the impacts of industrial effluents in the area, treatment techniques such as chemical adsorption, flocculation, pH adjustment and air stripping, etc. should be used.

Recycling in the solid waste administration hierarchy is considered as the best alternative in order to reduce the effects introduced by end of use and end of life post-consumer plastic packaging wastes ( 181 ). Recycling allows the chance to make a new product to utilize the recovered plastics ( 89 ). In the plastics industry, a currently available important action to reduce the impact of plastics is recycling. Recycling can reduce quantities of waste requiring disposal and minimize CO 2 emissions and oil usage. The quantity of recycled plastics, that began in the 1970s, vary geographically, according to application and type of plastic. In recent decades, in various countries, there have been rapid developments in the reusing of packaging materials. Progress in innovations and frameworks for recyclable plastics reprocessing, sorting and collection are creating new recycling opportunities, and with the joint activities of governments, industry and the public it might be conceivable that over the coming decade more and more plastics will be recycled ( 5 ). The principal disadvantage related to plastic waste disposal is the way in which landfill facilities occupy space that could be used for more gainful means, for example, agriculture ( 182 ). This is intensified by the moderate degradability of most plastics, as this implies the used land is inaccessible for long timeframes. Plastic segments of landfill waste appear to exist for more than 20 years ( 183 ). This is because of the constrained accessibility of oxygen in landfills; the encompassing condition is basically anaerobic ( 184 ), ( 185 ). Thermooxidative degradation to a great extent limits the degradation of many plastics ( 186 ), and the anaerobic conditions further limit the degradation rates in landfills. In landfill, the plastic debris for various secondary environmental pollutants acts as a source of pollution ( 182 ). Volatile organics such as trimethyl benzenes, ethyl benzenes, xylenes, toluene and benzene are contained in the leachate and released as gases ( 187 ) and compounds, especially bisphenol A (BPA) which has endocrine disrupting properties ( 102 ). BPA in landfill released from plastics can result in the hydrogen sulfide production by bacteria (sulfate-reducing) in the soil populace ( 103 ). Hydrogen sulfide in high concentrations is possibly lethal ( 103 ). Incineration is another technique routinely used for plastic waste disposal ( 182 ). Plastic incineration is advantageous in terms of energy recovery in the form of heat and it does not need any significant space ( 188 ). Numerous harmful compounds are formed and released as a result of incineration of plastics to the atmosphere ( 182 ). Plastic incineration produces and releases greenhouse gases particularly CO 2 , toxic carbon, heavy metals, PCBs and PAHs ( 114 ), ( 123 ).

The following is a list of studies including some in Table 8 and others providing different environmental impacts and details of the techniques for waste plastic management ( 5 ), ( 6 ), ( 8 ), ( 9 ), ( 10 ), 16 ), ( 18 ), ( 19 ), ( 20 ), ( 21 ), ( 22 ), ( 24 ), ( 25 ), ( 27 ), ( 28 ), ( 33 ), ( 34 ), ( 37 ), ( 39 ), ( 40 ), ( 41 ), ( 42 ), ( 43 ), ( 44 ), ( 45 ), ( 47 ), ( 48 ), ( 49 ), ( 52 ), ( 53 ), ( 54 ), ( 55 ), ( 56 ), ( 57 ), ( 58 ), ( 59 ), ( 60 ), ( 61 ), ( 64 ), ( 65 ), ( 66 ), ( 70 ), ( 71 ), ( 72 ), ( 73 ), ( 74 ), ( 75 ), ( 76 ), ( 77 ), ( 78 ), ( 79 ), ( 80 ), ( 83 ), ( 85 ), ( 86 ), ( 88 ), ( 89 ), ( 93 ), ( 94 ), ( 95 ), ( 98 ), ( 99 ), ( 100 ), ( 101 ), ( 102 ), ( 103 ), ( 103 ), ( 104 ), ( 105 ), ( 106 ), ( 107 ), ( 108 ), ( 112 ), ( 114 ), ( 115 ), ( 116 ), ( 119 ), ( 120 ), ( 122 ), ( 123 ), ( 124 ), ( 125 ), ( 127 ), ( 128 ), ( 129 ), ( 134 ), ( 135 ), ( 136 ), ( 137 ), 139 ), ( 141 ), ( 144 ), ( 145 ), ( 149 ), ( 150 ), ( 151 ), ( 152 ), ( 153 ), ( 154 ), ( 155 ), ( 156 ), ( 157 ), ( 158 ), ( 159 ), ( 162 ), ( 163 ), ( 164 ), ( 166 ), ( 167 ), ( 170 ), ( 177 ), ( 178 ), ( 179 ), ( 180 , ( 182 ), ( 183 ), ( 184 ), ( 185 ), ( 186 ), ( 187 ), ( 188 ), ( 189 ). Keeping in mind the above studies, plastics have turned into a critical element of present day life and are utilized as a part of various sectors of applications like consumer products, building materials, packaging and considerably more. There are 300 million tons of plastics produced each year worldwide. Plastics remain for a very long time in nature and are characteristically resistant and inert to microbial attack. Plastic materials that are disposed of improperly are a critical wellspring of natural contamination, conceivably harming life.

How degradation of waste plastics take place in the environment? Which management technique is typically used for handling waste plastics?

The management of waste plastics through biodegradation is gaining interest among researchers because this technique holds promise to minimize environmental pollution effectively. Most plastics are resistant to biodegradation. In general, plastic materials in the environment do not break down readily and subsequently can litter the environment ( 190 ). In the environment plastics degrade through four different mechanisms: biodegradation by microorganisms, hydrolytic degradation, thermooxidative degradation and photodegradation ( 186 ). As a rule, degradation of plastics naturally starts with photodegradation, which can then become thermooxidative degradation. The energy from the sun in the form of ultraviolet radiation is necessary for the initiation of the photooxidation of the polymer matrix ( 191 ). The oxidation weakens the plastic which breaks up into smaller pieces, until the molecular weight of the of polymer chain reduces enough to be easily utilized by microorganisms ( 186 ). The microorganisms either incorporate the carbon in the polymer chains into biomolecules or convert it into CO 2 ( 192 ). However, this process can take more than 50 years and is very slow process to fully degrade the plastic ( 160 ).

Reduction in the polymer molecular weight is known as degradation. The types of degradation are;

De-polymerization/chain end degradation

Random degradation

Biodegradation is characterized as a molecular weight reduction by naturally occurring microorganisms, for example, actinomycetes, fungi and bacteria, that are involved in both synthetic and natural plastics degradation ( 193 ). Plastic materials disposed of improperly are also a critical wellspring of natural contamination, which may harm life on earth. Air and water are prevented from entering the soil by plastic bags or sheets which results in underground water source depletion, soil infertility, prevention of the degradation of other substances and are a threat to animal life ( 194 ). According to municipality administrations the key reason for the blocked drains is plastic carrier bags, thus incineration of municipal wastes is prohibited because it can lead to the accumulation of sludge, garbage and junk. Plastic in this biosphere is a furious parasite that eats up and contaminates everything ( 195 ). In the mid-1980s the examination on degradability of plastics began. A few types of plastic have been appeared to be biodegradable, and their mechanisms of degradation dynamically moved toward becoming clearer ( 161 ). Diverse degradable plastics, for example, starch-filled polyethylene (Griffin process), vinyl ketone copolymers (Guillet process), ethylene-carbon monoxide polymers, poly (3-hydroxybutyrate- 3- hydroxy valerate) and polylactides have been developed ( 196 ). These plastics vary in price, application and degradation rate.

In one improvement, plastics resistance and inertness was reduced by microbial attack by joining starch and later prooxidants (oil and transition metals) ( 197 ). Kathiresan (2003) analyzed the plastic and polythene bags degradation by using Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial and fungal species. The predominant bacterial species were Micrococcus , Staphylococcus , Streptococcus , Pseudomonas and Moraxella . While the fungal species used were Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus glaucus . Among bacteria Pseudomonas species degraded 8.16% of plastics and 20.54% of polythene in a period of 1 month. Among fungal species Aspergillus glaucus degraded 7.26% of plastics and 28.80% of polythene in a period of 1 month. This study also showed that mangrove soil is a decent wellspring of microbes fit for degrading plastics and polythene ( 153 ).

The following is a list of studies including some in the above table and others providing degradation of waste plastic ( 22 ), ( 23 ), ( 26 ), ( 31 ), ( 32 ), ( 35 ), ( 36 ), ( 38 ), ( 44 ), ( 45 ), ( 46 ), 49 ), ( 50 ), ( 63 ), ( 90 ), ( 108 ), ( 109 ), ( 111 ), ( 113 ), ( 122 ), ( 125 ), ( 126 ), ( 128 ), ( 131 ), ( 135 ), ( 138 ), ( 148 ), ( 150 ), ( 152 ), ( 153 ), ( 160 ), ( 161 ), ( 162 ), ( 165 ), ( 168 ), ( 186 ), ( 190 ), ( 191 ), ( 192 ), ( 193 ), ( 194 ), ( 195 ), ( 196 ), ( 197 ), ( 198 ). Based on the above studies, various techniques used for handling the waste plastic include: land filling, incineration, recycling and conversion into gaseous and liquid fuels, etc. All of these methods have their own disadvantages and exploring the best possible option for the management of waste plastics is required.

Environmental pollution due to waste plastics can be reduced by using an extruder to convert it into useful building materials which will decrease the waste plastic problem further. Currently useful building materials are made from waste plastics like retaining blocks, paving slabs, railway sleepers, roof tiles, interlocks, bricks, etc., utilizing either a mixture of various wastes plastic alongside rubber powder waste as a filler or single origin waste plastic material. Waste plastics when mixed with calcium carbonate and rubber powder sustains a high load of compression and gives the highest compressive strength ( 189 ).

The huge amount of waste plastic that is produced might be treated by appropriately planned techniques to produce substitutes for fossil fuel. The strategy is predominant in all regards (economic and ecological) if financial support and proper infrastructure are given. In this way, an appropriate procedure for production of hydrocarbon fuel from waste plastic can be designed and would be a less expensive petroleum substitute without any of the hazardous emissions if implemented. It would likewise deal with hazardous waste plastic and lessen the amount of crude oil needed ( 199 ). Chemical recycling is the conversion of waste plastic into fuel or feedstock which could fundamentally lessen the net disposal cost and has been perceived as a perfect approach ( 199 ). Chemical recycling of waste plastics is an adaptive procedure which converts waste plastics into gases or liquids (smaller molecules) which are appropriate for the utilization of new plastics and petrochemical items. In fuel production, chemical recycling has been demonstrated to be valuable. The de-polymerization processes in chemical recycling bring about manageable enterprises which result in less waste and high product. Some of the processes in the petrochemical industry, for example, catalytic cracking or steam, pyrolysis, etc., are similar to the chemical recycling process ( 200 ).

Another approach to chemical recycling, which has gained much intrigue as of late, is the plan to use basic petrochemicals production from waste plastics fuel oils or hydrocarbon feedstock for an assortment of downstream procedures ( 201 ). There are various techniques for waste plastic conversion into fuels, for example, gasification, catalytic cracking and thermal degradation ( 202 ). The process in which waste plastic is heated and decomposed into oils and gases in limited oxygen or the absence of oxygen is known as pyrolysis. Pyrolysis involves the breakdown of plastic polymers into small molecules. Viscous liquids are produced at temperatures <400°C (low temperature) while temperatures >600°C (high temperature) favor gas production. This procedure is a feasible course of the waste plastic conversion into gases and fuels ( 200 ).

Waste plastic can be converted into different products, details of the techniques for waste plastic conversion can found in ( 16 ), ( 20 ), ( 21 ), ( 24 ), ( 25 ), ( 27 ), ( 29 ), ( 30 ), ( 34 ), ( 44 ), ( 51 ), ( 53 ), ( 57 ), ( 58 ), ( 62 ), ( 66 ), ( 68 ), ( 69 ), ( 76 ), ( 77 ), ( 78 ), ( 80 ), ( 81 ), ( 82 ), ( 84 ), ( 85 ), ( 91 ), ( 92 ), ( 93 ), ( 94 ), ( 96 ), ( 97 ), ( 98 ), ( 99 ), ( 100 ), ( 104 ), ( 105 ), ( 106 ), ( 110 ), ( 115 ), ( 116 ), ( 117 ), ( 118 ), ( 120 ), ( 121 ), ( 122 ), ( 128 ), ( 130 ), ( 132 ), ( 133 ), ( 143 ), ( 146 ), ( 147 ), ( 150 ), ( 152 ), ( 189 ), ( 199 ), ( 200 ), ( 201 ), ( 202 ). To develop products and process standards is a challenge of postconsumer reused plastics as is embracing the further development of pyrolysis advancements for waste plastics while alluding to the perceptions of innovative work in this field to suit the mixed waste plastics and middle and low scaled production reactors for pyrolysis. Additionally, the investigation would help decrease operating costs and capital investment, and in this way would improve the process economic viability.

Limitations

The first limitation of this research study is that the search was carried out in only few but the most widely referenced libraries. There are a number of libraries which were skipped during the searching process. This decision was taken to focus on only those papers which were published in high quality peer reviewed journals and conference venues in order to get justifiable results. It was decided to avoid searching in Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.com.pk/ ), which provides access to all of the papers published in the given libraries and to save time from finding duplicate entries of papers. Secondly, the search was performed using a limited set of keywords (mainly waste plastics) to get only directly related results. There is a chance that a paper might have been ignored which may describe waste plastics but not using the terms searched for. It was decided by the authors during the protocol development to be able to properly control and organize the search and paper selection process. Thirdly, not all of the selected research (papers) are discussed and analyzed. The analysis of the research is based only on most frequently used waste plastic concepts and techniques. Although, an effort has been made to provide references to all of the important and high-quality valued papers for the benefit of the reader.

Different types of waste plastics have been used in plastic waste management research and are being converted into useful products. This information is not yet available collectively as a comprehensive literature review to help in the further development of waste plastic management, specifically to guide practitioners that their choices are dependent upon different fundamental strategies used for handling of waste plastics. This systematic literature review identified 153 primary studies (articles published in journals, books, conferences and so on) defining the uses of plastic, the environmental impact of waste plastics, waste plastic management techniques, and their conversion processes into useful products. This shows that a lot of work is still needed in the direction of the management of waste plastics for a more precise understanding of the extent of methods made in the management of waste plastics. This study also aimed at identifying the applications of plastics, but it was found that almost all other applications are either directly or indirectly related to plastics. The accumulation of all of the information in this systematic literature review will benefit the research community and practitioners in identifying from where they need to start further research and the direction for waste plastics.

Research funding: Authors state no funding involved.

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

Informed consent: Informed consent is not applicable.

Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.

1. Fried JR. Polymer science and technology. Introduction to polymer science. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1995. Search in Google Scholar

2. Seymour RB. Polymer science before & after 1899: notable developments during the lifetime of Maurtis Dekker. J Macromol Sci Chem 1989;26:1023–32. 10.1080/00222338908052032 Search in Google Scholar

3. Gautam R, Bassi AS, Yanful EK, Cullen E. Biodegradation of automotive waste olyester polyurethane foam using Pseudomonas chlororaphis ATCC55729. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 2008;60:245. 10.1016/j.ibiod.2007.03.009 Search in Google Scholar

4. Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH. Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Phil Trans R Soc B. Biol Sci 2009;364:2153–66. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

5. Souhrada L. Reusables revisited as medical waste adds up. Hospitals 1988;62(20):82. Search in Google Scholar

6. Emily JN, Rolf UH. Plastics and environmental health: the road ahead. Rev Environ Health 2014;28(1):1–8. Search in Google Scholar

7. Anthony LA, Mike AN. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009;364:1977–84. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0304 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Jefferson H, Robert D, Edward K. Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Phil Trans R Soc B 2009;364:2115–26. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0311 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Bupe GM, Charles M. Drivers to sustainable plastic solid waste recycling: a review. Procedia Manuf 2017;8:649–56. 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.083 Search in Google Scholar

10. Halden RU. Plastics and health risks. Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31(1):179–94. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103714 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. United States Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA, Municipal solid waste 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/muncpl/facts.htm . Search in Google Scholar

12. Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 2009;51(1):7–15. 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 Search in Google Scholar

13. Barbara K. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Software Engineering Group School of Computer Science and Mathematics Keele University, Keele, Staffs, ST5 5BG, UK and Department of Computer Science University of Durham, Durham, UK, 2007. Search in Google Scholar

14. Seong WK, Hyungjoon S, Seong-je C, Minkyu P, Sangchul H. A robust and efficient birthmark based android application filtering system, in Proceedings of the Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems. Towson, MD: ACM, 2014;253–7. Search in Google Scholar

15. ENDNOTE. 2016. Available at: http://endnote.com . Search in Google Scholar

16. Zhang Y, Nahil MA, Wu C, Williams PT. Pyrolysis-catalysis of waste plastic using a nickel stainless-steel mesh catalyst for high-value carbon products. Environ Technol 2017;38(22):2889–97. 10.1080/09593330.2017.1281351 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Adedayo AB, Adebola AA, Olusola OA, Julius MN, Kehinde WK, Babatunde SB, et al. Plastic waste as strength modifiers in asphalt for a sustainable environment. Afric J Sci Technol Innovat Develop 2017;9(2):173–7. 10.1080/20421338.2017.1302681 Search in Google Scholar

18. Dalhat MA, Al-Abdul Wahhab HI. Performance of recycled plastic waste modified asphalt binder in Saudi Arabia. Int J Pavement Eng 2017;18(4):349–57. 10.1080/10298436.2015.1088150 Search in Google Scholar

19. Roland G, Jenna RJ, Kara LL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 2017;3(7):e1700782. 10.1126/sciadv.1700782 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Zander NE, Gillan M, Sweetser D. Composite fibers from recycled plastics using melt centrifugal Sspinning. Materials 2017;10(9):1044–44. 10.3390/ma10091044 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

21. Ragaert K, Delva L, Geem KV. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Manag 2017;69:24–58. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.044 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Cheuk-Fai C, Wing-Mui WS, Tsz-Yan C, Siu-Kit DY. Plastic waste problem and education for plastic waste management. Emerg Pract Scholarship Learn Teach Digital Era 2017:125–40. 10.1007/978-981-10-3344-5_8 Search in Google Scholar

23. Najeeb K, Song-Charng K. Energy Recovery from waste plastics by using blends of biodiesel and polystyrene in diesel engines. Energy Fuels 2009;23(6):3246–53. 10.1021/ef801110j Search in Google Scholar

24. Mohanraj C, Senthilkumar T, Chandrasekar M. A review on conversion techniques of liquid fuel from waste plastic materials. Int J Energy Res 2017;41(11):1534–52. 10.1002/er.3720 Search in Google Scholar

25. Pivnenko K, Granby K, Eriksson E, Astrup TF. Recycling of plastic waste: screening for brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Waste Manag 2017;69:101–9. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.038 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Roohi, Bano K, Kuddus M, Zaheer MR, Zia Q, Khan MF, et al. Microbial enzymatic degradation of biodegradable plastics. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2017;18(5):429–40. 10.2174/1389201018666170523165742 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Auxilio AR, Choo WL, Kohli I, Chakravartula SS, Bhattacharya S. An experimental study on thermo-catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste using a continuous pyrolyser. Waste Manag 2017;67:143–54. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.011 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Munari C, Scoponi M, Mistri M. Plastic debris in the Mediterranean sea: types, occurrence and distribution along Adriatic shorelines. Waste Manag 2017;67:385–91. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.020 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Michael N. 3–Degradation of plastics in the marine environment. Manag Marine Plastic Debris Prevention Recycling Waste Manag 2017;127–42. 10.1016/B978-0-323-44354-8.00003-3 Search in Google Scholar

30. Miandad R, Barakat MA, Rehan M, Aburiazaiza AS, Ismail I, Nizami AS. Plastic waste to liquid oil through catalytic pyrolysis using natural and synthetic zeolite catalysts. Waste Manag 2017;69:66–78. 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.032 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

31. Debroas D, Mone A, Ter HA. Plastics in the North Atlantic garbage patch: a boat-microbe for hitchhikers and plastic degraders. Sci Total Environ 2017;1(599–600):1222–32. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.059 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

32. Paço A, Duarte K, da Cost JP, Santos PS, Pereira R, Pereira ME, et al. Biodegradation of polyethylene microplastics by the marine fungus Zalerion maritimum. Sci Total Environ 2017;15(586):10–15. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.017 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

33. Arne MR, Daniel RS. What is the right level of recycling of plastic waste? Waste Manag Res 2017;35(2):129–31. 10.1177/0734242X16687928 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

34. Lange LC, Ferreira AF. The effect of recycled plastics and cooking oil on coke quality. Waste Manag 2017;61:269–75. 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.039 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

35. Emadian SM, Onay TT, Demirel B. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments. Waste Manag 2017;59:526–36. 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.006 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

36. Wilkes RA, Aristilde L. Degradation and metabolism of synthetic plastics and associated products by Pseudomonas sp.: capabilities and challenges. J Appl Microbiol 2017;123:582–93. 10.1111/jam.13472 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

37. Gobbi CN, Sanches VML, Pacheco EBAV, Guimarães MJDOC, de Freitas MAV. Management of plastic wastes at Brazilian ports and diagnosis of their generation. Marine Poll Bull 2017;124(1):67–73. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.004 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

38. Alexandra TH, Lucie L, Xavier G, Dominique G, Claire P, Corinne R, et al. To what extent are microplastics from the open ocean weathered? Environ. Pollut 2017;227:167–74. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.051 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

39. Erkan A, Veysel Y. Consumer attitudes on the use of plastic and cloth bags. Environ Dev Sustain 2017;19(4):1219–34. 10.1007/s10668-016-9791-x Search in Google Scholar

40. Al-Salem SM, Antelava A, Constantinou A, Manos G, Dutta A. A review on thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid waste (PSW). J Environ Manage 2017;197:177–98. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.084 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

41. Rebecca LW, Steven MR, Ryan PR, Alan GM. Advanced chemical characterization of pyrolysis oils from landfill waste, recycled plastics, and forestry residue. Energy Fuels 2017;31(8):8210–16. 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00865 Search in Google Scholar

42. So WMW, Cheng NYI, Chow CF, Zhan Y. Learning about the types of plastic wastes: effectiveness of inquiry learning strategies. Education 3-13 2016;44(3):311–24. 10.1080/03004279.2014.976239 Search in Google Scholar

43. Cheuk-Fai C, Winnie WMS, Yannes TYC. Research and development of a new waste collection bin to facilitate education in plastic recycling. Appl Environ Educ Commun 2016;15(1):45–57. 10.1080/1533015X.2016.1141723 Search in Google Scholar

44. Stagner J. Methane generation from anaerobic digestion of biodegradable plastics – a review. Int J Environ Studies 2016;73(3):462–8. 10.1080/00207233.2015.1108607 Search in Google Scholar

45. Sojobi AO, Nwobodo SE, Aladegboye OJ. Recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle wastes in bituminous asphaltic concrete. Cogent Engineering 2016;3(113348):1–28. 10.1080/23311916.2015.1133480 Search in Google Scholar

46. Taylor ML, Gwinnett C, Robinson LF, Woodall LC. Plastic microfibre ingestion by deep-sea organisms. Sci Rep 2016;30(6):33997. 10.1038/srep33997 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

47. Lozoya JP, Teixeira de Mello F, Carrizo D, Weinstein F, Olivera Y, Cedrés F, et al. Plastics and microplastics on recreational beaches in Punta del Este (Uruguay): unseen critical residents? Environ Pollut 2016;218:931–41. 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.041 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

48. Mark P. The plastics revolution: how chemists are pushing polymers to new limits. Nature 2016;18(536):266–8. Search in Google Scholar

49. Masmoudi F, Bessadok A, Dammak M, Jaziri M, Ammar E. Biodegradable packaging materials conception based on starch and polylactic acid (PLA) reinforced with cellulose. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2016;23(20):20904–914. 10.1007/s11356-016-7276-y Search in Google Scholar PubMed

50. Wu-Jun L, Ke T, Hong J, Han QY. Lab-scale thermal analysis of electronic waste plastics. J Hazard Mater 2016;310:217–25. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.02.044 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

51. Prieto A. To be, or not to be biodegradable… that is the question for the bio-based plastics. Microb Biotechnol 2016;9(5):652–7. 10.1111/1751-7915.12393 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

52. Giuliano V, Rosa VL, Ileana B, Giacomo SM, Evelia S. Mapping of agriculture plastic waste, in Florence “Sustainability of Well-Being International Forum”. 2015: food for Sustainability and not just food, FlorenceSWIF2015, 2016;8(2016):583–91. Search in Google Scholar

53. O’Connor I, Golsteijn L, Hendriks A. Review of the partitioning of chemicals into different plastics: consequences for the risk assessment of marine plastic debris. Marine Poll Bull 2016;113(1–2):17–24. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.021 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

54. Raju S, Prem PB. Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete – a review. J Clean Prod 2016;112:473–82. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.042 Search in Google Scholar

55. Renee K, Desalegn AM, David K, Jonna H, Jason DR, Liyang Y, et al. Thermoelectric plastics: from design to synthesis, processing and structure-property relationships. Chem Soc Rev 2016;45(22):6147–64. 10.1039/C6CS00149A Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

56. da Costa JP, Santos PSM, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. (Nano)plastics in the environment – sources, fates and effects. Sci Total Environ 2016;566-567:15–26. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.041 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

57. Rashid M, Mohammad R, Abdul-Sattar N, Mohammad AEl-FB, Iqbal MI. The energy and value-added products from pyrolysis of waste plastics. Recycl Solid Waste Biofuels Bio-chem 2016:333–5. 10.1007/978-981-10-0150-5_12 Search in Google Scholar

58. Shafferina DAS, Faisal A, Wan MAWD, Mohamed KA. A review on pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Energ Convers Manage 2016;115:308–26. 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.037 Search in Google Scholar

59. Pivnenko K, Eriksen MK, Martín-Fernández JA, Eriksson E, Astrup TF. Recycling of plastic waste: presence of phthalates in plastics from households and industry. Waste Manag 2016;54:44–52. 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.014 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

60. Dutta S, Nadaf MB, Mandal JN. An overview on the use of waste plastic bottles and fly ash in civil engineering applications. Procedia Environ Sci 2016;35:681–91. 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.067 Search in Google Scholar

61. Lupo E, Moroni M, La MF, Fulco S, Pinzi V. Investigation on an innovative technology for wet separation of plastic wastes. Waste Manag 2016;51:3–12. 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.030 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

62. Shen Y, Zhao R, Wang J, Chen X, Ge X, Chen M. Waste-to-energy: dehalogenation of plastic-containing wastes. Waste Manag 2016;49:287–303. 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.024 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

63. Yu J, Sun L, Ma C, Qiao Y, Yao H. Thermal degradation of PVC: a review. Waste Manag 2016;48:300–14. 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.041 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

64. Mallampati SR, Heo JH, Park MH. Hybrid selective surface hydrophilization and froth flotation separation of hazardous chlorinated plastics from E-waste with novel nanoscale metallic calcium composite. J Hazard Mater 2016;5(306):13–23. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.11.054 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

65. Verma R, Vinoda KS, Papireddy M, Gowda ANS. Toxic pollutants from plastic waste- a review. Procedia Environ Sci 2015;35:701–8. 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.069 Search in Google Scholar

66. Kaimal VK, Vijayabalan P. A study on synthesis of energy fuel from waste plastic and assessment of its potential as an alternative fuel for diesel engines. Waste Manag 2016;51:91–96. 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.003 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

67. Sajdak M, Muzyka R, Hrabak J, Słowik K. Use of plastic waste as a fuel in the co-pyrolysis of biomass part III: optimisation of the co-pyrolysis process. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2015;112(2015):298–305. 10.1016/j.jaap.2015.01.008 Search in Google Scholar

68. Odigure JO, Abdulkareem AS, Jimoh A, Okafor JO, Abiodun AA. Synthesis and characterization of lubricant additives from waste plastic. Energy Sources, Part A: Recov Utiliz Environ Effect 2015;37(17):1846–52. 10.1080/15567036.2011.654314 Search in Google Scholar

69. Carmela S, Aleksandra D, Giacomo S-M, Pietro P. Technical properties of regenerated plastic material bars produced from recycled agricultural plastic film. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2015;54(12):1207–14. 10.1080/03602559.2014.1003228 Search in Google Scholar

70. Andrady AL. Managing Plastic Waste, in Plastics and Environmental Sustainability. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, 2015. 10.1002/9781119009405 Search in Google Scholar

71. Eva S-I, Carles MG, Joan R, Xavier G. Contribution of plastic waste recovery to greenhouse gas (GHG) savings in Spain. Waste Manag 2015;46(2015):557–67. 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.007 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

72. Özkan K, Ergin S, Işık Ş, Işıklı I. A new classification scheme of plastic wastes based upon recycling labels. Waste Manag 2014;35(2015):29–35. 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.030 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

73. Toshiaki Y, Guido G. Recycling of waste plastics. Topical Themes Energy Resourc 2015:195–214. 10.1007/978-4-431-55309-0_11 Search in Google Scholar

74. Seiji N. Use of waste plastics in coke oven: a review. J Sustain Metall 2015;1(1):85–93. 10.1007/s40831-014-0001-5 Search in Google Scholar

75. Verena T, Nina K, Thomas B, Helmut R, Johann F. Influence of waste plastic utilisation in blast furnace on heavy metal emissions. J Clean Prod 2015;94(2015):312–320. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.018 Search in Google Scholar

76. Ashraf MHM, Subhi AA. Reusing waste plastic bottles as an alternative sustainable building material. Energy Sustain Dev 2015;4(2015):79–85. Search in Google Scholar

77. Janusz WB. Thermal utilization (treatment) of plastic waste. Energy 2015;90:1468–77. 10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.106 Search in Google Scholar

78. Rigamonti L, Grosso M, Moller J, Sanchez VM, Magnani S, Christensen TH. Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios. Resour Conserv Recy 2014;85(2014):42–53. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.012 Search in Google Scholar

79. Jha JN, Choudhary AK, Gill KS, Shukla SK. Behavior of plastic waste fiber-reinforced industrial wastes in pavement applications. Int J Geotech Eng 2014;8(3):277–86. 10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000044 Search in Google Scholar

80. Tavanaie MA. Melt recycling of poly(lactic acid) plastic wastes to produce biodegradable fibers. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2014;53:742–1. 10.1080/03602559.2013.877931 Search in Google Scholar

81. Chunfei W, Mohamad AN, Norbert M, Jun H, Paul TW. Processing real-world waste plastics by pyrolysis-reforming for hydrogen and high-value carbon nanotubes. Environ. Sci. Technol 2013;48(1):819–26. Search in Google Scholar

82. Pravin K, Ahmed AS, Srinivasakannan C. Temperature effects on the yield of gaseous olefins from waste polyethylene via flash pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 2014;28(5):3363–66. 10.1021/ef500516n Search in Google Scholar

83. Ignatyev IA, Thielemans W, Vander Beke B. Recycling of polymers: a review. ChemSusChem 2014;7(6):1579–93. 10.1002/cssc.201300898 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

84. Sánchez-Soto M, Maspoch ML, Velasco JI. Analysis and thermo-mechanical characterization of mixed plastic wastes. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2013;52(1):16–23. 10.1080/03602559.2012.717240 Search in Google Scholar

85. Saeed KN. Use of recycled plastics in wood plastic composites – a review. Waste Manag 2013;33(8):1898–905. 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.017 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

86. Carson HS. The incidence of plastic ingestion by fishes: from the prey’s perspective. Marine Poll Bull 2013;74(1):170–4. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.008 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

87. Kotiba H, Mosab K, Fawaz D. Recycling of waste from polymer materials: an overview of the recent works. Polym Degrad Stab 2013;98(12):2801–12. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.09.025 Search in Google Scholar

88. Kannan P, Al Shoaibi A, Srinivasakannan C. Energy recovery from co-gasification of waste polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate blends. Comput Fluids 2013:88:38–42. 10.1016/j.compfluid.2013.09.004 Search in Google Scholar

89. Ezeah C, Fazakerley JA, Roberts CL. Emerging trends in informal sector recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Manag 2013;33(11):2509–19. 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.06.020 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

90. Maurizio T, Miriam W, Michela S, Christian L, Francesco DI. Laboratory test methods to determine the degradation of plastics in marine environmental conditions. Front Microbiol 2012;21(3):225. Search in Google Scholar

91. Mülhaupt R. Green polymer chemistry and bio-based plastics: dreams and reality. Macromol Chem Phys 2012;214(2):159–74. 10.1002/macp.201200439 Search in Google Scholar

92. Liu X, Wang Z, Xu D, Guo Q. Pyrolysis of waste plastic crusts of televisions. Environ Technol 2012;33(16–18):1987–92. 10.1080/09593330.2012.655318 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

93. Kaewpengkrow P, Atong D, Sricharoenchaikul V. Pyrolysis and gasification of landfilled plastic wastes with Ni− Mg− La/Al2O3 catalyst. Environ Technol 2012;33(22):2489–95. 10.1080/09593330.2012.680918 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

94. Alireza B, Gordon M. A review – synthesis of carbon nanotubes from plastic wastes. Chem Eng 2012;195–196:377–91. 10.1016/j.cej.2012.03.077 Search in Google Scholar

95. Komasatitaya J, Luangsa-ard N, Techavuthiporn C. Characteristics of starch-filled LLDPE plastic processed from plastic waste. J Chin Inst Eng 2012;35(1):45–50. 10.1080/02533839.2012.624817 Search in Google Scholar

96. Sarker M. Converting waste plastic to hydrocarbon fuel materials. Energ Eng 2011;108(2):35–43. 10.1080/01998595.2011.10389018 Search in Google Scholar

97. Wang JL, Wang LL. Catalytic pyrolysis of municipal plastic waste to fuel with nickel-loaded silica-alumina catalysts. Energy Sources, Part A: Recov Utiliz Environ Effects 2011;33(21):1940–48. 10.1080/15567030903436814 Search in Google Scholar

98. Michael T. The Life Cycles of Plastics, in Plastics and Sustainability: Towards a Peaceful Coexistence between Bio-based and Fossil Fuel-based Plastics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2011. Search in Google Scholar

99. Alston SM, Arnold JC. Environmental impact of pyrolysis of mixed WEEE plastics part 2: life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:9386–92. 10.1021/es2016654 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

100. Esmaeil A, Majid Z, Mohamed RK, Mahrez A, Payam S. Using waste plastic bottles as additive for stone mastic asphalt. Mater Des 2011;32(2011):4844–49. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.06.016 Search in Google Scholar

101. Zhou Q, Gao Y, Xie G. Determination of bisphenol A, 4-n-nonylphenol, and 4-tert-octylphenol by temperature-controlled ionic liquid dispersive liquid-phase microextraction combined with high performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detector. Talanta 2011;85(3):1598–602. 10.1016/j.talanta.2011.06.050 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

102. Xu SY, Zhang H, He PJ, Shao LM. Leaching behaviour of bisphenol A from municipal solid waste under landfill environment. Environ Technol 2011;32(11–12):1269–77. 10.1080/09593330.2010.535175 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

103. Tsuchida D, Kajihara Y, Shimidzu N, Hamamura K, Nagase M. Hydrogen sulfide production by sulfate-reducing bacteria utilizing additives eluted from plastic resins. Waste Manag Res 2011;29(6):594–601. 10.1177/0734242X10388556 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

104. Shah SH, Khan ZM, Raja IA, Mahmood Q, Bhatti ZA, Khan J, et al. Low temperature conversion of plastic waste into light hydrocarbons. J Hazard Mater 2010;179(2010):15–20. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.01.134 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

105. Sang ANH. Plastic bags and environmental pollution. Art Education 2010;63(6):39–43. 10.1080/00043125.2010.11519101 Search in Google Scholar

106. O’Brine T, Thompson RC. Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment. Marine Poll Bull 2010;60(12):2279–83. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.005 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

107. Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P. Kinetic study of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pyrolysis. Chem Eng Res Des 2010; 88(12):1599–606. 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.03.012 Search in Google Scholar

108. András A, Norbert M, László B, Antal T, Lajos N, László V, et al. Production of steam cracking feedstocks by mild cracking of plastic wastes. Fuel Process Technol 2010;91(11):1717–24. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.07.010 Search in Google Scholar

109. Hannawi K, Kamali-Bernard S, Prince W. Physical and mechanical properties of mortars containing PET and PC waste aggregates. Waste Manag 2010;30(11):2312–20. 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.03.028 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

110. Fu P, Kawamura K. Ubiquity of bisphenol A in the atmosphere. Environ Pollut 2010;158(10):3138–43. 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.040 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

111. Schecter A, Colacino J, Haffner D, Patel K, Opel M, Päpke O, et al. Perfluorinated compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and organochlorine pesticide contamination in composite food samples from Dallas, Texas, USA. Environ Health Perspect 2010;118(6):796–802. 10.1289/ehp.0901347 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

112. Baljit S,T CB, Nisha S. Induction of biodegradability in the plastic waste through graft copolymerization. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2009;48(12):1324–32. 10.1080/03602550903204204 Search in Google Scholar

113. Shafferina DAS, Faisal A, Wan MAWD, Mohamed KA. Energy recovery from pyrolysis of plastic waste: study on non-recycled plastics (NRP) data as the real measure of plastic waste. Energ Convers Manage 2017;148(2017):925–34. 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.046 Search in Google Scholar

114. Astrup T, Møller J, Fruergaard T. Incineration and co-combustion of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag Res 2009;27(8):789–99. 10.1177/0734242X09343774 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

115. Keane MA. Catalytic transformation of waste polymers to fuel oil. ChemSusChem, 2009;2(3):207–14. 10.1002/cssc.200900001 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

116. Siddiqui MN. Conversion of hazardous plastic wastes into useful chemical products. J Hazard Mater 2009;167(1–3): 728–35. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.042 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

117. Yu S, Koichi F, Kenji K, Yoshihiro A, Yasunari M. CO2 reduction potentials by utilizing waste plastics in steel works. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14(2):122–36. 10.1007/s11367-008-0055-3 Search in Google Scholar

118. Toshiro T, Akito H. Gasification of waste plastics by steam reforming in a fluidized bed. J Mater Cycles Waste 2009;11(2):144–47. 10.1007/s10163-008-0227-z Search in Google Scholar

119. Siddiqui MN, Gondal MA, Redhwi HH. Identification of different type of polymers in plastics waste. J Environ Sci Heal A 2008;43(11):1303–10. 10.1080/10934520802177946 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

120. Francisco V, Sigbritt K. Quality concepts for the improved use of recycled polymeric materials: a review. Macromol Mater Eng 2008;293(4):274–97. 10.1002/mame.200700393 Search in Google Scholar

121. Aguado J, Serrano DP, Escola JM. Fuels from waste plastics by thermal and catalytic processes: a review. Ind Eng Chem Res 2008;47(41):7982–92. 10.1021/ie800393w Search in Google Scholar

122. Rafat S. Recycled/waste plastic in waste materials and by-products in concrete. Waste Mater By-Prod Concr 2008;93–120. Search in Google Scholar

123. Valavanidis A, Iliopoulos N, Gotsis G, Fiotakis K. Persistent free-radicals, heavy metals and PAHs generated in particulate soot emissions and residue ash from controlled combustion of common types of plastics. J Hazard Mater 2008;156:277–84. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.12.019 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

124. Prativa KN, Padma LN, Krishna Rao K. Thermal degradation analysis of biodegradable plastics from urea-modified soy protein isolate. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2007;46(3):207–11. 10.1080/03602550601152713 Search in Google Scholar

125. Marsh K, Bugusu B. Food packaging – roles, materials, and environmental issues. J Food Sci 2007;72(3):R39–55. 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x Search in Google Scholar PubMed

126. Kale G, Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Selke SE, Singh SP. Compostability of bioplastic packaging materials: an overview. Macromol Biosci 2007;7(3):255–77. 10.1002/mabi.200600168 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

127. Joseph G. Biodegradation of compostable plastics in green yard-waste compost environment. J Polym Environ 2007;15(4):269–73. 10.1007/s10924-007-0068-1 Search in Google Scholar

128. Ho-Seok J, Chul-Hyun P, Byoung-Gon K, Jai-Koo P. Development of triboelectrostaic separation technique for recycling of final waste plastic. Geosystem Eng 2006;9(1):21–24. 10.1080/12269328.2006.10541250 Search in Google Scholar

129. Aguado J, Serrano DP, Escola JM. Catalytic upgrading of plastic wastes. In: John S, Walter K, editors. Feedstock recycling and pyrolysis of waste plastics: converting waste plastics into diesel and other fuels. New York: John Wiley, 2006:73–110. 10.1002/0470021543.ch3 Search in Google Scholar

130. Choi WZ, Yoo JM, Cho BG. Separation of individual plastics from mixed plastic waste by gravity separation processes. Geosystem Eng 2006;9(3):65–72. 10.1080/12269328.2006.10541257 Search in Google Scholar

131. Petrucci LJT, Monteiro SN, Rodriguez RJS. Low-cost processing of plastic waste composites. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2006;45(7):865–9. 10.1080/03602550600611735 Search in Google Scholar

132. Umberto A, Maria LM. Fluidized Bed Pyrolysis of Plastic Wastes. Feedstock Recycling and Pyrolysis of Waste Plastics. 2006. 10.1016/S1351-4180(06)71853-0 Search in Google Scholar

133. Yoichi K, Yumiko I. Novel process for recycling waste plastics to fuel gas using a moving-bed reactor. Energy Fuels 2005;20(1):155–8. Search in Google Scholar

134. Stefan C, Richard JF. Production of hydrogen from plastics by pyrolysis and catalytic steam reform. Energy Fuels 2006;20(2):754–8. 10.1021/ef050354h Search in Google Scholar

135. Eisenreich N, Rohe T. Infrared spectroscopy in analysis of plastics recycling. In: Myers RA, editor. Encyclopedia of analytical chemistry, Vol. 9. New York: John Wiley, 2006:7623–44. 10.1002/9780470027318.a2011 Search in Google Scholar

136. Zheng Y, Yanful EK, Bassi AS. A review of plastic waste biodegradation. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2005;25(4):243–50. 10.1080/07388550500346359 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

137. Johannes B, Wiesbaden. Polymers, polymer recycling, and sustainability. In: Andrady AL, editor. Plastics and the environment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. Search in Google Scholar

138. Hammer J, Kraak MH, Parsons JR. Plastics in the marine environment: the dark side of a modern gift. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 2012;220:1–44. 10.1007/978-1-4614-3414-6_1 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

139. Ashwani KG, David GL. Thermal destruction of wastes and plastics. In: Andrady AL, editor. Plastics and the environment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. Search in Google Scholar

140. Braunegg G, Bona R, Schellauf F, Wallner E. Solid waste management and plastic recycling in Austria and Europe. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2004;43(6):1755–67. 10.1081/PPT-200040090 Search in Google Scholar

141. Choi W-Z. Development of waste plastics-based RDF and its combustion properties. Geosystem Engineering 2004;7(2):46–50. 10.1080/12269328.2004.10541219 Search in Google Scholar

142. Zhenlei W, Henning R, Jack BH, Jude J, Joel C, Yiannis AL. Laboratory investigation of the products of the incomplete combustion of waste plastics and techniques for their minimization. Ind Eng Chem Res 2003;43(12):2873–86. Search in Google Scholar

143. Ihsan C, Jale Y, Suat U, Tamer K, Huseyin A. Utilization of red mud as catalyst in conversion of waste oil and waste plastics to fuel. J Mater Cycles Waste 2004;6(1):20–26. 10.1007/s10163-003-0101-y Search in Google Scholar

144. Jixing LI. Study on the conversion technology of waste polyethylene plastic to polyethylene wax. Energy Sources 2003;25(1):77–82. 10.1080/00908310290142136 Search in Google Scholar

145. Susan EMS. Plastics in packaging. In: Andrady AL, editor. Plastics and the environment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. Search in Google Scholar

146. Michael MF. Plastics recycling. In: Andrady AL, editor. Plastics and the environment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. Search in Google Scholar

147. Cunliffe AM, Jones N, Williams PT. Pyrolysis of composite plastic waste. Environ Technol 2003;24(5):653–63. 10.1080/09593330309385599 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

148. Tang L, Huang H, Zhao Z, Wu CZ, Chen Y. Pyrolysis of polypropylene in a nitrogen plasma reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 2003;42:1145–50. 10.1021/ie020469y Search in Google Scholar

149. Yusaku S, Thallada B, Md. Azhar U, Akinori M, Toshiki M. Development of a catalytic dehalogenation (Cl, Br) process for municipal waste plastic-derived oil. J Mater Cycles Waste 2003;5(2):113–24. 10.1007/s10163-003-0092-8 Search in Google Scholar

150. Takaretu I, Stephan H, Klaus PR. Comparison of the recyclability of flame-retarded plastics. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37:652–656. 10.1021/es025771c Search in Google Scholar PubMed

151. Toshiro T, Koji H, Takao M. Thermal cracking of oils from waste plastics. J Mater Cycles Waste 2003;5(2):102–6. 10.1007/s10163-003-0090-x Search in Google Scholar

152. Anthony LA. An Environmental primer. In: Plastics and the environment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. Search in Google Scholar

153. Kathiresan K. Polythene and plastic-degrading microbes in an Indian mangrove soil. Rev Biol Trop 2003;51(3–4):629–33. Search in Google Scholar

154. Muller MK, Majerus JN. Usage of recycled plastic bottles in roadside safety devices. Int J Crashworthines 2002;7(1):43–56. 10.1533/cras.2002.0205 Search in Google Scholar

155. Masamichi A, Kiyoshi N, Shigeo T, Masahiro I, Masahiro S, Katsuhiro W. Hydrothermal dechlorination and denitrogenation of municipal-waste-plastics-derived fuel oil under sub- and supercritical conditions. Ind Eng Chem Res 2002;42:5393–400. Search in Google Scholar

156. Jose GBD. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2002;44:842–52. 10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5 Search in Google Scholar

157. Pieter JHvB. Recycling and trade in waste plastics in China. 2001. Recycling, International Trade and the Environment: An Empirical Analysis. 135–165pp. 10.1007/978-94-015-9694-7_7 Search in Google Scholar

158. Reiji N, Masanori K, Eriko S, Tadao K. Evaluation of material recycling for plastics: environmental aspects. J Mater Cycles Waste 2001;3(2):118–25. Search in Google Scholar

159. Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ Sci Technol 2001;35:318–24. 10.1021/es0010498 Search in Google Scholar

160. Müller RJ, Kleeberg I, Deckwer WD. Biodegradation of polyesters containing aromatic constituents. J Biotechnol 2001;86(2):87–95. 10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00407-7 Search in Google Scholar

161. Shimao M. Biodegradation of plastics. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2001;12(3):242–7. 10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00206-8 Search in Google Scholar

162. Yoshioka M, Shiraishi N. Biodegradable plastics from cellulose. molecular crystals and liquid crystals science and technology. Section A. Molecul Crystals Liquid Crystals 2000;353(1):59–73. 10.1080/10587250008025648 Search in Google Scholar

163. Wirpsza Z. Some new directions of development of polymers and plastics. molecular crystals and liquid crystals science and technology. Section A. Molecul Crystals Liquid Crystals 2000;353(1):153–64. 10.1080/10587250008025656 Search in Google Scholar

164. Vehlow J, Bergfeldt B, Jay K, Seifert H, Wanke T, Mark FE. Thermal treatment of electrical and electronic waste plastics. Waste Manage Res 2000;18(2):131–40. 10.1177/0734242X0001800205 Search in Google Scholar

165. Kaminsky W. Plastics, recycling. In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, 2000. 10.1002/14356007.a21_057 Search in Google Scholar

166. Kumar S. Plastics, rubbers, and textiles in municipal solid waste in the United States. Polym Plast Technol Eng 1999;38(3):401–10. 10.1080/03602559909351589 Search in Google Scholar

167. Little R. Plastic man and the state of nature. Crit Rev Internat Social Pol Phil 1999;2(3):119–28. 10.1080/13698239908403285 Search in Google Scholar

168. Nishide H, Toyota K, Kimura M. Effects of soil temperature and anaerobiosis on degradation of biodegradable plastics in soil and their degrading microorganisms. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 1999;45(4):963–72. 10.1080/00380768.1999.10414346 Search in Google Scholar

169. Tore D, Torgeir D. Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 2008;50(9–10): 833–59. 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 Search in Google Scholar

170. Hayden KW, Jaimys A, Russell JC, Elena PI. Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate). Polym 2013;5(1):1–18. Search in Google Scholar

171. Brussels. Plastics Europe, Plastics – The Facts 2014: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

172. Kara LL. Plastics in the marine environment. Annu Rev Mar Sci 2017;9:205–29. 10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060409 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

173. Nairobi. United Nations Environment Programme. Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

174. Naperville IL, World Packaging Organization. Market Statistics and Future Trends in Global Packaging, 2009. Search in Google Scholar

175. Vipin K, Raman S, Meenakshi S, Ratika S, Vivek S. Plastics: issues challenges and remediation. Int J Waste Resources 2014;4:134. Search in Google Scholar

176. David KAB, Francois G, Richard CT, Morton B. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil Trans R Soc B 2009;364:1985–98. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205 Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

177. Khan M, Khan AR, Aslam MT, Shah J. COD reduction from aminoplast industry. J Chem Soc Pak 2008;30(1):33–7. Search in Google Scholar

178. Reddy MS, Reddy PS, Subbaiah GV, Subbaiah HV. Effect of plastic pollution on environment. J Chemic Pharm Sci 2014:28–9. Search in Google Scholar

179. Marie YA, Edward SVV. Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1987;37:295–303. 10.3354/meps037295 Search in Google Scholar

180. Hirai H, Takada H, Ogata Y, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Saha M, et al. Organic micropollutants in marine plastic debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Mar Pollut Bull 2011;62(8):1683–92. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.004 Search in Google Scholar PubMed

181. Matter A, Dietschi M, Zurbruegg C. Improving the informal recycling sector through segregation of waste in the household – the case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat Int 2013;38:150–56. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.001 Search in Google Scholar

182. Jianfei Z, Xiaochun W, Jixian G, Zhenya G. A study on the biodegradability of polyethylene terephthalate fiber and diethylene glycol terephthalate. J Appl Polym Sci 2004;93:1089–96. 10.1002/app.20556 Search in Google Scholar

183. Berrin T, Banu SY. Goal-based waste management strategy to reduce persistence of contaminants in leachate at municipal solid waste landfills. Environ Dev Sustain 2011;13:821–31. 10.1007/s10668-011-9290-z Search in Google Scholar

184. Massardier-Nageotte V, Pestre C,Cruard-Pradet T, Bayard R. Aerobic and anerobic biodegradability of polymer films and phsyico-chemical characterization. Polym Degrad Stabil 2006;91:620–27. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.02.029 Search in Google Scholar

185. Tollner EW, Annis PA, Das KC. Evaluation of strength properties of polypropylene-based polymers in simulated landfill and oven conditions. J Environ Eng 2011;137:291–96. 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000320 Search in Google Scholar

186. Anthony LA. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull 2011;62:1596–605. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 Search in Google Scholar

187. Urase T, Okumura H, Panyosaranya S, Inamura A. Emission of volatile organic compounds from solid waste disposal sites and importance of heat management. Waste Manag. Res 2008;26:534–8. Search in Google Scholar

188. Vijaykumar S, Mayank RP, Jigar VP. PET waste management by chemical recycling: a review. J Polym Environ 2010;18:8–25. 10.1007/s10924-008-0106-7 Search in Google Scholar

189. Noel DS, P VK, Ranjan HV, Nikhil LP, Vikhyat MN. Processing of waste plastics into building materials using a plastic extruder and compression testing of plastic bricks. J Mech Eng Auto 2015;5(3B):39–42. Search in Google Scholar

190. Mohee R, Unmar G. Determining biodegradability of plastic materials under controlled and natural composting environments. Waste Manag 2007;27(11):1486–93. 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.023 Search in Google Scholar

191. Jean-Marie R, Audrey B, Heidi J, Philippe D, Michael A, Philippe D. Oxidative degradations of oxodegradable LDPE enhanced with thermoplastic pea starch: thermo-mechanical properties, morphology, and UV-ageing studies. J Appl Polym Sci 2011;122:489–96. 10.1002/app.34190 Search in Google Scholar

192. Keiko Y-O, Hiroshi M, Yuhji K, Atsushi S, Yoshiki T. Degradation of polyethylene by a fungus, Penicillium simplicissimum YK. Polym Degrad Stabil 2001;72:323–7. 10.1016/S0141-3910(01)00027-1 Search in Google Scholar

193. Gnanavel G, Valli VPMJ, Thirumarimurugan M, Kannadasan T. Degradation of plastics waste using microbes. Elixir Int J Chem Eng 2013;54:12212–4. Search in Google Scholar

194. Cooper W, Vaughan G. Recent developments in polymerization of conjugated dienes. Prog Polm Sci 1967;1:91–160. 10.1016/0079-6700(67)90003-2 Search in Google Scholar

195. Roff WJ, Scott JR. Fibres, film, plastics and rubbers. London: Butterworths; 1971. Search in Google Scholar

196. Gerald S. Photo-biodegradable plastics: their role in the protection of the environment. Polym Degrad Stability 1990;29:135–54. 10.1016/0141-3910(90)90026-4 Search in Google Scholar

197. Gerald JLG. Biodegradable fillers in thermoplastics. Am Chem Soc Div Org Coat Plast Chem 1973;33:88–92. Search in Google Scholar

198. Yüksel O, Jasna H, Hanife B. Biodegradation of plastic compost bags under controlled soil conditions. Acta Chim Slov 2004;51:579–88. Search in Google Scholar

199. Neha P, Pallav S, Shruti A, Piyush S. Alternate strategies for conversion of waste plastic to fuels. Renewable Energy 2013;2013:7. Search in Google Scholar

200. Arun KA, Murugesh S, Suman M. Plastic solid waste utilization technologies: a review. IOP Conf Ser.: Mater Sci Eng 2017;263:1–14. Search in Google Scholar

201. Achyut KP, Singh RK, Mishra DK. Thermolysis of waste plastics to liquid fuel: a suitable method for plastic waste management and manufacture of value added products – A world prospective. Renew Sustain Energy 2010;14:233–48. 10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.005 Search in Google Scholar

202. Singh RP, Tyagi VV, Allen T, Ibrahim MH, Kotharie R. An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011;15:4797–808. 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.071 Search in Google Scholar

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Solutions to Plastic Pollution: A Conceptual Framework to Tackle a Wicked Problem

• Open Access
• First Online: 10 October 2021

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Martin Wagner 4  

Part of the book series: Environmental Contamination Remediation and Management ((ENCRMA))

22k Accesses

7 Citations

26 Altmetric

There is a broad willingness to act on global plastic pollution as well as a plethora of available technological, governance, and societal solutions. However, this solution space has not been organized in a larger conceptual framework yet. In this essay, I propose such a framework, place the available solutions in it, and use it to explore the value-laden issues that motivate the diverse problem formulations and the preferences for certain solutions by certain actors. To set the scene, I argue that plastic pollution shares the key features of wicked problems, namely, scientific, political, and societal complexity and uncertainty as well as a diversity in the views of actors. To explore the latter, plastic pollution can be framed as a waste, resource, economic, societal, or systemic problem. Doing so results in different and sometimes conflicting sets of preferred solutions, including improving waste management; recycling and reuse; implementing levies, taxes, and bans as well as ethical consumerism; raising awareness; and a transition to a circular economy. Deciding which of these solutions is desirable is, again, not a purely rational choice. Accordingly, the social deliberations on these solution sets can be organized across four scales of change. At the geographic and time scales, we need to clarify where and when we want to solve the plastic problem. On the scale of responsibility, we need to clarify who is accountable, has the means to make change, and carries the costs. At the magnitude scale, we need to discuss which level of change we desire on a spectrum of status quo to revolution. All these issues are inherently linked to value judgments and worldviews that must, therefore, be part of an open and inclusive debate to facilitate solving the wicked problem of plastic pollution.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

End of life at the top of the world—stakeholder perspectives for plastics and circular transitions in the Arctic

Plastic Pollution and the Need for Responsible Plastic Consumption and Waste Management

Insights from international environmental legislation and protocols for the global plastic treaty

• Environmental issues
• Microplastics
• Wicked problems

11.1 Premises and Aims

The scale of plastic pollution and its impacts on nature and societies has been extensively described and discussed in the public and the scientific literature (including this book). While there is much debate on the scale of the problem, the aim of this essay is to explore the solution space for plastic pollution. Therefore, this essay is based on the premise that the case is closed, in such that there is a board consensus that we want to solve it. The relevant question then becomes how to achieve best this. There is abundant literature summarizing potential solutions for plastic pollution (Auta et al. 2017 ; Eriksen et al. 2018 ; Löhr et al. 2017 ; Prata et al. 2019 ; Sheavly and Register 2007 ; Tessnow-von Wysocki and Le Billon 2019 ; Vince and Hardesty 2018 ). However, many authors focus on specific technological, governance, or economic aspects and some organize solutions in rather arbitrary ways. Such pragmatic collections are certainly useful to get an overview of available options. Nonetheless, they may fall short in addressing the complexity of plastic pollution (e.g., when they present few, specific solutions), the diversity in the perspectives of the multiple actors involved (e.g., when they focus on technological solutions only), and the fundamental aspects driving the preferences for certain solutions. Therefore, the aim of this essay is not to present another collection of technical and policy instruments. Instead, I will first explore the wickedness of the problem because it is important to acknowledge that there is no simple solution to problems that are difficult to define and describe. Secondly, I propose a conceptual framework regarding how specific problem formulations result in diverse and sometimes conflicting sets of solutions. Clarifying distinct problem frames is an important step toward understanding the actors’ diverse preferences for solution sets. Thirdly, I lay out a framework for organizing the value judgments inherent in the plastics discourse. Since these are mostly neglected in the public and scientific debate, the aim of this piece is to bring to the surface the value-laden issues underlying the framing of the problem and the preferences for certain solutions.

11.2 Plastic Pollution as Wicked Problem

To contextualize the solutions to plastic pollution, we first need to explore its wickedness. The concept of wicked problems has been used to characterize those problems which defy conventional solutions, including climate change, displacement of people, terrorism, digital warfare, and biodiversity loss (Termeer et al. 2019 ). Originally introduced to describe “problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Churchman 1967 ), Rittel and Webber ( 1973 ) provided ten characteristics that define a wicked problem, some of which are shared by plastic pollution (see Table 11.1 ). Since then, the simple dichotomy of tame vs. wicked problems has evolved into a view that rather considers degrees of wickedness (Termeer et al. 2019 ). The question, therefore, is how much wickedness we assign to plastic pollution. The key features of complexity, diversity, and uncertainty (Head and Alford 2013 ) can be used to do so.

Without question, the issue of plastic pollution is complex, both from a scientific and a societal perspective (SAPEA 2019 ). The scientific complexity arises from a number of aspects. Firstly, plastic pollution comprises a diverse suite of pollutants with very heterogeneous physicochemical properties (Lambert et al. 2017 ; Rochman et al. 2019 ). Secondly, plastics have a multitude of sources, flows, and impacts in nature and societies. Thirdly, plastic pollution is ubiquitous, yet its scale varies in time and space. The combination of these aspects results in complex exposure patterns causing a complex suite of effects on biodiversity and human health, covering all levels of biological organization, as well as on the functioning of ecosystems and societies. To further complicate the matter, these effects will probably not be linear, immediate, obvious, and overt but will be heavily interconnected and aggregate over time scales that are difficult to investigate. Thus, the complexity of plastic pollution – and its underlying causes – cannot be understood with “standard science” based on disciplinary approaches and the assumption of simple cause-effect relationships.

The societal complexity of plastic pollution arises from the fact that plastics are – besides concrete, steel, and fertilizers – one of the main building blocks of modern societies (Kuijpers 2020 ). They are so closely integrated with many aspects of our lives that modern societies cannot function without plastics. Accordingly, the immense societal benefits of plastics arising from their versatility, light weight, durability, and low costs are very difficult to decouple from their negative impacts caused by just the same properties. The resulting ambiguous relationship of humanity with plastics (Freinkel 2011 ) in combination with the complex flows of plastics through societies constitutes the societal complexity of plastic pollution.

The public, political, and scientific discourses on plastic pollution are characterized by a high degree of diversity in such that actors take divergent, and sometimes conflicting, views and approaches to the problem and its solutions. Much of that diversity emerges from the fact that the discourse on plastic pollution, just like on many other environmental problems, is a value-laden issue. In such situations, actors will frame the problem and interpret the available evidence differently based on their specific believe systems, values, and agendas.

Finally, plastic pollution is characterized by a high degree of scientific, political, and societal uncertainty. This is not only true for the glaring gaps in our scientific knowledge (SAPEA 2019 ) but even more so for the nonlinearity and unpredictability of the impacts that plastic pollution (and potential solutions) may have on ecosystems, humans, and societies. As an example of scientific uncertainty, there might be tipping point at which the ecological consequences of increasing pollution might become chaotic and unpredictable. Another, very concrete example of political uncertainty is the need to balance unforeseen benefits of plastics (e.g., massive demand for personal protective gear in case of a pandemic) with the negative impacts of pollution. While continuing research efforts will eventually reduce the scientific uncertainties, “better” evidence will not necessarily reduce the political and societal uncertainty surrounding plastic pollution. This is because the diversity in actors’ views and agendas routed in their individual values is unlikely to change when new scientific evidence arrives.

Taken together, plastic pollution comprises a relatively high degree of wickedness because it features scientific and societal complexity, actors with diverse and divergent problem/solution frames and goals, and a high degree of scientific and political uncertainty. Leaving aside the aspects of complexity and uncertainty here, it is worth investigating how divergent problem formulations result in a diversity in solutions and how value judgments inherent in the discourse on solution to plastic pollution can be conceptualized.

11.3 Problem Formulations: Consensus or Dispute?

On the surface, the problem formulation for plastic pollution seems quite straightforward. The accumulation of plastics in nature is a bad thing. Despite many scientific uncertainties, such a statement receives broad support from the scientific community, the public, policymakers, and societal actors (e.g., interest groups) alike. Despite the absence of an overt and coordinated denialism, such as the one for climate change, a closer examination reveals that three aspects of plastic pollution are contested, namely, the risk paradigm, the scale, and the root causes of the problem.

There are two opposing views on what constitutes the risk of plastic pollution. The commonsense perspective is that the sheer presence of plastics in nature represents a risk. Such view is propelled by the attention economy (Backhaus and Wagner 2020 ) and the scientific uncertainties, in such that scientific ignorance (“we do not know the ecological consequences”) becomes a risk itself (Völker et al. 2020 ). Even though empirical data are absent, this conception of risk is probably very common in the public and is promoted by environmental interest groups. An opposing perspective poses that there are thresholds below which plastic pollution will not be a risk. That more expert view comes from toxicological and regulatory practices which are based on Paracelsus’ paradigm of “the dose makes the poison” and risk assessment frameworks to compare the exposure and hazards of synthetic chemicals. The main divergence between the two perspectives is that one claims that there is no “safe” threshold of plastics in nature whereas the other does. This is, in essence, a value-laden question because deciding whether we deem emitting plastics to nature acceptable is a moral, ethical, political, and societal issue rather than a purely scientific one. It may sound provocative, but on a systems level the actors benefiting from environmental action (e.g., environmental interest groups) pursue a “zero pollution” aim whereas the actors benefiting from continued emissions (e.g., plastic industry) push for a “threshold” view.

The scale of the problem of plastic pollution is also a matter of conflicting views, at least among academics and interest groups. This is best exemplified using microplastics as case. Some scientists consider the problem “superficial” (Burton Jr. 2017 ) and even “distractive” (Stafford and Jones 2019 ), whereas others consider it “significant” (Rochman et al. 2015 ) and “urgent” (Xanthos and Walker 2017 ). Without getting into the details of the different arguments, the main driver of the superficiality perspective is the assumption that environmental problems compete for limited attention and resources (Backhaus and Wagner 2020 ). Thus, we need to prioritize problems that are deemed more important (e.g., climate change). The opposing view poses that the microplastics problem is part of the larger issue of global change that cannot be viewed in isolation (Kramm et al. 2018 ) and argues that “we simply do not have the luxury of tackling environmental issues one at a time” (Avery-Gomm et al. 2019 ). Again, a value-laden question is at the heart of this dispute, namely, whether solving environmental issues is a zero-sum game that requires focusing on the few, most pressing problems or rather represents a win-win situation in which tackling multiple problems at once will yield co-benefits and synergies.

The last area of dispute is the question about the actual causes of plastic pollution. This is essentially a matter of problem framing that will have wide implications for finding solutions. For instance, framing plastic pollution predominantly as a marine litter problem will promote a completely different set of solutions (e.g., ocean cleanup activities) compared to a framing as consumerism problem that would require larger social changes. As with the two areas discussed above, individual values and belief systems will determine how one frames the causes of plastic pollution and which solutions one prefers, accordingly.

11.4 What Are We Trying to Solve?

Investigating the different conceptions of the causes of plastic pollution offers a meaningful way to organize the sets of solutions we have at hand. Importantly, that is not to say that one of the views is true or false but rather to understand why different actors prefer and promote divergent sets of solutions. To start with a commonality, the concerns about the impacts of plastic pollution on nature, human health, and societies are the drivers of all problem-solution frames. However, five different lenses can be used to focus on the problem formulation rendering plastic pollution a waste , resource, economic, societal, and systemic problem (Fig. 11.1 ).

Common drivers result in a diverse framing of the problem of plastic pollution and its causes. This determines the set of preferred solutions

Importantly, the lack of awareness about these frames can obscure the debate on plastic pollution. For instance, plastics are often used as a proxy to debate other societal issues, such as consumerism. Thus, seemingly scientific controversies become an arena to negotiate political and philosophical issues (Hicks 2017 ). This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, scientific debates make a poor proxy for talking about value-laden problems because they are often technical and narrow and, therefore, exclude “nonexpert” opinions and economic and cultural aspects. Secondly, as Hicks puts it “talking exclusively about the science leads us to ignore – and hence fail to address – the deeper disagreement” (Hicks 2017 ). To make the debate on plastic pollution productive, all involved actors should transparently delineate how they frame the problem, be open to discuss the deeper disagreements that may be beyond the traditional scope of hard sciences, and be receptive to other arguments and viewpoints (e.g., the cultural value of an unpolluted nature).

11.5 Solving the Waste Problem

The most common approach to plastic pollution is to frame it as a waste problem. From that perspective, the main cause is our inability to effectively manage the plastic waste and prevent its emissions to nature. According to this view, plastic pollution basically becomes an engineering problem that can be fixed with a set of technological solutions.

While not preventive per se, cleanup activities on beaches, rivers, in the open ocean, etc. can be considered part of the set of solutions to the waste problem. Targeted at removing plastic debris from nature, these can range from low-tech solutions involving citizens simply cleaning up polluted places (e.g., organized by Ocean Conservancy, the Nordic Coastal Cleanup, or Fishing for Litter), to medium-tech solutions that collect debris before it enters the oceans (e.g., Mr. Trash Wheel, the Great Bubble Barrier), to high-tech solutions such as the large booms deployed by the Ocean Cleanup or remotely operated underwater vehicles (see Schmaltz et al. 2020 for a comprehensive inventory). Cleanup solutions can be criticized as ineffective and inefficient basically because they represent measures that are the furthest downstream of the sources of plastic pollution. Some technological approaches, such as the Ocean Cleanup booms, might even have negative consequences on marine biota (Clarke 2015 ). However, these activities may also have benefits that go beyond removing plastics from nature. Engaging volunteers in cleanup activities can increase their awareness of pollution and promote pro-environmental intentions (Wyles et al. 2017 , 2019 ) that may result in a more sustainable change in behaviors.

Improving waste management is at the center of the set of solutions associated with the framing as waste problem. The goal of these activities is to minimize the amount of mismanaged plastic waste “escaping” to nature. The waste management sector in the Global North faces serious challenges, such as infrastructural fragmentation, lack of capacity, and the inability to deal with increasingly complex plastics materials and waste streams (Crippa et al. 2019 ). Taking the European Union as an example, there is a need to better implement and enforce existing waste legislation, harmonize waste collection, and promote innovation regarding new business models and waste sorting technologies (Crippa et al. 2019 ). However, most of the worlds’ mismanaged plastic waste is emitted in the Global South (Jambeck et al. 2015 ) with its predominantly informal waste sector where autonomous and organized waste pickers are highly skilled participants in local circular economies. Reconciling their livelihoods with aspirations for industrial automation remains a challenge, and external intervention attempts will likely be unsuccessful without sufficient local capacity building (Velis 2017 ). The Global North can support such development by sourcing recycled plastics from the informal recycling sector, thereby gradually formalizing this sector (Crippa et al. 2019 ) and creating socioeconomic benefits for waste pickers (Gall et al. 2020 ).

Another dimension to look at plastic pollution is the global trade of plastic waste . More than half of the plastic waste intended for recycling has been exported to countries other than the ones producing the waste (Brooks et al. 2018 ). In the case of the European Union, most exports have been directed toward the Global South (Rosa 2018 ) with notable shifts since China restricted waste imports in 2017 (European Environment Agency 2019 ). The concerns over this practice arise from the fact that recipient countries often have low labor and environmental standards resulting in occupational risks and improper waste disposal or recycling (World Economic Forum 2020 ). In response, the 187 member countries amended the Basel Convention, an international treaty on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, to better control the global flows of contaminated, mixed, or unrecyclable plastics (Secretariat of the Basel Convention 2019 ). While this is promising, the Basel Convention is limited regarding its ability to enforce compliance and monitor progress (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm 2018 ).

A third approach to tackle the waste problem is to increase the production and use of compostable or biodegradable plastics. The expectation is that such materials will disintegrate on short time scales either in industrial and household settings or in the environment (Crippa et al. 2019 ; Lambert and Wagner 2017 ). Compostable and biodegradable plastics would, thus, contribute to decreasing the amount of persistent plastic waste and create biomass to amend soils. While a range of biodegradable plastics from fossil as well as renewable feedstocks is available, their market share remains low, making up less than 0.5% of the global plastic production (Crippa et al. 2019 ). This is mainly due to their high costs (compared to a limited added value) and technical challenges in scaling up production capacities. Additional challenges arise from misperceptions and misrepresentation regarding what biodegradable plastics can achieve (Crippa et al. 2019 , see also the example of oxo-degradable plastics), from a low degradability of available materials in nature, and from the lack of transferability of degradation data from laboratory to field settings (Haider et al. 2019 ).

Importantly, when choosing to frame plastic pollution as a waste problem, the principles of the waste hierarchy apply that clearly prioritizes the prevention and reuse of waste over its recycling, recovery, or disposal (European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2008 ). However, contemporary solutions to the plastic waste problem mainly focus on less preferred options, especially on recovery and recycling. As an example, the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (European Commission 2018 ) contains the terms “prevention” and “reuse” only 8 times, each, while it mentions “recycling” 76 times. A reason for that preference might be that the technological approaches to recycling, recovery, and disposal exist within the waste sector, whereas approaches to reduce and reuse plastics would require the inclusion of very different actors, such as social scientists and designers.

11.6 Solving the Resource Problem

Framing plastic pollution as a resource problem is based on the idea that we are losing valuable materials when using plastics in short-lived products, such as packaging and single-use items. Such framing is closely connected to the waste problem as waste management is transforming into resources management. In a broader context, however, this idea can be reformulated as a problem of extractive fossil industries in such that the cause of plastic pollution is indeed the abundance of fossil feedstocks. Both aspects of the resource framing result in divergent sets of solutions.

Approaches to solve the resource problem from a waste perspective basically cover the upper parts of the waste hierarchy, namely, recycling and reuse. The rationale is, of course, to retain the material and functional value of plastics in use and extend the lifetime of materials or products. This would, in turn, reduce waste generation and the need to produce new plastics. The different options fall on a spectrum on which reuse and mechanical recycling preserve best the value of plastics because they avoid the extra costs for breaking up the materials (Fig. 11.2 ). In contrast, chemical recycling uses chemical or thermal processes (e.g., depolymerization, pyrolysis, gasification) to create purified polymers, oligomers, or monomers which then can be reprocessed into new plastics. This has several advantages over mechanical recycling, such as the higher flexibility and the ability to deal with mixed and contaminated plastics. Nonetheless, chemical recycling currently requires significant improvement regarding their technical and economic feasibility as well as a thorough investigation of its environmental and social impacts (Crippa et al. 2019 ).

Different loops for the reuse and recycling of plastics. (Source: Crippa et al. 2019 )

In contrast to set of solutions provided by the recycling plastics, retaining plastic products in use via sharing, repairing, and reusing comes closer to a circular economy ideal. While circular business models for plastics suffer from the lack of economic incentives (see economic problem), the four current types of business models include product as a service (“pay-per-use”), circular supplies (waste of one company becomes the raw material for another), product life extensions (making products durable, repairable, upgradable), and sharing platforms (Accenture 2014 ). Such approaches face challenges not only because plastics move so fast through the value chain and are handled by multiple actors but also because they challenge the linear economy paradigm. Here, eco-design guidelines and circularity metrics can help create a more level playing field (Crippa et al. 2019 ).

A very different solution, namely, the shift to bio-based plastics, emerges when framing plastic pollution as a problem of fossil feedstocks. Here, the idea is to reduce the use of petroleum and natural gas to manufacture plastics and foster the transition to a bio-based economy. Bio-based plastics can be produced from natural polymers (e.g., starch, cellulose), by plants or microbes (e.g., PBS, PHA), and by synthesizing them from biological feedstocks (e.g., ethylene derived from fermented sugarcane) (Lambert and Wagner 2017 ). As with biodegradable plastics, the market share of bio-based material is rather low for economic reasons, but production capacities and demand are projected to increase in the future (Crippa et al. 2019 ). The main challenges of shifting to bio-based plastics are their potential environmental and social impacts associated with land and pesticide use. These can be addressed by using feedstocks derived from agricultural, forestry, and food waste as well as from algae (Lambert and Wagner 2017 ). Eventually, substituting fossil with renewable carbon sources is a laudable aim that can create many co-benefits. However, it is important to realize that this will not solve the problem of plastic pollution.

11.7 Solving the Economic Problem

A very different perspective on the discourses on plastic pollution is the framing as an economic problem. As discussed above, many solutions are not competitive in the marketplace due to their high costs. Accordingly, the low price of virgin plastics which is a result of the low oil and natural gas prices can be considered the major cause of plastic pollution. Taking such view implies that one major benefit of plastics – their low price – is driving consumption which, in turn, results in their emission to nature. It also dictates that solutions should address the economy of plastics.

The goal of economic solutions to plastic pollution is to reduce plastic consumption either directly via financial (dis)incentives or indirectly via creating a level playing field for other solutions, including alternative materials (e.g., bio-based plastics), recycling, and circular business models. The simplest and most widely adopted economic instrument is to place levies on single-use products, especially on plastic bags. For most cases, increasing the price of carrier bag reduced the consumption but the global effect of such policies remains uncertain (Nielsen et al. 2019 ). In addition, there may be unintended consequences and the ecological impacts of replacements in particular often remain neglected.

Plastic taxes follow the same logic as levies and fees but target a wider range of products. While there is no literature on the implementation of plastic taxes across countries, the European Union, for instance, plans to implement a plastic tax on non-recycled plastic packaging waste (European Council 2020 ). Similar initiatives exist in the US State of California (Simon 2020 ). In principle, such taxes can be raised at the counter to change consumer behavior and/or directed toward plastic producers (see Powell 2018 for in-depth discussion). The latter aims at internalizing the external costs of plastics in such that their negative environmental impacts are reflected in their pricing, in line with the idea of extended producer responsibility. Although the actual external costs of plastics are far from clear and depend on the specific context, ecosystems services approaches, valorizing the supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services nature provides, can be used to estimate those. According to a recent assessment, plastic pollution results in an annual loss of $500–2500 billion in marine natural capital, or $3300–33,000 per ton plastic in the ocean (Beaumont et al. 2019 ).

The benefit of taxing plastic producers would be twofold. If targeting the sale or purchase of non-recycled plastic monomers or resins, a tax would incentivize recycling. If the tax revenue would be collected in a dedicated fund, this could be used to subsidize other solutions, such as innovation in materials, products and business models, or awareness campaigns. General plastic taxes could be modeled after carbon taxation following the polluter pays principle. However, the latter requires a value judgment regarding who the polluter indeed is, and different actors would certainly disagree where to place responsibility along the life cycle of plastics. An additional challenge can be that the taxes are absorbed by the supply chain and, thus, not achieve the desired aim (Powell 2018 ).

Apart from levies and taxes on specific products, broader plastic taxation has not been implemented so far. However, the price of virgin plastics is expected to decrease further due to the oil industry shifting their production away from fuels and massively increase their capacity to produce new plastics (Pooler 2020 ). Such technology lock-in will further decrease the pricing of virgin plastics, propel plastic consumption, and render solving the plastics problem uneconomic. At the same time, the surge in production may increase the public pressure and political willingness to implement taxation that mitigates the negative impacts on recycling (Lim 2019 ) and of increasing waste exports (Tabuchi et al. 2020 ) and aggregated greenhouse gas emissions (Gardiner 2019 ).

11.8 Solving the Societal Problem

In contrast to the techno-economic problem-solution frames discussed above, a very different perspective attributes plastic pollution to a deeper-rooted cause, namely, consumerism and capitalism. Accordingly, plastic pollution is a result of humanity’s overconsumption of plastics that is, in turn, driven by our capitalist system. In this way, it becomes a societal problem. It remains unclear how pervasive such views are, but the idea that we are consuming too much is one center piece of environmentalism, arguably one of the few remaining major ideologies. The problem with this framing is that often it remains implicit in the discourse on plastic pollution. Thus, plastic becomes a proxy to debate larger, value-laden topics, such as industrialization, economic materialism and growth, globalization, and, eventually, capitalism. The set of solutions promoted by framing plastic pollution as a societal problem are manifold. Interestingly, there is a dichotomy regarding who is responsible: When viewed as a consumption problem, solutions should motivate individuals to change their behaviors. When framed as a capitalist issue, more collective and systemic change is desired.

Plastic consumption behavior is affected by a range of factors, among others, sociodemographic variables, convenience, habits, social factors, and environmental attitudes (Heidbreder et al. 2019 ). The ban of plastic products, especially of single-use items, such as carrier bags, straws, cutlery, and tableware, targets the convenience and habits of consumers simply by limiting their choice. Plastic bag bans are now implemented in more than 30 countries, and bans on other single-use products are in effect in 12 countries (Schnurr et al. 2018 ). While generally considered effective and publicly acceptable, plastic bag bans have been criticized to disproportionally affect low-income and homeless persons. The major criticism concerns the environmental impacts of replacements made of natural materials (paper, cotton, linen) due to their higher resource demand and greenhouse gas emissions (Schnurr et al. 2018 ).

Social factors, including norms and identities, are the drivers for plastic avoidance, another way to reduce plastic consumption. On the one hand, social pressure and guilt can motivate individuals to not use plastics (Heidbreder et al. 2019 ). On the other hand, a person can practice plastic avoidance, a plastic-free lifestyle being its most intense form, to affirm their identity as environmentally conscious (Cherrier 2006 ). Notably, it is exactly those social norms and identities that environmental interest groups and similarly motivated actors tap into. On the business side, the marketing of “ethical” plastic products (e.g., made from ocean plastics) applies similar mechanisms, sometimes criticized as greenwashing. Interestingly, all those solutions are based on the idea of ethical consumerism, emphasizing individual responsibility, all the while staying firmly within the realm of capitalism.

As a more collective solution, activities that raise awareness regarding plastic pollution and consumption (e.g., communication campaigns) target at changing environmental attitudes and encourage pro-environmental behaviors on a wider scale. Behavior change interventions range from policies (bans, levies, see above), information campaigns, educational programs, point-of-sale interventions (e.g., asking if customers want plastic bags rather than handing them out), and the participation in cleanup activities (Heidbreder et al. 2019 ; Pahl et al. 2020 ). Importantly, Pahl et al. ( 2020 ) note that it “is advisable [to] build on personal and social norms and values, as this could lead to spillover into other pro-environmental domains and behaviours.” This goes in line with the idea that awareness of plastic pollution is a gateway to wider pro-environmental attitudes (Ives 2017 ).

11.9 Solving the Systemic Problem

In contrast to framing plastic pollution as a waste , resource, economic, or societal problem, it can be viewed as a composite of some or all of these facets; it becomes a systemic problem. The latter view acknowledges that plastic pollution is multicausal and that the individual causes are strongly interconnected. In other words, such systems perspective takes the wickedness of plastic pollution into account. Intuitively, this seems like the most holistic approach to the problem since it is quite apparent that plastic pollution is the result of multiple failures at multiple levels of the “plastic ecosystem .”

However, the main challenge with framing this as a systemic problem is that the problem formulation becomes much less tangible compared to other perspectives. For instance, the framings as waste, resource, or economic problem are much clearer with regard to their intervention points. They also provide sets of solutions that require an engineering approach in such that technologies, processes, and functions need to be redesigned and optimized. Thus, solutions appear relatively straightforward and easy to implement. Such promises of easy wins might be one reason why the idea to engineer our way out of plastic pollution is so popular. In contrast, solutions to the systemic problem are diverse, interconnected, and at times conflicting. This makes them appear as much harder to implement. At the same time, this renders the systems view somewhat immune to criticism as individual solutions (and their limitations) will always be just a small piece of the larger approach.

Arguably, the concept of a circular economy has recently gained most momentum to tackle plastic pollution systemically. Promoted by powerful actors, including the World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company, and the European Union, the vision of a circular economy is to “increase prosperity, while reducing demands on finite raw materials and minimizing negative externalities” (World Economic Forum et al. 2016 ). While there are multiple definitions of the meaning of circular economy (Kirchherr et al. 2017 ), it is basically a reincarnation of the “3Rs principle” of reduce, reuse, recycle and of the idea of sustainable design. Accordingly, a circular economy “requires innovations in the way industries produce, consumers use and policy makers legislate” (Prieto-Sandova et al. 2018 ). Applied to plastic pollution, the circular economy concept identifies the linear economic model as root cause of the problem.

Accordingly, it promotes designing closed loop systems that prevent plastic from becoming waste as the key solution. Whereas this seems to reiterate the solution set to the waste problem, the circular economy concept integrates the solutions supported by all other problem frames. A report by the Pew Trust and SYSTEMIQ predicts that the future plastic emissions to the ocean can only be significantly reduced with systemic change (Lau et al. 2020 ; The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020 ). Highlighting that there is no single solution to plastic pollution, such scenario requires the concurrent and global implementation of measures to reduce production and consumption and increase the substitution with compostable materials, recycling rates, and waste collection (The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020 ). As such, the circular approach is, thus, a composite of the waste , resource, and societal framing combined with the prospect of economic co-benefits through innovation. The latter is indeed why repacking the other solution sets in a circular economy context has become so successful that it, as an example, has been rapidly adopted by the European Union (European Commission 2018 ). In addition to the economic angle, the focus on technological and societal innovation provides a powerful narrative of a better future that makes the circular economy ideology even more appealing. However, two important aspects need to be considered: Firstly, it is unclear whether a circular economy is able to deliver the promised environmental benefits (Manninen et al. 2018 ). Secondly, we need to realize that the ideology is not as radical as it claims, given that it further promotes the current model of business-led economic growth (Clube and Tennant 2020 ; Hobson and Lynch 2016 ). Thus, more radical and utopian solutions to plastic pollution remain out of sight.

11.10 The Four Scales of Solutions

Discussing and evaluating the solutions derived from the different problem frames outlined above requires value-based judgments regarding their relative importance, desirability, costs, and social consequences. These values should be made transparent and open in the discourse on plastic pollution to mitigate the proxy politics problem. This is important because making the debate about larger value-laden issues that remain implied can result in polarization and entrenchment and, in turn, would make solving the problem much harder.

While there is a multitude of dimensions to consider when evaluating solutions to plastic pollution, there are four basic scales of change that require value judgment and social deliberation. These cover the geography, time, responsibility, and magnitude of/for change desired by different actors (Fig. 11.3 ).

Conceptual framework to facilitate deliberation on the scales of changes needed to solve plastic pollution

The scales of geography and time do not appear very contentious. However, the preference for local, national, regional, or global solutions to plastic pollution very much depends on which geographic unit actors most trust for developing and implementing effective measures. Some actors might be localists valuing small- over the large-scale approaches a globalist might prefer. Whereas there seems to be consensus that plastic problem is a global problem (implying a preference for global action), very focused solutions (e.g., at emission hotspots) might be very effective in a local context and much faster to implement.

The time scales desired for implementing measures and achieving their ends depends on perception of the immediacy of the problem. While a general notion of urgency to solve plastic pollution is prevailing and requires instant action, a very different standpoint may be that there is sufficient time to better understand the problem because the negative impacts are not immanent. Such view would be supported by calls for more and better research. While part of that question can be addressed scientifically, for instance, by prospective risk assessment or modeling approaches, decisions on the urgency of action remain value laden and context dependent.

At the scale of responsibility, we need to address the question who has the agency and means to implement solutions and who has to carry the burden of costs and consequences. This is as well a matter of individual vs. collective action as of which actors across the plastic life cycle have most responsibility. Some actors, especially the plastics industry, emphasize the individual consumer’s responsibility. However, the systems view places much more focus on collective action. Others, especially environmental interest groups, want to hold the plastic industry accountable. However, one could also prefer to assign the burden of action to the retail or waste sectors, making it a matter of up- or downstream solutions. While it is very obvious that all actors in the plastic system share responsibility, the question of where to allocate how much accountability is open to debate.

The magnitude of desired changes is probably the most difficult aspect to agree upon because it touches not only on powerful economic interests but also on the fundamental question of whether one prefers to keep the status quo or wants to revolutionize individual lifestyles, economic sectors, or whole societies. It also covers preferences for very focused, pragmatic actions (e.g., easy wins that are sometimes tokenistic) or for systemic change. Such preferences are not only linked to perceptions of the urgency of the problem but depend on more fundamental worldviews. As with all other scales of changes, preferences will be driven by cultural context, social identity, and political orientations on the spectrum of conservative and progressive as well as libertarian and authoritarian.

11.11 How to Solve the Wicked Problem of Plastic Pollution?

Per definition, it is difficult or even impossible to solve wicked problems with conventional instruments and approaches. As argued above, plastic pollution is characterized by a relatively high degree of wickedness. At the same time, contemporary, mainstream solutions come from the standard toolbox, and it is rather the combination of all those instruments that is considered “transformative.” Implementing such combinatorial approach is appealing but can be complicated by the different underlying problem formulations and sometimes conflicting value judgments regarding the relative effectiveness of individual tools.

Thus, we need to organize an inclusive, open, and probably uncomfortable conversation about the scales of change we desire and the individual values that motivate those preferences. Such debate should not be reserved for the usual actors (i.e., experts, activists, and lobbyists) but must include (marginalized) groups that are most affected by plastic pollution and carry the burden of solutions (e.g., waste pickers). The debate must be open in the sense that, for instance, instead of fighting over bans of plastic straws, we should be clear on which issues these are proxies for (e.g., consumerism). Importantly, this is not to say that we need to create an all-encompassing consensus. Instead, the current plurality in problem-solution formulations is beneficial as it acknowledges that plastic pollution is multicausal, prevents a polarization and entrenchment, and enables tackling the problem from a systems perspective.

While we will have to face a multitude of technological, governance, and societal challenges on our road to solve plastic pollution, there are some conditions that will facilitate that journey. This includes robust evidence from the natural and social sciences regarding the effectiveness of different solutions, a broad willingness to solve the problem, and an acceptance of shared responsibility.

Accenture (2014) Circular advantage – innovative business models and technologies to create value in a world without limits to growth

Google Scholar  

Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH (2017) Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ Int 102:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Avery-Gomm S, Walker TR, Mallory ML, Provencher JF (2019) There is nothing convenient about plastic pollution. Rejoinder to Stafford and Jones “Viewpoint – ocean plastic pollution: a convenient but distracting truth?”. Marine Policy, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103552

Backhaus T, Wagner M (2020) Microplastics in the environment: much ado about nothing? A debate. Global Chall 4(6):1900022. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900022

Article   Google Scholar  

Beaumont NJ, Aanesen M, Austen MC, Börger T, Clark JR, Cole M, Hooper T, Lindeque PK, Pascoe C, Wyles KJ (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull 142:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022

Brooks AL, Wang S, Jambeck JR (2018) The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Sci Adv 4 (6):eaat0131. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131

Burton GA Jr (2017) Stressor exposures determine risk: so, why do fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risk? Environ Sci Technol 51(23):13515–13516. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05463

Cherrier H (2006) Consumer identity and moral obligations in non-plastic bag consumption: a dialectical perspective. Int J Consum Stud 30(5):514–523

Churchman CW (1967) Wicked problems. Manag Sci 14(4):B141–B142

Clarke C (2015) 6 Reasons that floating ocean plastic cleanup Gizmo is a horrible idea. Retrieved 26 January 2021 from https://www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that-floating-ocean-plastic-cleanup-gizmo-is-a-horrible-idea

Clube RKM, Tennant M (2020) The circular economy and human needs satisfaction: promising the radical, delivering the familiar. Ecol Econ 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106772

Crippa M, De Wilde B, Koopmans R, Leyssens J, Muncke J, Ritschkoff A-C, Van Doorsselaer K, Velis C, Wagner M (2019) A circular economy for plastics – insights from research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (2008)

Eriksen M, Thiel M, Prindiville M, Kiessling T (2018) Microplastic: what are the solutions? In: Wagner M, Lambert S (eds) Freshwater microplastics, pp 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_13

Chapter   Google Scholar  

European Commission (2018) A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. Retrieved 26 February 2018 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy.pdf

European Council (2020) Special meeting of the European Council (17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 July 2020) – conclusions

European Environment Agency (2019) The plastic waste trade in the circular economy. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/the-plastic-waste-trade-in

Freinkel S (2011) Plastic: a toxic love story. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Gall M, Wiener M, Chagas de Oliveira C, Lang RW, Hansen EG (2020) Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recyclate quality, business model, and societal impacts. Resour Conserv Recycl 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104685

Gardiner B (2019) The plastics pipeline: a surge of new production is on the way. YaleEnvironment360. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-plastics-pipeline-a-surge-of-new-production-is-on-the-way

Haider TP, Volker C, Kramm J, Landfester K, Wurm FR (2019) Plastics of the future? The impact of biodegradable polymers on the environment and on society. Angew Chem Int Ed 58(1):50–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201805766

Head BW, Alford J (2013) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc 47(6):711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601

Heidbreder LM, Bablok I, Drews S, Menzel C (2019) Tackling the plastic problem: a review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci Total Environ 668:1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437

Hicks DJ (2017) Scientific controversies as proxy politics. Issues Sci Technol 33(2) (Winter 2017)

Hobson K, Lynch N (2016) Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures 82:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012

Ives D (2017) The gateway plastic. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.globalwildlife.org/blog/the-gateway-plastic/

Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Marine pollution. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352

Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Kramm J, Volker C, Wagner M (2018) Superficial or substantial: why care about microplastics in the anthropocene? Environ Sci Technol 52(6):3336–3337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00790

Kuijpers M (2020) The materials that build our world are also destroying it. What are the alternatives? The Correspondent. https://thecorrespondent.com/665/the-materials-that-build-our-world-are-also-destroying-it-what-are-the-alternatives/828687075370-d68b2d25

Lambert S, Wagner M (2017) Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: the road ahead. Chem Soc Rev 46(22):6855–6871. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cs00149e

Lambert S, Scherer C, Wagner M (2017) Ecotoxicity testing of microplastics: considering the heterogeneity of physicochemical properties. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13(3):470–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1901

Lau WWY, Shiran Y, Bailey RM, Cook E, Stuchtey MR, Koskella J, Velis CA, Godfrey L, Boucher J, Murphy MB, Thompson RC, Jankowska E, Castillo AC, Pilditch TD, Dixon B, Koerselman L, Kosior E, Favoino E, Gutberlet J, Baulch S, Atreya ME, Fischer D, He KK, Petit MM, Sumaila UR, Neil E, Bernhofen MV, Lawrence K, Palardy JE (2020) Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369(6510):1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475

Lim X (2019) How Fossil Fuel Companies Are Killing Plastic Recycling. HuffPost. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/plastic-recycling-oil-companies-landfill_n_5d8e4916e4b0e9e7604c832e

Löhr A, Savelli H, Beunen R, Kalz M, Ragas A, Van Belleghem F (2017) Solutions for global marine litter pollution. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 28:90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009

Manninen K, Koskela S, Antikainen R, Bocken N, Dahlbo H, Aminoff A (2018) Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? J Clean Prod 171:413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.003

Nielsen TD, Holmberg K, Stripple J (2019) Need a bag? A review of public policies on plastic carrier bags – where, how and to what effect? Waste Manag 87:428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.025

Pahl S, Richter I, Wyles K (2020) Human perceptions and behaviour determine aquatic plastic pollution. In: Stock F, Reifferscheid G, Brennholt N, Kostianaia E (eds) Plastics in the aquatic environment – Part II: Stakeholders role against pollution. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_672

Pooler M (2020) Surge in plastics production defies environmental backlash. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/4980ec74-4463-11ea-abea-0c7a29cd66fe

Powell D (2018) The price is right… or is it? The case for taxing plastics. Rethink Plastic Alliance

Prata JC, Silva ALP, da Costa JP, Mouneyrac C, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T (2019) Solutions and integrated strategies for the control and mitigation of plastic and microplastic pollution. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132411

Prieto-Sandova V, Jaca C, Ormazabal M (2018) Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J Clean Prod 179:605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224

Raubenheimer K, McIlgorm A (2018) Can the Basel and Stockholm conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Mar Policy 96:285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.013

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf01405730

Rochman CM, Kross SM, Armstrong JB, Bogan MT, Darling ES, Green SJ, Smyth AR, Verissimo D (2015) Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ Sci Technol 49(18):10759–10761. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03909

Rochman CM, Brookson C, Bikker J, Djuric N, Earn A, Bucci K, Athey S, Huntington A, McIlwraith H, Munno K, De Frond H, Kolomijeca A, Erdle L, Grbic J, Bayoumi M, Borrelle SB, Wu TN, Santoro S, Werbowski LM, Zhu X, Giles RK, Hamilton BM, Thaysen C, Kaura A, Klasios N, Ead L, Kim J, Sherlock C, Ho A, Hung C (2019, Apr) Rethinking microplastics as a diverse contaminant suite. Environ Toxicol Chem 38(4):703–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4371

Rosa F (2018) Europe at crossroads: after the Chinese ban on plastic waste imports, what now? Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/02/europe-after-chinese-plastic-ban/

SAPEA (2019) A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature and society

Schmaltz E, Melvin EC, Diana Z, Gunady EF, Rittschof D, Somarelli JA, Virdin J, Dunphy-Daly MM (2020) Plastic pollution solutions: emerging technologies to prevent and collect marine plastic pollution. Environ Int 144:106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106067

Schnurr REJ, Alboiu V, Chaudhary M, Corbett RA, Quanz ME, Sankar K, Srain HS, Thavarajah V, Xanthos D, Walker TR (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 137:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001

Secretariat of the Basel Convention (2019) Basel convention plastic waste amendments. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWasteAmendments/Overview/tabid/8426/Default.aspx

Sheavly SB, Register KM (2007) Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J Polym Environ 15(4):301–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0074-3

Simon M (2020) Should governments slap a tax on plastic? Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.wired.com/story/should-governments-slap-a-tax-on-plastic/

Stafford R, Jones PJS (2019) Viewpoint – ocean plastic pollution: a convenient but distracting truth? Mar Policy 103:187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.003

Tabuchi H, Corkery M, Mureithi C (2020) Big oil is in trouble. Its plan: flood Africa with plastic. The New York Times. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/climate/oil-kenya-africa-plastics-trade.html

Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Biesbroek R (2019) A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Polic Soc 38(2):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971

Tessnow-von Wysocki I, Le Billon P (2019) Plastics at sea: treaty design for a global solution to marine plastic pollution. Environ Sci Pol 100:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.005

The Pew Charitable Trusts, & SYSTEMIQ (2020) Breaking the plastic wave: a comprehensive assessment of pathways towards stopping ocean plastic pollution

Velis C (2017) Waste pickers in Global South: informal recycling sector in a circular economy era. Waste Manag Res 35(4):329–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17702024

Vince J, Hardesty BD (2018) Governance solutions to the tragedy of the commons that marine plastics have become. Front Mar Sci 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00214

Völker C, Kramm J, Wagner M (2020) On the creation of risk: framing of microplastics risks in science and media. Global Chall 4(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900010

World Economic Forum (2020) Plastics, the circular economy and global trade

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, & McKinsey & Company. (2016). The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of plastics

Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Holland M, Thompson RC (2017) Can beach cleans do more than clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to other coastal activities. Environ Behav 49(5):509–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516649412

Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Carroll L, Thompson RC (2019) An evaluation of the Fishing For Litter (FFL) scheme in the UK in terms of attitudes, behavior, barriers and opportunities. Mar Pollut Bull 144:48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.035

Xanthos D, Walker TR (2017) International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 118(1–2):17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048

Download references

Acknowledgments

M.W. acknowledges the support by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (02WRS1378I, 01UU1603), the Norwegian Research Council (301157), and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme (860720).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

Martin Wagner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Wagner .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway

Michael S. Bank

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Wagner, M. (2022). Solutions to Plastic Pollution: A Conceptual Framework to Tackle a Wicked Problem. In: Bank, M.S. (eds) Microplastic in the Environment: Pattern and Process. Environmental Contamination Remediation and Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78627-4_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78627-4_11

Published : 10 October 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-78626-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-78627-4

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 25 September 2024

Can science cure its addiction to plastic?

Andy Tay is a freelance writer in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Biology labs generate large amounts of single-use plastic waste, such as pipette tips and trays. Credit: Eplisterra/Getty Images

Single-use plastic has always been a concern of Caitlin Broadbent, a sustainability technician at King’s College London. Each month, researchers in the institute’s Drosophila fly facilities discard more than 20,000 polystyrene vials, contributing to an alarming increase in plastic waste as the laboratories continue to expand.

The disposal of these vials, along with flies and food, involves incineration at high temperatures, which generates substantial carbon emissions. With the environmental impact growing, addressing this issue is an urgent priority for the team.

But times are changing, says Broadbent. Through a project funded by King’s College, her team, along with an undergraduate student working on the project, is developing a business case for switching to glass containers. “While using glass vials was common in the past, implementing this change now requires careful consideration of costs, labour, safety and materials,” Broadbent says.

Nature Spotlight: Green laboratories

If you have worked in a biology lab, you will probably remember the large amount of plastic waste generated every day. This is especially true for plastic products such as pipette tips, Petri dishes and Falcon tubes, which are designed to be used once, or for a short time, before being discarded. A highly cited Correspondence article published in Nature in 2015 estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of plastic waste was being generated yearly by labs worldwide 1 , on the basis of data collected from the biosciences department at the University of Exeter, UK. That equates to around 2% of the total amount of plastic waste produced globally at that time.

In another study, conducted in 2021 by the Roslin Institute’s microbiology lab at the University of Edinburgh, UK, a team of seven scientists was able to cut its plastic usage by 43 kilograms in a month, saving around 516 kg of waste annually from incineration 2 . Extrapolating this for the roughly 200 researchers in their institute, the authors estimated that more than 17,000 kg of biohazard waste could be avoided if all labs took up similar plastic-reducing measures. These included adopting reusable metal loops instead of single-use plastic for bacteria inoculation, and reusing plastic tubes after chemically decontaminating them.

Caitlin Broadbent at work in a Drosophila fly facility at King’s College London. Polypropylene fly vials are placed on a tray and into a laboratory dishwasher. Most will come out clean, but occasionally some need to be run through again. Credit: Caitlin Broadbent

The authors noted that adopting their practices would require considerable operational and behavioural changes, which often acts as a deterrent. For instance, a metal loop used to plate bacteria needs to be heated to ensure biological decontamination, which takes time, and the plastic containers used to store chemicals have to be transported to a specialist facility for cleaning.

Before mass manufacturing of single-use plastics, reusing wooden and metal tools was a common lab practice. Advances in plastic production are enabling scientists to spend less time on cleaning and more on research, but these steps have also created a big plastic-waste problem for society, prompting universities and research institutions to take action.

Money, education and partnerships

Globally, university operators are aware of their plastic addiction and have made various commitments to reduce their reliance on single-use plastic. In the United Kingdom, University College London has pledged that its campus will be free of single-use plastic by the end of 2024, a goal shared by the Australian National University in Canberra. The University of California, Berkeley, has committed to meeting the same target by 2030.

A 2019 master’s thesis investigated the plastic-waste strategies of 76 of the country’s higher-learning institutions . The author found that around 64% of waste-cutting pledges were limited strictly to catering settings, and included banning plastic coffee cups and food containers. Only 6% of the measures aimed to reduce single-use plastic in laboratories. Importantly, for reasons such as labour constraints and costs, most of the universities had not quantified the success of their efforts to reduce plastic waste.

To incentivize a shift away from single-use plastics in research, universities have rolled out funding mechanisms and educational workshops. SustainableLabs, a dedicated team at King’s College London, is helping labs to achieve accreditation in sustainability under an international scheme called the Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework, or LEAF. “One success story we had was how a PhD student led a lab to replace single-use non-recyclable plastic well-plates with reusable ceramic well-plates for brain-section immunohistochemistry staining,” says Broadbent.

“At our Drug Control Centre, where strict protocols prevent cross-contamination in drug testing, we have also implemented a sustainable approach by reusing glass test tubes, plastic centrifuge tubes and plastic scintillation vials. By utilizing a dishwasher and standardized cleaning practices, we significantly reduce plastic waste while maintaining the high standards required for our research.”

Some institutions, including the University of the West of England Bristol (UWE Bristol), have also partnered with firms to recycle plastic waste generated from labs. “It is not easy to identify companies that specialize in recycling plastic waste from labs,” says Joanna Dainton, head of circular economy and responsible consumption at the university. “When we first decided to partner with RecycleLab, a start-up specializing in recycling non-hazardous plastic waste such as plastic that has not been in contact with biological materials like blood and cells from labs, we wanted to test the market to understand what they could offer.”

Ultimately, says Dainton, the trial data showed that the programme worked well, and, as a result, UWE Bristol has formalized a partnership between its College of Health, Science & Society and RecycleLab, which is based in Chipping Norton, UK. “Through this partnership, we expect to recycle over 600 kg of plastic waste, which is approximately 10% of the plastic waste generated by the college each year.

A student in Joanna Dainton’s team at the University of the West of England Bristol, UK, demonstrates the lab’s plastic-recycling project. Credit: Marcus Olivant

“The challenge right now, to get more organizations to consider recycling their plastic waste, will be scale and price,” says Dainton. “At the moment, RecycleLab is not as cheap as large multinational recycling companies, partly because they do not yet have the customer base, but there is real potential here as lab plastics are a global issue across teaching institutions and hospitals.”

In a report produced in 2022 , the UK Royal Society of Chemistry recommended practices to help institutions cut back on single-use plastic. Besides incentivizing initiatives and attitudes that work in favour of sustainable research and educational workshops, these practices support the creation of roles dedicated to lab environmental-sustainability programmes. They also encourage the use of digital technologies to record, quantify and share sustainability-related experimental design and outcomes.

Trials and tribulations

These changes don’t come without challenges. Mark Fretz, an architecture and built-environment specialist at the University of Oregon in Eugene, notes that in his research, which involves collecting air, water and surface microbiomes, it is hard to eliminate single-use plastic altogether. To avoid cross-contaminating samples, he and his team rely on copious amounts of sterile collection equipment during their fieldwork, including individually packaged, plastic microcentrifuge tubes and polystyrene Petri dishes.

Fly vials that have had their plugs removed are soaked in hot water and ChemGene disinfectant for two hours. This loosens the fly food and dead flies. Credit: Caitlin Broadbent

“Back in the lab, after sample collection, most of the reagents for DNA/RNA extraction and library preparation are also packaged in plastic,” Fretz says. “We could substitute some of the plastic with glassware; but it comes with challenges for lab safety as glass is more likely to break accidentally and create a hazardous spill.”

Fretz says that although the team has tried using glass and stainless steel in place of plastics in active-air and surface-microcosm studies, each collection can have upwards of 500–1,000 samples, which means that substantial time and space is needed for cleaning and sterilizing. “We don’t have the staff, lab space or budget for projects to take on this additional workload, so plastic single-use consumables have become the de facto solution,” he says.

A reason for optimism

In its 2022 report, the Royal Society of Chemistry found that 79% of the researchers surveyed knew that their lab activities affected the environment, and 84% wanted to reduce the adverse environmental impact of their work. Another 63% said that they had made changes in the previous two years to reduce that impact, or that of their research groups or departments.

A similar sentiment emerged at the University of Manchester, UK, where a scheme has saved more than 24,000 pieces of plastic each academic year by reducing plastic use in lab practical classes. Surveys conducted after the classes found that 97% of the nearly 400 respondents were pleased to be part of a scheme that was working to reduce single-use plastic in practical sessions.

Dainton says that the success of initiatives to reduce plastic use has a lot to do with changing mindsets. “We have started educating undergraduates on what types of plastics can be recycled, hoping that early awareness will make them conscious of their choice of research materials in the future.” Furthermore, “the wide variety of plastics used in labs makes the recycling process complicated, so clear communication is important to prevent contamination of recycling”.

Broadbent says researchers often tell her that they want to change their plastic-consumption habits but don’t know how or lack the resources, or that “they have some colleagues who are not on board”. This is why it is important for universities to have funding mechanisms to support a change in behaviours. Such mechanisms could include money to upgrade lab equipment for glassware washing, and workshops to change mindsets and debunk myths, such as that using washable glassware carries a high risk of contamination.

“There’s still a long way to go, but there is reason for hope,” says Broadbent.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03010-3

This article is part of Nature Spotlight: Green laboratories , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content.

Urbina, M., Watts, A. & Reardon, E. Nature 528 , 479 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alves, J. et al. Access Microbiol. 3 , 000173 (2020).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Related Articles

• Environmental sciences
• Sustainability
• Green chemistry

The trials and triumphs of sustainable science

Spotlight 25 SEP 24

Greening science: what’s in it for you?

Extreme solar storms and the quest for exact dating with radiocarbon

Perspective 11 SEP 24

How I apply Indigenous wisdom to Western science and nurture Native American students

Career Q&A 25 SEP 24

Floating homes need social and political acceptance in the Western world

Correspondence 24 SEP 24

Gender inequity persists among journal chief editors

Associate Professor

J. Craig Venter Institute is conducting a faculty search for Associate Professors position in Rockville, MD and San Diego, CA campuses.

Rockville, Maryland or San Diego, California

J. Craig Venter Institute

Associate Professor position (Tenure Track), Dept. of Computational & Systems Biology, U. Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Please apply by Dec. 2, 2024.

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

University of Pittsburgh | DCSB

Assistant Professor

Assistant Professor position (Tenure Track), Dept. of Computational & Systems Biology, U. Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Please apply by Dec. 2, 2024.

Independent Group Leader Positions in Computational and/or Experimental Medical Systems Biology

NIMSB is recruiting up to 4 Independent Group Leaders in Computational and/or Experimental Medical Systems Biology

Greater Lisbon - Portugal

NOVA - NIMSB

CZS Junior Group Leader for “Molecular Systems Engineering/DNA Nanoscience”

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) is one of the largest universities in Germany. Thanks to its location in the Rhine-Main science region, t...

Mainz, Rheinland-Pfalz (DE)

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies