International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): A review

The impacts of plastics’ life cycle

Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review

Plastic pollution and infectious diseases

Single-use plastic debris is becoming more abundant in the ocean, and is having adverse impacts on the environment and human health. According to Pennington (2016), it is predicted by 2050, there will be more plastic debris in the ocean than there are fish. Some in Rhode Island seek to have a series of statewide single-use plastic bans to be implemented in the near future to lessen Rhode Island’s role in creating plastic debris. The objective of this study is to gain attitudinal knowledge of the residents of Rhode Island, towards the single-use plastics initiative and to gain insight on what single-use plastics residents would support banning to create a potential road map for the state to use when looking for the next step towards the state’s goal on banning single-use plastics. Anonymous surveys were distributed using online forums and news media sources with questions driven to learn about resident’s attitudes, behaviors and knowledge of single-use plastic bans and plastic pollution as a whole. Residents were grouped into municipalities with and without plastic bag bans already in place to determine if there was a relationship between resident’s behaviors and policy support and living in a municipality with a plastic bag ban. 586 residents representing 36 of the 39 municipalities in Rhode Island participated in this study providing input on their support towards a variety of potential single-use plastic bans statewide. The use of reusable alternatives and views of statewide bans were statistically significant based on self-identification of being environmentally friendly/cautious, which could be seen in behavioral and policy spillover effects. Based on public perceptions on the various single-use plastic bans, the state of Rhode Island should first ban plastic bags statewide then plastic bottles second, after that it is inconclusive what the respondents want based on the results of this study. Knowledge intervention is necessary to break barriers for pro-environmental behaviors and policies to help cope with plastic pollution mitigation. More research should be conducted looking more in depth at other potential variables to determine the driving factor behind respondent’s views and behaviors that were not incorporated in this study.

Corresponding Author Lydia Lu; Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, 2174 North Druid Hills Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329;Lydia.lu@choa.org Funding No funding source. Conflict(s) of Interest All authors have declared no conflict of interest. Background An estimated 3000 tons of plastic are discarded by US hospital systems daily, the majority as single-use plastics (SUP).1–3 Plastics contain chemicals potentially harmful to children, and are sourced from oil and gas. When plastics are disposed in landfills they emit methane, a greenhouse gas which contributes to climate change. Not all plastics can be avoided, but many practices can be modified to safely decrease SUP use. We sought to quantify the amount of SUP waste created with administration of the three most prescribed pediatric medications: acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and amoxicillin, which is the antibiotic most frequently prescribed to children. Methods Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta is a pediatric hospital system with three free-standing hospitals. We took an inventory of all acetaminophen, ibuprofen and amoxicillin doses to pediatric patients from 2-21 years of age in 2024 by our hospital pharmacies and categorized them by liquid versus tablet formulation. We also weighed the SUP items utilized to dispense these medications: 10 cc syringes with caps (4.4 g), pre-dosed plastic medication cups for acetaminophen and ibuprofen (2.9 g), plastic transportation trays per 10 pre-dosed cups (20 g), small plastic ziploc bags (1.6 g), and plastic medication cups (1 g). According to standard operating procedures (SOPs), liquid formulations of oral medications are dosed by weight and drawn into SUP syringes. Manufacturer pre-dosed plastic cups are stocked in automated medication dispensing machines in hospital units. Nurses access the cups, draw out the appropriate dose by syringe and dispense the medication to the patient. Unused drug is wasted. Amoxicillin liquid doses are prepared by the pharmacy, labeled, secured in individual plastic bags, and sent to patient care areas where the syringe is used to administer the medication. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen tablets are re-packaged by the pharmacy into plastic and paper blister packs, then stocked in hospital units. Nurses obtain the tablets from the automated medication machines and transfer the appropriate dose from the blister pack to a plastic medication cup for presentation to patients. Tablet formulations for amoxicillin are dosed into a small plastic bag sent from the pharmacy to hospital units where the medication is transferred to a plastic medication cup for administration. The estimated plastic waste per dose of drug by formulation is summarized in Table 1. The impact of the SUP waste created by dispensing these three medications (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and amoxicillin) for one year in our hospital system was estimated using the conversion factor of 3.10 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions per 1 kg of plastic waste, per the UK Centre for Sustainable Healthcare.4 Results In 2024, 86 216 doses of acetaminophen, 74 000 doses of ibuprofen, and 11 368 doses of amoxicillin were dispensed to patients 2-21 years old. Of these, 59.6% (n = 53 135) of acetaminophen, 68.4% (n = 50 656) of ibuprofen, and 59.6% (n = 8652) of amoxicillin doses were given in a liquid formulation. For preparation of liquid medication doses, the estimated total weight of the plastic used was 1017 kg, equivalent to 3153 kg of CO2e emissions. In contrast, the estimated total weight of the plastic associated with tablet dispensing was 66 kg, equivalent to 206 kg of CO2e emissions for the same period. If all liquid doses of amoxicillin, ibuprofen and acetaminophen had been given as tablets, a total 891 kg of plastic waste, equivalent to 2762 kg of CO2e emissions could have been spared. If paper cups were used instead of plastic cups for dispensing tablets, an additional 62 kg of plastic waste, or 192 kg of CO2e emissions could have been spared. The combined 2824 kg CO2e emissions saving potential is approximately equivalent to driving 7191 miles in a gas-powered vehicle.5 Conclusion Despite the availability of chewable tablet formulations and stair-step dosing recommendations for acetaminophen, ibuprofen and amoxicillin, most of these medications were administered to our patients as liquid formulations, generating substantially more SUP waste than tablet administration. Additional SUP waste could be decreased with a change to paper cups rather than plastic. Innovative approaches to further eliminate the need for SUP for medication administration should be explored. Hospital systems have the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strategically considering their utilization of SUP for medication administration and updating their standard operating procedures.

A few times a year, volunteers fan out along the causeway that links the South Carolina mainland with the seashore community of Folly Beach to clean up plastic bottles, straws, bags, and other debris from along the road and the salt marsh. Some of this debris has come from cities miles away. On windy days, litter is often blown off city streets into waterways. During rainstorms, debris floats into drains that empty into rivers. Other trash probably came from places closer to home. “I see bags and other plastic flying off the beds of pickup trucks going down the causeway,” says Marty Morganello, who organizes the cleanups for the Charleston-area chapter of the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation. “I see them coming out the open windows of cars and out the backs of garbage trucks and even recycling trucks. This material is lightweight, and if you don’t secure it, it will fly away.” By one estimate, the volume of plastic debris going into the world’s oceans could more than double by 2025, assuming current trends in coastal development and plastics use. Some countries have begun identifying ways to improve management of plastic ... Beach cleanups yield enormous amounts of trash, with plastic items a major constituent.1 Although the human health impacts of this marine plastic pollution remain poorly characterized, it is widely seen as an emerging problem that deserves much more research attention.2 Likewise, there is a growing urgency among industry, government, nongovernmental organizations, and environmental groups to develop tools and policies to track, capture, and recycle plastic waste before it reaches the ocean.

The ‘plastic waste era’; social perceptions towards single-use plastic consumption and impacts on the marine environment in Durban, South Africa

One of the greatest threats to the natural environment is marine debris pollution. Single-use plastics, one of many contributors to marine debris, are causing the greatest harm, affecting the well-being of humans and animals. In an effort to mitigate plastic pollution, environmental policies are implemented to reduce the availability of single-use plastic products to the consumer. This research looks explicitly at single-use plastic bag policies to see if implemented plastic bag bans promote pro-environmental behaviors and broader support for plastic bag policies. This study sampled two communities in Rhode Island, one with a single-use plastic bag ban, Middletown, and one without a single-use plastic bag ban, Warwick, performing face-to-face surveys with 50 individuals in each community (N = 100). The findings do not show support of a behavioral spillover effect; however, people living in the town with the implemented plastic bag ban used reusable bags more frequently than individuals in Warwick and showed greater support for a statewide plastic bag policy. In addition, age, gender, and environmental worldview (NEP) were predictors for some pro-environmental behaviors. In all, plastic bag polices could have broader implications for supporting similar and different environmental policies moving forward.

The Single-Use Plastics Directive (EU) 72/2019/904 is the main legislation governing plastic pollution, inclusive of marine plastic pollution in the European Union (EU). The Directive has issued market restrictions on several single-use plastic products which contribute to marine plastic pollution, including foamed polystyrene products made of expanded polystyrene (EPS). However, extruded polystyrene (XPS) which is commonly used in the same single-use plastics products as EPS has been omitted from the market placement restrictions within the scope of the Directive. This has subsequently compromised the Single-Use Plastics Directive’s effectiveness for reducing marine plastic pollution and hinders the efforts of related EU instruments such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Descriptor 10 toward achieving Good Environmental Status across the marine environment in the EU. This paper provides some background on EPS and XPS, and discusses plastic pollution policy making in the EU, while further addressing the role of quantitative data in the European Joint Research Centre’s Technical Report on Top Marine Beach Litter Items in the EU for the formulation of policy regulating foamed polystyrene derived marine plastic pollution. We also provide an overview of how the communication gaps in the polymer science nomenclature for polystyrene may have contributed to the development of misnomers for extruded and EPS, consequently compromising necessary data gathering efforts. Our perspective hopes to incite conversations on communication gaps between scientists and policy makers and emphasise the need for gathering quantitative disaggregated data on the foamed polystyrene market to inform European plastic pollution legislation adequately.

Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA

Plastic waste has become a major contributor to global environmental pollution. Some of the environmental impacts of plastic waste include littering, the formation of plastic debris in oceans and the contamination of freshwater and terrestrial habitats. Policymakers face great challenges in mitigating plastic waste. Indonesia is considered the second largest contributor of plastic waste in the world. However, existing policies have not addressed this issue. Policies, such as bans on single-use plastic bags and fees on plastic bags, have recently been implemented in some pilot cities, but the results remain unclear. Thus, this study proposes feasible policies to mitigate plastic waste in Indonesia using system dynamics. Specifically, this study seeks to develop a dynamic model of plastic waste mitigation and to propose a policy scenario for plastic waste mitigation. The proposed policies consist of a plastic bag ban, a plastic bag fee, a recycling centre and extended producer responsibility (EPR). The analysis demonstrates that an effective mixed policy instrument for reducing plastic waste depends on the plastic waste type. Regarding plastic bottles, the effective mixed policy is a combination of a recycling centre and EPR. For plastic bags, the effective mixed policies include the following combinations: a plastic bag fee and plastic bag ban, a plastic bag fee and recycling centre and a plastic bag ban and recycling centre.

Current situation and key challenges on the use of single-use plastic in Hanoi

Single-use plastic (SUP) is an important product group in plastic pollution with various measures managing it within its lifecycle. Africa has the highest single-use plastic bag (SUPB) policy adoption by region globally, but the plastic problem persists, raising policy design concerns on effectiveness. This paper explores plastic policy design on plastic waste reduction in Africa. Using gap analysis and integrative propositional analysis, the status, scope, and variability of policies are assessed against a reference model. There are 48 active policies in 39 of the 55 countries in Africa. Of these, three countries have transitioned from plastic bag bans to SUP policies to manage more plastic products, and two countries have transitioned from SUPB charges to SUPB bans. There are 12 packaging policies, 29 bag policies, 2 bottle policies, 1 utensil and polystyrene boxes policy, and 1 straw policy. Themed SUP and packaging policies loosely cover plastic products. Four of the nine packaging policies analyzed are SUPB policies by design, as they explicitly mention the control of bags rather than primary packaging. Sixteen policies are designed for biodegradability restrictions, while ten policies are total bans on single-use plastic products. The lack of definitions and coherence and provision of exemptions in policies result in plastic waste traceable from exemptions, in-policy, undefined SUP, out-of-policy SUP, and non-SUP sources. The use of different policy mix instruments to manage plastic within its lifecycle was identified in African countries. The design of new policies should consider these shortcomings to enhance plastic waste management by explicitly identifying products and outlining management measures for excluded plastic products within the same plastic group for SUP or packaging policies in the absence of a global or regionally binding plastic policy.

Generation patterns and consumer behavior of single-use plastic towards plastic-free university campuses

Despite the increasing awareness and concerns about plastic pollution, plastic packaging and single-use plastic (SUP) consumption continues to increase yearly. Even developed countries fail to adequately, let alone comprehensively, recycle the wide variety of plastic waste. Consequently, many countries have imposed levies or bans to curb the reliance on SUP, initially targeting single-use plastic bags and, in later stages—extending their legislation to other SUPs. However, only a few countries have succeeded in instilling persistent changes in plastic packaging consumption habits. Several key factors can drive behavioral changes, including stakeholder engagement in policy development, public education and awareness raising, accessible and affordable plastic alternatives, and a robust deposit-return system with adequate infrastructure. Taking as an example case studies from 12 countries, this paper aims to understand what underpins the success or underlies the failure of seemingly similar legislative approaches toward minimizing plastic bag consumption. To complete this analysis, peer-reviewed journals, governmental pages and reports were consulted to gather information about various plastic bag and later—other SUP bans and levies. This paper discusses in depth why and how satisfactory results fail to emerge if the above-mentioned measures are neglected. Importantly, from the case studies analyzed, this paper argues that the efficacy of plastic reduction legislation is contingent upon the degree of retail sector engagement rather than the specific policy instrument deployed.