Interesting study/article on microplastics in the BWCA.

https://www.wpr.org/node/1537796

Did not see it mentioned in the articles but a major source of micro beads and micro plastics come from soaps and personal hygiene products (toothpaste and exfoliating products).

butthead

Apparently, most of these micro-plastics they are finding are fibers which have been shed by synthetic clothing and other fabrics.

there goes the Leave No Trace ethos

now I know why it's so hard to lose weight, tough to burn off all that microplastic

It seems that the students are undergraduates. This kind of opportunity for undergraduate research is invaluable. As for the preliminary results, I am not surprised, given the presence of microplastics in the wider world. I'd be interested to learn whether they can identify different types of materials and the relative abundance of those materials.

Its amazing the levels found in the ocean.

It is interesting that they focused on earthworms. I thought that earthworms were not indigenous to the BW. So not only are they finding microplastics, they are finding invasive worm species throughout the wilderness.

Here is an article on the the symbiosis between invasive earthworms and other invasive plant species.

Invasive species

The wilderness is being changed by external forces. It is just a matter of how fast.

inspector13: "Apparently, most of these micro-plastics they are finding are fibers which have been shed by synthetic clothing and other fabrics."

Since we know that microplastics and fibers can and are transported by wind, rain, and animals, I find a jump to the conclusion that fiber presence in the BWCA being due primarily to the synthetic fabrics of campers to be unscientific and irresponsible speculation. To be clear: I'm not accusing you of jumping to that particular conclusion, but I have already seen that it is very common for people to erroneously conflate synthetic fabrics with campers as the origin of the microplastics in the BWCA. Of course the synthetics we bring with us shed, but the vast majority of shedding occurs during the physical and chemical stress of washing. I'm sure washing of fabrics occurs in the BWCA, but I doubt it's significantly common. Pointing the finger at campers ignores the other possibly/probably more significant and more insidious origins of these plastics and vilifies the people most likely to be allies in prevention efforts.

I have personally be transitioning my wardrobe (daily and wilderness) away from synthetics as I find alternatives. I am loving my wool t-shirts and after having found some small companies making casual and outdoor/technical clothing from wool, alpaca, and yak wool, I am looking forward to purchasing more to complete my woefully small outdoor wardrobe and replace my ancient, ratty daily wardrobe as I can afford to.

Tarps? A question I'd like to see explored is if silnylon is any more resistant to shedding than "regular" nylon since most of our tarps (probably the next most common fabric in the BWCA) are silnylon.

P.S. There is some suggestive evidence that natural fibers like bamboo, Modal, Lyocell, and Tencel may also inflict similar damage to ecosystems as synthetic microfibers.

Although I was just quoting the article, and nowhere within that article does it say a conclusion was made that their presence was due primarily to the synthetic fabrics of campers, it also says “micro-plastics were found in all the samples, but concentrations were highest in waters near campsites and portages”. It would take some strange wind and rain to make that happen.

I agree with mschi772, if concentrations are highest around campsites its probably from bears pawing at packs, mice eating through packs, squirrels as well, and fish biting on artificial bait, not from tree hugging campers

on second thought, maybe its the tree hugging causing the fabric to abrade against the bark


consequently, when hugging trees, I suggest birch, leave the pines, cedar, and other trees with rough bark alone

Or, wear only wool when tree-hugging.

inspector13: "
Although I was just quoting the article, and nowhere within that article does it say a conclusion was made that their presence was due primarily to the synthetic fabrics of campers, it also says “micro-plastics were found in all the samples, but concentrations were highest in waters near campsites and portages”. It would take some strange wind and rain to make that happen.


"

In my experience, portages especially, are at areas of lakes where things collect. Of course this isn't always the case, but I find it is pretty common to see pollen, for example, accumulating near portages and campsites due to the local geography and ground-level wind behavior. I'm not saying mine is the answer. What I'm saying is that, as someone with formal science education from a degree in biology with a focus on ecology and years of experience in natural areas restoration and management, their observation that micro-plastic concentrations were highest where they were doesn't indicate anything other than the potential to perform another study/experiment to determine why those concentrations are where they are. They could be concentrated there due to campers. They could be concentrated there because natural movements lead them there. There could be some other explanation I haven't thought of. These students and those reading about their study need to keep their focus on their data collection and experimentation as they relate to their hypothesis and maintain their perspective.

It's entirely possible the higher concentrations are due to campers. If the majority of the plastic mass accumulating in the BWCA coming from outside the park on wind or rain or animal is remaining as evenly distributed as I assume it would be, it would be natural that the local additions of plastics that we do shed as campers would create higher concentrations assuming the plastics aren't naturally concentrating themselves into "hot spots." I'm not defending plastics at all here. What I've learned tells me that our use of synthetics while camping shouldn't be a massive threat, but I also know that we have a lot more to learn, and if we are shedding more out there than I think, I wanna know. We may not wash our fabrics on the field much, but we do brush up against rocks and trees a lot which I assume increases the rate at which our fabrics drop fibers.

Regardless, these plastics will just keep accumulating. The old ones don't go away, and ever new piece just adds to the pile in the environment. It may seem like nothing now, but even if we release microplastics at a relative "snail's pace" they will still accumulate into a large problem. This isn't something that should be ignored because we average folk can't see a real problem yet. If it gets so far as to be that obvious, it will have been too late for far too long. It's hard to entirely avoid plastics, but I'm doing as much as I can and am not allowing myself to get complacent. And I hope others will do the same.

P.S. Inspector, I wasn't directing any accusations at you, the students or the article. In fact, I wrote, "To be clear: I'm not accusing you of jumping to that particular conclusion, but I have already seen that it is very common for people to erroneously conflate synthetic fabrics with campers as the origin of the microplastics in the BWCA." All of the information presented in the article is important, but it begs far more questions than it answers. Unfortunately I've seen this article shared many places already, and a scary number of people are drawing conclusions from it which demonstrates a disappointing lack of scientific literacy.

Yet another reason to filter your drinking water.

What about canoes made from Royalex to to lightweight kevlar made with all kinds of different resins. Paddles of all types to crocs and other footwear. All of these abraid on the rocks. All the plastic that ends up being burnt in the fire.

But I think there are a lot more serious threats to the BWCA than micro plastics. Overuse being the number 1 threat.

mschi772: "

In my experience, portages especially, are at areas of lakes where things collect. .. What I'm saying is that, as someone with formal science education from a degree in biology with a focus on ecology and years of experience in natural areas restoration and management..."

If that’s your background, then you should also be wary of generalizing “in your experience” to what happens in the real world. (I’ve spent the last 60 years as an engineering/scientist)
Besides, they said the concentrations are highest at campsites, not portages.
You are also forgetting that fabric wears simply from rubbing against our own body.
For example, I have four identical Columbia fleece jackets bought several years apart, all the same design, I can tell which one I bought first simply because it is now the thinnest, and which the newest despite they are all black.

mschi772:"P.S. Inspector, I wasn't directing any accusations at you, the students or the article. "

Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but after you stated: “I find a jump to the conclusion that fiber presence in the BWCA being due primarily to the synthetic fabrics of campers to be unscientific and irresponsible speculation.”, I couldn’t resist pointing out that no where did the article mention a conclusion on the source of the fibers had been made. It was just a story on UW students doing research in the BWCAW and it looked like you were indeed questioning their methods.

Frankly, I will not loose any sleep over micro plastics in any watershed until effects and risks to ecosystems are better understood. In other words, “it’s a non factor”.

hobbydog: "


But I think there are a lot more serious threats to the BWCA than micro plastics. Overuse being the number 1 threat. "

true, but the levels they are finding in a "wilderness", ... imagine what the levels are in other areas

Fix your post ZaraSp00k. It looks like you are quoting me, and now the thread has gone all italics on us.

inspector13: "



Frankly, I will not loose any sleep over micro plastics in any watershed until effects and risks to ecosystems are better understood. In other words, “it’s a non factor”.


"

I won't lose any sleep either, but if you wait for that to happen, it will be too late to do anything about the problem.

The elephant in the room: Plastics are made from "fossil fuels"
is everybody going to stop buying synthetics and go back to natural fibers?

didn't think so

Thanks. It makes for much easier reading.

ZaraSp00k: "
now I know why it's so hard to lose weight, tough to burn off all that microplastic"

no joke, there's a lot of work being done that suggests plastics may mimic estrogen in the body, which may in fact make it harder to burn off fat.

inspector13: "
Apparently, most of these micro-plastics they are finding are fibers which have been shed by synthetic clothing and other fabrics.


"

I'm all for research and knowledge gathering but I have to say it's a bit ironic to see that many researchers are wearing synthetic clothes and the pic of their camping gear shows more synthetic fabric...as they find microplastics that they believe are shed from synthetic clothes and fabric. Maybe they should change their wardrobe and gear before looking for control samples?

ZaraSp00k: "

mschi772: "In my experience, portages especially, are at areas of lakes where things collect. .. What I'm saying is that, as someone with formal science education from a degree in biology with a focus on ecology and years of experience in natural areas restoration and management..."

If that’s your background, then you should also be wary of generalizing “in your experience” to what happens in the real world. (I’ve spent the last 60 years as an engineering/scientist)
Besides, they said the concentrations are highest at campsites, not portages.
You are also forgetting that fabric wears simply from rubbing against our own body.
For example, I have four identical Columbia fleece jackets bought several years apart, all the same design, I can tell which one I bought first simply because it is now the thinnest, and which the newest despite they are all black.
"

I wasn't generalizing. I was merely mentioning a personal observation that I feel might be relevant to a discussion of why there may be localized concentrations of things (another example that comes to mind is how plastics have found themselves relatively concentrated in the Pacific plastic patch). I did go on to say, "their observation ... doesn't indicate anything other than the potential to perform another study/experiment to determine why those concentrations are where they are," immediately after which kind of refutes any notion that I was generalizing anything based on my anecdotal experience.

I'm also not at all forgetting other causes of fiber shedding, but it serves no purpose for me to list every single possible origin of shed fibers other than to preempt any nit-picking of my messageboard posts. I made specific mention of washing as a cause because, to my knowledge so far from all I've read, washing is one of, if not the greatest cause of microfiber shedding by a significant margin, so I felt it was worthy of specific mention in my discussion. I know there are MANY other causes. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that a gentle breeze across a garment/tarp is enough to dislodge fibers, but again, what purpose would it serve to list every possible cause of shedding down to the most minor?

inspector13: "Frankly, I will not loose any sleep over micro plastics in any watershed until effects and risks to ecosystems are better understood. In other words, “it’s a non factor”.

I would say we already know enough effects for you to be concerned. Microplastics have been found to attract heavy metals and toxins. That alone may not mean much because those toxins were already there which, if a problem, would be a totally separate issue, but the plastics, known to become points of concentrated pollutants, are also known to be ingested by small animals...and large ones, too, but effects are more immediate and pronounced with the small animals which is bad enough since those small organisms are part of the foundation of the rest of the ecosystem. Where those heavy metals and other toxins/pollutants might have been harmless or at least less threatening before, when they are consumed in a plastic "toxin burger" by an organism, they become much more threatening.

Aside from the consequences of poisoning small animals that way, we also know that many animals are becoming malnourished due to consumption of microplastics instead of, you know, food. An example that might resonate well with the BWCA.com crowd is that starvation of fish fry due to microplastic consumption is has already begun to affect fish populations to a noticeable degree in the oceans. When you are a tiny fish or zooplankton, microplastics aren't so micro. Imagine if a significant percentage of your own baby's food was replaced with nutritionless, 0-calorie plastic. Not good.

Plastics are also known to leach chemicals that mimic hormones which is bad enough in the water, but when the plastics are ingested (which as we know is incredibly easy with microplastics) and can deliver those chemicals directly to an animal, the problem becomes more pronounced.

The longer we wait, the more the problem has time to build, and the more difficult it will be to do anything to fix it.

Hormone disruption from plastics can feminize males. On a large enough scale that could result in serious species decline, or extirpation. Fantastic fishing is one of the primary reasons I trip in BWCA. It would be a bummer to trip there and have limited, or no possibility of catching fish.

mschi772: "


The longer we wait, the more the problem has time to build, and the more difficult it will be to do anything to fix it."

exactly,

if washing is the biggest source, there should be filters on washing machines similar to driers, which probably could be made more effective too

will the uplastic be totally prevented from entering the stream?
no, but look at the improvement in air quality from improved combustion in cars despite an increase in population