Single use plastic or paper products? A dilemma that requires societal change

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Waste Systems journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-waste-systems

Single-use plastic or paper products? A dilemma that requires societal change Nikolaos Simantiris a, b a b

Ionian University, Department of Informatics, Corfu 49132, Greece MEDASSET (Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles), Likavittou 1C, Athens 10632, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Single-use plastic Single-use paper Environmental pollution Health hazards Societal change

Plastic pollution has reached irreversible levels in both the terrestrial and marine environments affecting our planet’s fauna and human health. Plastic debris originating from single-use plastic products (such as bags, cups, straws, etc.) has been reported in every natural habitat around the globe, and their fragmentation to micro and nano-plastics poses high risks for every organism, including humans. Political pressure and awareness campaigns over the past decades have led governments and the industry to adopt legislative measures to ban the use of single-use plastics and seek alternative solutions. Hence, single-use paper cups, straws, lids, packages, etc. started infiltrating our daily routine, as the most promising alternative to plastic products. However, there has been increasing research in recent years showing that single-use paper products can be harmful to both the envi­ ronment and human health. This work reviewed the ongoing research on the hazards associated with the use of single-use plastic and paper products to assess whether paper is a viable solution to plastic. The findings reported here show that single-use paper products might be extremely harmful to both the terrestrial, fresh, and marine environment, as well as human health and climate change. This is due to the release of toxic chemical compounds directly into the environment (as in many cases these products are not recyclable) and the food/beverage (due to their rapid mechanical/compositional failure), and the release of greenhouse gases, upon degradation. Moreover, this study discusses consumer behavior from research performed in several countries and discusses that most consumers exhibit environmental consciousness, but require better incentives to use multi-use products and turn away from single-use products. Overall, the most promising solution to mitigate pollution from single-use products is to combine the environmental consciousness of consumers with economic measures (taxes, levies) for purchasing single-use products to reduce their usage.

1. Introduction 1.1. Plastic pollution Plastic pollution poses a significant threat to the marine environ­ ment, biodiversity, human health, and the economy. Marine plastic debris is known to affect marine organisms and degrade the coastal environment, which is the habitat of the species that constitute more than 80% of the global seafood industry (FAO, 2021; Simantiris et al., 2023). According to several studies, plastic debris is reported as 60–95% of the global marine litter, and the most frequent in all types of marine habitats (Mugilarasan et al., 2023; Mghili et al., 2023; Derraik, 2002; Suhrhoff and Scholz-Böttcher, 2016). In coastal areas, most of the ma­ rine plastic debris originates from land sources (harbor areas, rivers, touristic beaches, cities, industrial areas, and stormwater runoff) (Moore

et al., 2011; Cheung et al., 2016; Kalogerakis et al., 2017; Jambeck et al., 2015; Lebreton et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2015; Auta et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018), and is significantly correlated with the coastal population and exhibits great spatial and temporal variations (Zhao et al., 2015; Pedrotti et al., 2016; Lots et al., 2017). Considering the effect on the marine biota, plastics are known to cause the entan­ glement, ingestion, and suffocation of marine organisms (such as seals, sea turtles, etc.) and birds, with plastic bags being the most harmful plastic litter item (Xanthos and Walker, 2017; Wilcox et al., 2015).

Plastic debris is known to fragment into smaller pieces (≤5 mm) called microplastics (MPs) that are transported to higher-level organisms through the food chain and accumulate in humans (De Wit and Bigaud, 2019). MPs have been reported in every marine habitat worldwide (Cózar Cabañas et al., 2014; Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Eriksson et al., 2013; Lusher et al., 2015; Waller et al., 2017; Van Cauwenberghe et al.,

E-mail address: nsimantiris@ionio.gr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2023.100128 Received 19 October 2023; Received in revised form 31 December 2023; Accepted 31 December 2023 Available online 3 January 2024 2772-9125/© 2024 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

2013; Woodall et al., 2014), and were also found to transfer from plankton to fish, crabs, molluscs, and eventually humans (Setälä et al., 2014; Farrell and Nelson, 2013; Santana et al., 2017). The ongoing research on the biomagnification of microplastic pollution through the consumption of seafood products provides information and warning signs regarding product safety and potential implications for human health (Kershaw and Rochman, 2015). This is essential for the coastal population whose diet is regularly based on the consumption of seafood.

In the study of Hantoro et al. (2019), the authors estimated the global intake of MPs from the consumption of seafood products by humans.

Their findings indicate that more than 80,000 MPs are being ingested annually from fish, crustaceans, and molluscs, around the globe.

Moreover, MPs can reduce even further to nanoplastics (≤5 mm), a more critical contaminant as nanoplastics are easier to take up by marine organisms (posing a higher threat) (Cai et al., 2021). The hazards associated with the ingestion of MPs and nanoplastics are a result of their tendency to absorb chemicals from the marine environment (such as Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals (PBTs), and metals), combine these chemicals with their polymer characteristics, and distribute this chemical mixture within the food chain(Rochman et al., 2014; Koelmans et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2020; Simantiris et al., 2023; Mato et al., 2001; Teuten et al., 2007,2009; Rochman et al., 2013; Holmes et al., 2012; Engler, 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Bakir et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016; Avio et al., 2015; Karapanagioti et al., 2011; Koelmans et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2014; Bakir et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016; Avio et al., 2015; Karapanagioti et al., 2011; Koelmans et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2020). MPs were first reported in the marine environment in the 70 s by (Carpenter et al., 1972) and since then plastic debris has been considered a global issue for the marine environment. However, for freshwater systems, the recog­ nition of plastic pollution as a global issue occurred several decades later (Andrady, 2011). In the terrestrial environment, plastic debris is concentrated in urban environments (i.e. cities) and waste processing factories (Barnes et al., 2009), and in rural areas, the presence of plastic debris is associated with the agricultural industry (Briassoulis et al., 2013), and have negative impacts to the soil. In the coastal environment, plastic pollution leads to aesthetic issues and harms tourism, aquacul­ ture, recreational activities, shipping, and fishing, and may lead to a permanent impairment of the marine environment (Jang et al., 2014; Hardesty et al., 2015; Cole et al., 2011; Sivan, 2011). All these provoke an economic impact of more than 30,000 USD annually per tonne of marine plastic debris (Beaumont et al., 2019).

Besides the marine and terrestrial environment, nano and microplastic particles have also been recorded in the atmosphere, polluting every region from urban to remote and from low to high altitude areas (Allen et al., 2019b; Zhang et al., 2019). Between 2015–2023, more than 100 studies have reported the occurrence of MPs (most commonly fibers and fragments) in both indoor and outdoor air, dust, rain, and snow (O’Brien et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2019; Allen et al., 2019b; Dris et al., 2015; Klein and Fischer, 2019). The conducted research on atmospheric microplastic pollution has shown that MPs have become a major issue for the atmosphere, easily transporting MPs to pristine remote regions, but more significantly impacting indoor areas (Bank and Hansson, 2019). For example, a deposition of more than 300 MPs/m2/d has been reported in the remote Pyrenees mountains (Allen et al., 2019b), whilst in indoor areas of Paris, France, the deposition rate reaches more than 10,000 MPs/m2/d (Dris et al., 2017). The transport of MPs and nano-plastics in remote areas is considered to occur through rainfall and snowfall (Ganguly and Ariya, 2019; Allen et al., 2019b,a; Dris et al., 2016). More specifically, Bergmann et al. (2019) showed that deposition of more than 14,000 MPs/L takes place in Europe and the Arctic via snowfall. Considering indoor air pollution, MP fibers are a significant source of human exposure to MPs, through the ingestion of dust and inhalation of nanoplastics, potentially leading to negative respiratory

and cardiovascular effects, such as coughing, dyspnea, and asthma among others (Brauer and Churg, 2000; Dris et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Pauly et al., 1998; Wright and Kelly, 2017; Kremer et al., 1994). This is especially concerning for children who are reported to inhale large amounts of MPs from indoor air pollution (Wright and Kelly, 2017; Dris et al., 2017). A recent study reported that Chinese children inhale more than 17,000 ng/kg-bw (body weight) PET MPs in China (Liu et al., 2019). Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic had a critical impact on microplastic pollution (Torres-Agullo et al., 2021). The global demand for single-use personal protection equipment (PPE) led to the encour­ agement to use single-use plastic products (such as facial masks and gloves) and the delay in the banning of their production and use (Silva et al., 2020). However, although masks are highly successful in decreasing the risk of being contaminated with COVID-19, their use for long amounts of time generates MPs, which are being inhaled by the mask user, potentially exposing humans to other health hazards (Ara­ gaw, 2020; Fadare and Okoffo, 2020; Li et al., 2021).

1.2. Single-use plastics Single-use plastic products (such as bags, bottles, wrappers, pack­ aging, straws, stirrers, cups, and lids), are the most common plastic waste encountered in the marine and coastal environment all around the globe (Morales-Caselles et al., 2021). An increasing number of studies shows that microplastic pollution is a result of single-use plastics being disposed directly into the marine environment and transported through currents and diffusion processes (Simantiris et al., 2022b,a; Wakkaf et al., 2020; Suaria et al., 2016). Unfortunately, the already increasing production of plastic waste per year, has escalated even more during the COVID-19 pandemic (Geyer et al., 2017; de Oliveira et al., 2021). With the increase in the use and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new source of disposed plastic debris and associated microplastic pollution has emerged, as the weathering of disposed PPEs leads to the release of PET particles in the marine environment (Khan et al., 2023). Considering that there was no control over their production until recent years, more than 150,000,000 tonnes of single-use plastic products end up in the marine environment annually, within one year of their production, with plastic straws and stirrers forming approximately 7% of the total amount (Qiu et al., 2022; Roy et al., 2021; Garcia and Robertson, 2017; James et al., 2019).

1.3. Legislative policies and directives for plastic pollution The lifestyle of the 21st century and society’s need for convenient eating and drinking on the go, facilitate the enormous production of single-use plastic products, causing a tremendous environmental impact that influences both the marine environment/biodiversity and human health. Hence, several legislative policies and directives have been proposed and implemented over the past decades to reduce society’s plastic footprint and the irresponsible generation of single-use products (Xanthos and Walker, 2017; Pettipas et al., 2016). The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of Ships (MARPOL) (Farnelli, 2017), was the first policy signed by 134 nations banning the disposal of plastic products from ships, including the domestic legislation existing in some countries (Redford et al., 1992; Walker, 2016). However, studies showed that only 30% of marine litter originated from the shipping industry (Walker et al., 2006). Moreover, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the National Oceanic and Atmo­ spheric Administration (NOAA) have collaborated for the implementa­ tion of initiatives to battle plastic pollution and derive guidelines to monitor its impact on the marine environment (Cheshire and Adler, 2009; Kershaw et al., 2011). The collaboration led to the development of the UNEP Honolulu Strategy which aims to reduce plastic waste in the terrestrial, coastal, and marine environment, and has been implemented in several regional programs (Chen, 2015). Considering the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), several organizations conduct 2

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

research, beach and underwater clean-ups, workshops, lobbying, and advocacy actions to force their governments to adopt environmentally friendly practices, and awareness activities to engage and inform the general public (Pettipas et al., 2016). Some of these are the 5 Gyres Institute, the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), the Clean Seas Coalition, the In­ ternational Coastal Cleanup (ICC), the Ocean Conservancy, the Trash Free Seas Alliance, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Vancouver Aquarium, the Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles (MEDASSET), among others. All these NGOs focus on two common strategies regarding plastic pollution, informing the public to reduce the use and disposal of single-use plastics in the natural environment, and pushing/lobbying/advocating to create policies, regulations, and legis­ lation to reduce plastic use and littering (Xanthos and Walker, 2017).

The banning of single-use plastic products started in recent years with Directive 2019/904 of the European Parliament (Council, 2019), restrictions/banning/taxation of plastic bags in Mediterranean countries (Greece, France, Italy, and Spain (Alessi et al., 2018), banning in India (Ghosh, 2020), China (Block, 2013), as well as Australia (Xanthos and Walker, 2017). However, the US and Latin America exhibit a lack of legislation and management actions toward the reduced use of single-use plastic products (Xanthos and Walker, 2017). These actions aim to restrict the availability of single-use plastics and alter common practices in the population’s daily routine.

Despite the negative impact of single-use plastic products on the environment, simply banning these products without replacing them with viable solutions is not an option. The work of Jenks and Obringer (2020); Wong (2019) points out that economically feasible single-use products are important for the establishment of comfort, sanitation, and convenience of sick and/or disabled people, as they are currently in the need for plastic straws to eat, drink, and take medications. More specifically, the study of (Jenks and Obringer, 2020) showed that alternative materials (such as paper, bamboo, metal, glass, silicone, acrylic, and pasta) impose choking, injury, allergic, and sanitation risks, are not high temperature-safe, are not positionable, and are much more expensive for the consumers. In the need for alternative materials for single-use products, many proposed biodegradable plastic or paper, among others, as a replacement (Ghosh, 2020; Takou et al., 2018).

However, the transition towards these alternative materials is rapid, and proper knowledge of the potential hazards associated with their use is not acquired yet. This study was conducted to review the proposed al­ ternatives, the criticism, and the findings of studies on their environ­ mental impact and implications for human health. Moreover, this work discusses whether the solution to this issue is environmental or societal.

3. Results Over 30 years ago, Hocking (1991) performed the first analysis on the environmental implications regarding the selection of paper over plastic, as the material for single-use products. The analysis argued that the paper is not as eco-friendly as believed for several reasons.

Single-use paper products are made out of a pulp whose raw material is wood. Although wood is considered a renewable resource, the increased need for wood to produce more single-use paper products can lead to deforestation, floods, and drought in the areas that provide the raw material (Zhang and Zhai, 2022). Moreover, although plastic cups are criticized for their environmental impact due to their content of petroleum-based materials, Hocking (1991) discussed that paper prod­ ucts also contain petroleum-based materials, and in higher amounts. In the same study, the author reported the high amounts of chemicals in paper-based single-use products (such as chlorine, sulfuric acid, etc.), averaging 1.8 g of untreated and non-recyclable chemical contaminants being released to the natural environment per paper cup. In terms of the economic costs for the production of single-use plastic and paper cups, the author revealed that plastic cups require only 16% of the energy and material needed to produce paper cups. Hence, the associated costs for the production of paper cups are much higher than for plastic cups.

Finally, in terms of the recyclability of paper versus plastic cups, the study showed that plastic products are easily recycled after use but can also be reused by the primary user in various applications, whereas paper cups have very low chances of being reused and it is very difficult to recycle them due to the application of polymer coatings inside the paper cups. The key characteristics differentiating single-use plastic from paper products are presented in Table 1.

3.1. Recyclability/Biodegradability The use of polymer coatings is extensively used in food packaging, containers, and cups to prevent the paper from mixing with the food/ beverage. Therefore, single-use paper products become a threat to the environment as they contain chemical contaminants, are not recyclable or biodegradable, and are often discarded directly into the natural environment (Shen et al., 2014; Schwartz-Narbonne et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019; Kansal et al., 2020; Robertson, 1993). Attempting to sepa­ rate the polymer coating from the paper material is a very difficult and expensive procedure, as the process to recover the pulp includes altering the chemical characteristics of the paper and may fail due to the weakening of the compositional properties of paper (Li et al., 2019). This leads single-use products to often be discarded in landfills contami­ nating the environment and eventually human health (Hamdani et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019).

Several attempts have occurred to achieve the use of eco-friendly coatings for paper-based single-use products. These include the poly­ lactic acid (PLA) (Yamamatsu and Uemura, 2008), Poly(glycolic acid) (PGA) (Samantaray et al., 2020), poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (Coffin et al., 2022), chitosan-graft-polydimethylsiloxane (CP) (Nair et al., 2022), poly-hydroxy-alkenoates (PHA) (Israni and Shivakumar, 2019), Polybutylene-succinate (PBS) (Deshmukh et al., 2022), biode­ gradable polymers (such as whey, starch, soy, bee wax, etc.) (Han and Krochta, 2001; Lin and Krochta, 2003; Rastogi and Samyn, 2015), cel­ lulose nanocrystal composites (CNC) (Kwak et al., 2023), and silicone (Khan et al., 2020; Rabnawaz et al., 2015; Hamdani et al., 2020; Xing et al., 2018). However, the biodegradability and recyclability of these coatings and paper-based products are criticized as challenging, as specific environmental and composting conditions are required to recycle them (Wong and Wadsworth, 2015). Hence, research is still growing before commercialization (Hamdani et al., 2020; Li and Rab­ nawaz, 2018; Qiu et al., 2022). Nevertheless, Chitaka et al. (2020) showed that in the case of single-use straws, both plastic and paper-made straws have a higher probability of ending up in the marine and terrestrial environment or landfills than being recycled.

2. Materials & Methods The data collection occurred in September 2023 through a system­ atic literature review using Harzing’s Publish or Perish software, which included all papers published until September 2023. The author included the lists from the most accessed web search engines for scholarly literature (i.e. Google Scholar, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). The author searched for scholarly articles in these databases using the keywords “Single-use plastic” and “Single-use paper”. The search retrieved 72 documents of which 34 were reviewed (see supplementary material) and the rest were discarded as duplicates, not peer-reviewed articles, or unrelated to this article’s purpose (see supplementary table). This work relied on the assessment and presentation of the findings of these articles to investigate whether their use poses health hazards for humans and the environment, draw conclusions regarding the safety issues concerning the use of single-use products, and determine whether paper, the most promoted alternative, is a viable solution to plastic.

3

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

Table 1 Single-use plastic vs paper products.

Characteristics

Plastic

Paper

Type

Impact

Pulp (Wood) Petroleum hydrocarbons Chlorine/cup Energy/cup

No Yes 0.05 g 180 kWh High High No No -

Yes Yes 1.8 g 980 kWh Low Low Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cup Cup Cup Cup

Deforestation/floods Drilling/spills Environmental pollution High costs Environmental pollution Environmental pollution Not biodegradable Toxic effect in biota/humans Leaching in beverage Environmental pollution Toxic effect in biota/humans

Hocking (1991) Schwartz-Narbonne et al. (2023) Hamdani et al. (2020) Zimmermann et al. (2022) Akoueson et al. (2023) Rusko et al. (2020) Yuan et al. (2021)

Mechanical failure Degradation releases greenhouse gases Heavy metals

Never Low

30 min High

Cup Cup Cup/Package Cup/Package Cup Straw Cup, straw, filter, package, towel Straw Straw

Dissolves in beverage Global warming/acidification

Gutierrez et al. (2019) Moy et al. (2021)

No

Yes

Straw

Persistence

High

Low

Bag

microbial contamination of beverage Environmental pollution

Recyclability Biodegradability Polymer coatings Toxic chemicals (EDCs, PBTs) Other chemicals Carcinogenic substances Chloropropanols

3.2. Toxic chemical contents

Reference Zhang and Zhai (2022) Hocking (1991) Hocking (1991) Hocking (1991); Qiu et al. (2022)

Qiu et al. (2022) Stafford et al. (2022)

human health, and are not recyclable.

In addition, although single-use plastic products are commonly re­ ported for their impact on the natural environment and human health (Schnurr et al., 2018), a recent study showed that single-use paper cups can be extremely hazardous for human health, as their use causes the ingestion of MPs, heavy metals, and ions (Ranjan et al., 2021). More specifically, the authors performed lab tests to evaluate the degradation of polymer coatings existing in common single-use paper cups purchased in India. They showed that when the polymer coating is exposed to a hot beverage (such as hot water, coffee, tea, etc.) at approximately 85∘C, it will immediately release ions such as fluoride, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate, into the beverage, and MPs within 15 min of exposure. More­ over, the study showed that within 15 min upon exposure, approxi­ mately 25,000 MPs can be released per 100 mL of hot beverages. Finally, they raise concerns about the existence of toxic heavy metals (e.g. Pb, Cr, and Cd) on the polymer coatings that can potentially be released into the beverage and ingested by humans.

Considering the chemicals within single-use products, studies have shown that paper cups and food packaging contain numerous chemical substances that can be toxic to the marine environment and humans (such as Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), carcinogenic/muta­ genic chemicals, PBTs, etc.) (Geueke and Muncke, 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2022). In the study of (Rusko et al., 2020), the authors evaluated the chemical contaminants of 17 paper straws purchased at local stores in Riga, the capital of Latvia. Their findings included three mutagenic and eight carcinogenic chemical substances that can leach from the straws within 5 min of exposure to the environment or beverages.

Considering that due to the plastic coating, most paper cups are not recycled, this renders paper cups a contributor of both paper and plastic pollution to the environment (Foteinis, 2020). Another coating that is commonly used in paper food packaging is made of PFAS. PFAS is known to prevent mixing paper into the food/beverage and acts as a plastic cup would. However, studies have shown that PFAS can leach from single-use paper products into the natural environment (Ramírez Carnero et al., 2021; Coffin et al., 2022).

An important issue with paper straws is the existence of chlor­ opropanols. Chloropropanols are chemical substances that have been found worldwide in single-use paper products (such as coffee and tea filters, straws, cups, towels, packaging, etc.) and are known to be carcinogenic to several animals and potentially also to humans (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), 2020; Becalski et al., 2016; on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans et al., 2013; Mezouari et al., 2015; Pace and Hartman, 2010). Yuan et al. (2021) discovered that at least 86% of the paper straws purchased in Beijing, China contained chloropropanols, with 33% exceeding the safety levels.

Moreover, their study performed migration experiments to detect the conditions at which migration of chloropropanols from paper straws into beverages is possible. The authors reported that even at a room temperature of 23∘C, migration can occur within a few minutes.

In the study of (Qiu et al., 2022), the authors argued that paper straws may contain several toxic chemicals (such as heavy metals, formaldehyde, fluorescent substances, ink, etc.) that can be transferred to humans and/or facilitate microbial contamination. Their study showed that in temperatures higher than 60∘C, paper straws tend to fully dissolve in less than 30 min. Hence, several countries follow the newly formed global legislation for food contact of paper-based products (Podd, 2022). Besides health issues, the legislation also covers aesthetic effects, such as changes in food appearance, color, composition, flavor, etc. Moreover, the study of Qiu et al. (2022) discussed that paper straws are more expensive, more hazardous to the natural environment and

3.3. Mechanical/Compositional failure The success and effective usage of single-use products lies in their ability to maintain their mechanical and compositional characteristics for a considerable amount of time (at least for the amount of time necessary for the user) and despite the food/beverage’s conditions (e.g. temperature). In the study of Gutierrez et al. (2019), the authors tested the mechanical and compositional characteristics of commonly used plastic versus paper straws, purchased from the web. The straws were submerged into common beverages (Drinking water, Coca-Cola, and sweet tea) to evaluate the response of paper and plastic in different conditions. Their findings showed that paper straws absorb liquid almost immediately upon contact with the beverage. There is a strong correlation between the absorbance’s velocity and the beverage’s tem­ perature (i.e. paper straws will absorb hot beverages faster). Paper straws were found to lose approximately 90% of their strength within 30 min and gain 50% of their weight within 60 min upon first contact with the beverage. All paper straws exhibited similar performance for all types of beverages. On the other hand, plastic straws remained intact after 12 h in the experiment.

A life-cycle analysis conducted in South Africa between single-use plastic, paper, biodegradable plastic, and multi-use shopping bags showed that single-use biodegradable plastic bags exhibit a lower environmental impact compared to paper bags (Stafford et al., 2022).

Moreover, the authors compared the environmental impact and persis­ tence of single and multi-use bags and stated that using a shopping bag more than 3 times can render it more eco-friendly than any type of 4

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

single-use bag. In the specific need for single-use bags, the authors recommended recyclable or biodegradable materials.

researched the negative impact of both single-use plastic and paper products and have declared that paper is an inadequate solution due to several hazardous effects on the environment and human health.

Therefore, the environmental issue of disposed single-use products continues to grow, as the consumer’s need is increasing, and the use of paper as an alternative to plastic is only perpetuating the problem. By reviewing the pros and cons of single-use plastic and paper products, this article provides insights into the effectiveness of paper as an alternative solution and discusses the impact on the environment and human health, as well as the need for societal change.

The increasingly favorable in our daily routines single-use paper products are not as innocent as many consumers believe. Studies have shown that single-use paper products exhibit a high impact on marine eutrophication and the quality of soil for agricultural use, due to the use of wood as a primary material for the production of paper products, the potential to increase the terrestrial acidification, and its toxic com­ pounds (Chitaka et al., 2020; Moy et al., 2021). Moreover, studies have shown that the presence of chloropropanols in paper products induces health hazards and threatens the food/beverage’s safety. Considering the Chinese National Standards and European regulations for food safety, mitigation measures have been proposed and should be imple­ mented for the food and paper industry to reduce the existing levels of chloropropanols used in single-use paper products. However, this has not been adopted as a policy yet (Yuan et al., 2021). On the other hand, plastic products and polymer coatings exhibit an impact on ozone depletion and CO2 emissions. However, with most single-use paper products being reported to contain polymer coatings to prevent the paper pulp from mixing with the food/beverage, this raises concerns that paper products may be subjected to every negative aspect of plastic products, with the addition of the negative impact of their chemical properties.

Also, studies have shown that single-use plastic bags perform better (on their entire life cycle) compared to paper (Kimmel and Robert, 2014) in Europe and the USA, mostly due to their production from petroleum and natural gas, while in other regions like South Africa, the production of plastic bags occurs using coal as the primary material, rendering them more harmful to the environment than paper (Chitaka et al., 2020).

Hence, the pros and cons of the use of plastic and paper products also vary between continents due to the availability of specific materials.

Considering their mechanical characteristics, plastic products are more durable than paper products leading to different pros and cons when disposed in the natural environment. For instance, plastic straws are known to be persistent and maintain their composition within different fluids (Gutierrez et al., 2019). This causes them to be more harmful to marine life as upon ingestion, their rough edges may hurt the animal. On the other hand, paper products tend to dissolve within fluids rapidly, leading to the release of chemicals and the fragmentation into smaller particles that can affect a larger portion of smaller marine organisms (Kumar et al., 2012; Almroth et al., 2023; Hostachy, 2010).

Terrestrial and marine clean-ups by volunteers and NGOs are also more efficient in removing larger amounts of plastic than paper waste due to the durability of the products (Loizidou et al., 2018). Finally, concerning the recyclability of plastic and paper products, studies re­ ported that due to the existence of plastic polymer coatings within paper products (that require expensive and time-consuming techniques to be removed), these items are not recyclable and are most commonly dis­ carded in landfills and the natural environment (Hamdani et al., 2020).

Whereas for plastic products, the campaigns that have occurred in the past years, as well as incentives for industry and legislation adopted by several governments worldwide, are already raising awareness among the general public to adopt eco-friendly practices and reduce plastic pollution (Alessi et al., 2018; Pettipas et al., 2016; Council, 2019; Xan­ thos and Walker, 2017). For paper products, there is currently no communication on their negative impact on both the natural environ­ ment and human health. None of the previously discussed issues would matter if society’s behavior toward convenience and ease would give its

3.4. Environmental impact Besides the effect of single-use products on humans and their un­ wanted mechanical failures, an important impact on the natural envi­ ronment has also been reported by several researchers. (Moy et al., 2021) performed a life-cycle analysis (from manufacturing to disposal) of biodegradable single-use plastic compared to paper straws to evaluate the overall environmental impact and determine the most viable option.

The impact assessment occurred by estimating the global warming, acidification, and eutrophication potential of plastic and paper straws.

Their findings were that biodegradable plastic straws exhibit less envi­ ronmental impact compared to paper straws. More specifically, the processes involved with the production and degradation of paper straws tend to release greenhouse gases that facilitate global warming and acidification to a much higher extent than plastic straws (470% and 110%, respectively). Hence, the authors determined that the environ­ mental impact of paper straws on the natural environment is much greater than that of plastic straws.

In the study of Chitaka et al. (2020), the authors performed a life-cycle impact assessment to determine the environmental impact of different materials used in the production of single-use straws. Their findings showed that plastic straws are expected to produce higher emissions of CO2 than paper straws, but the PLA coating of paper straws increases the impact by altering methane generation. This raises con­ cerns about the necessity for waste management for paper straws.

Moreover, the study showed that PLA is the major contributor to ozone depletion due to the excessive use of petroleum and gas for its produc­ tion, with plastic being the lowest contributor among various materials.

Plastic and PLA exhibited a major contribution to terrestrial acidifica­ tion, while paper was considerably lower. Concerning the effect of the production of these materials on fresh and seawater eutrophication, the results varied significantly. In freshwater systems, the major contribu­ tors were plastic and PLA due to transport from landfills, while in the marine environment, paper and PLA were the highest with plastic being the lowest contributor. Also, considering the impact on agricultural land, paper was the major contributor due to the use of wood for the production of paper-based products.

Moreover, Almroth et al. (2023) performed lab experiments to investigate the toxic effect of plastic and paper cups and lids on aquatic midge larvae. The single-use products were purchased from small caf­ eterias in Sweden. Their study found that both plastic and paper prod­ ucts leach chemicals into the environment and harm marine life, sediments, and the water column. In India, the paper industry has been recognized as one of the most polluting industries in the entire country (Singh and Thakur, 2004). This is caused by the use of chlorine com­ pounds for the chemical processing of the paper (due to its low costs) which is harmful to the environment (Kumar et al., 2012). The chemical compounds are reported to reduce the quality of soil and provoke health issues (such as liver, kidney, and hormonal dysfunction) in many aquatic species if disposed to the environment untreated (Kansal et al., 2008; Hostachy, 2010; Kaur et al., 2017).

4. Discussion Single-use plastic products are abundant, cheap, and extremely useful in our lives. As a result, society started depending on them for several applications in our daily routine over the last decades. With plastic waste being reported in every region of the natural environment around the globe, and the burden being considered extremely harmful to wildlife, human health, and climate change, a worldwide movement toward alternative solutions to plastic has risen rapidly over the past decades and has led governments and industry to the replacement of single-use plastic with paper products. However, several studies have 5

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

place to environmental awareness.

Consumer behavior on the use of single-use products is essential for the de-escalation of the environmental impact associated with their disposal in the natural environment. Studies have shown that the optimal way of reducing the use of single-use products and inducing a mindset for solutions alternative to plastic is by promoting environ­ mental awareness actions, informing the public of the general issue with single-use products (not just plastic), adopting green designs for industry and disposal fees, and implementing strategies to manage and apply circular economy actions (such as the usage of multi-use and/or alter­ native products with various incentives or penalties) (Almroth and Eggert, 2019; Abbott and Sumaila, 2019; Homonoff, 2018; Rivers et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2021; Pearson, 2019). However, issues that vary per region of our planet, arise.

Concerning environmental awareness, in the European Union several directives have been introduced and implemented by its member states.

However, a recent study conducted in Greece showed that the public was generally unaware of plastic pollution and its associated issues regarding the marine environment, biodiversity, and human health, as well as with the EU frameworks (e.g. the European Green Deal policy and the Single-Use Plastics Directive) (Charitou et al., 2021). Their work discusses the current need to inform the public about the EU directives, and the local population’s role in preventing pollution through their daily behavior, and encourages educational acts in public schools. A similar study in Ethiopia revealed that the local population is supporting the efforts to reduce the use of single-use plastic products. Still, the al­ ternatives are either expensive, inconvenient or do not exist in the local markets (Misgana and Tucho, 2022). Moreover, the study argued that the local population understands the environmental implications of the use and mistreatment of plastic products and is willing to use alternative materials, but until low-cost effective solutions become available, the use of single-use plastic products will continue to rise. This is also the case in Canada, where Walker et al. (2021) evaluated the behavior of consumers towards alternative solutions. This study reported that over 93% of Canadian consumers are willing to reduce the use of single-use products and adopt more eco-friendly practices. However, the con­ sumers questioned in this study expressed that an important limitation of this change is the high costs associated with the use of alternative materials. In Turkey, consumers were reported to have a very low environmental consumption behavior (≤30%), with 80% stating that they avoid the use of single-use plastic bags only because of the governmental fees, and 59% answered that they prefer alternative so­ lutions due to social pressure (Senturk and Dumludag, 2022). Similarly in Greece, the utilization of economic measures has been seen to enhance the environmental consciousness of consumers (Mentis et al., 2022). Between banning single-use plastics and imposing economic measures (taxes, levies) on consumers, the latter is considered the most efficient measure in reducing the use of plastic (Adeyanju et al., 2021), as reported in several countries (Nielsen et al., 2019). Moreover, the preference of Canadian and Chinese consumers to change their single-use to multi-use packages was reviewed by Ertz et al. (2017).

Their study showed that cultural differences exist in the way context affects the behavior and preferences of consumers. The study showed that Canadians are more prone to increase the use of multi-use packages than Asian consumers. In Ecuador, cultural and educational differences were also seen to affect the utilization of single-use products, with the study of Zambrano-Monserrate and Ruano (2020) presenting that women exhibit a higher environmental consumer behavior than men, as well as educated versus less educated consumers and that the rural population is more prone to environmental conservation and protection than the urban population. Considering consumer awareness, the study of Rhein and Schmid (2020) showed that consumers are aware of the pros and cons of single-use plastic products and authorities need to engage and inform them about the broader aspect of behavioral change toward alternative solutions, including incentives and viable solutions.

In addition, Roy et al. (2021) provided insights on the unsuccessful

attempts to ban plastic straws in the UK, Canada, and McDonald’s, mostly due to the financial and convenience burden. More specifically, in their work the authors argued that from a financial point of view, the people employed in the plastic industry and the associated global market exceed the paper industry by more than 60%. Hence, governments and authorities should evaluate the economic and societal/behavioral im­ plications before taking action to ban the production of single-use plastic products. Change can only occur by addressing the issue appropriately, individually, and with specific solutions/incentives depending on the consumers’ needs. Thus, broad societal acceptance can be accomplished.

Nevertheless, the environmental consciousness of consumers combined with economic measures and taxes for purchasing single-use plastic products has proven to be the most effective way in reducing the use of plastics.

Several authors have also provided new alternatives to replace both plastic and paper straws with bamboo, glass, or stainless steel straws.

The benefits of these alternatives are recyclability, eco-friendly char­ acter, reusability, and durability when in contact with food/beverages.

Nevertheless, their global warming potential is at least 30 times greater than that of paper straws (Roy et al., 2021; Misiurak et al., 2018), and research on their other potential impact is still growing.

5. Conclusions The burden of plastic pollution on both our planet’s wildlife and human health has led governments, industry, and the general popula­ tion to seek alternative solutions to reduce the production and impact of plastic products. For the past decades, paper has been considered the best solution to plastic, and several legislations, measures, and aware­ ness campaigns have pushed the markets and the general public toward switching from single-use plastic to paper products.

However, over the past 30 years, research on paper-based products has determined that they are subjected to several limitations creating obstacles to their massive production, and researchers have demon­ strated that they are not eco-friendly and exhibit potential hazards to marine life, agricultural production, terrestrial soil, climate change, and human health. The environmental issues concern (i) the use of wood as a primary material in the production of paper products which can lead to deforestation/floods, (ii), the use of petroleum hydrocarbons that are extracted from the natural environment by drilling that can cause spills, (iii) the use of chemicals (such as chlorine, carcinogenic substances, EDCs, PBTs, chloropropanols, and heavy metals) that can leach to the environment and harm both its quality and wildlife, (iv) the higher costs of energy for their production compared to plastic, (v) their degradation which tends to release greenhouse gases that facilitate global warming and terrestrial acidification to a much higher extent than plastic prod­ ucts and (vi) their lack of recyclability that renders single-use paper products a major contributor to marine and terrestrial pollution. The impact on human health concerns (i) the release of microplastics within the food/beverage from the polymer coatings of single-use paper cups and packages, (ii) the leaching of toxic chemical substances (such as chloropropanols, heavy metals, etc.) into the food/beverage from paper cups, straws, packages, etc., (iii) the microbial contamination of the beverages from the leaching of chemicals, (iv) and the mechanical/ compositional failure of single-use straws that will dissolve within a few minutes into the hot beverage (releasing their chemical substances rapidly into the beverage). Therefore, single-use paper products are not an optimal solution to the environmental issues and health risks asso­ ciated with the use of single-use plastic products. Therefore, society cannot afford to replace single-use plastics with alternative materials, but rather change its consumer behavior toward alternative practices.

5.1. Recommendations Alternative ways of reducing the production and associated waste of single-use products and mitigating the impact of nano/micro/macro6

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

plastic and paper pollution have been proposed by several experts in the field. Reviewing the proposed ways and suggestions led to this manu­ script summarizing and recommending the following solutions/mea­ sures: .

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

(i) Altering consumer behavior towards eco-friendly practices (such as the usage of multi-use products) through the combination of cultivation of environmental consciousness with economic mea­ sures (taxes, levies) for purchasing single-use products can be the most effective way to reduce their usage and protect both our planet and our health. In addition, awareness strategies and campaigns should take into account the different types of awareness and educational measures that should be adopted individually for different groups of consumers (i.e. different cul­ tures, educational levels, etc.). This is essential to address specific groups of people and gain broad social acceptance of the pro­ posed measures. (ii) Educational activities for school children, adults, and even se­ niors via educational initiatives and social media can encourage society to acquire environmental attitudes, choose multi-use products, avoid plastic products, and reshape the marketplace through their buying power. This can be facilitated by the implementation of legislative frameworks (i.e. Single-Use Plastics Directive) for the reduction of single-use products. (iii) National and international collaborations should be formed to implement circular economy initiatives (adopting a system for single-use products fees and levies), policy making, educational activities for the public and academic system (informing about the issues with paper alternatives as well), disposal fees and regulations for industrial companies, as well as sustainable so­ lutions to prevent the failure of the market system. (iv) Managers of local and chain stores are strongly recommended to use price incentives for consumers who use multi-use products and take their (to-go) beverage/food using their own packaging.

They could also offer to sell their beverage/food products only in reusable containers. (v) The recycling/upcycling programs of local and national busi­ nesses should be transparent, with the public being able to observe and learn about the outcomes of such practices, which will motivate consumers to adopt eco-friendly practices. (vi) Waste management is a crucial variable in mitigating plastic pollution and should be enforced (by law and management strategies), monitored, and improved when necessary. Moreover, the pollution by nano/micro-plastics should be taken into consideration in every management strategy for plastic waste. (vii) Future research should focus on establishing ways for mitigating nano/microplastic pollution in the marine, terrestrial, and at­ mospheric environment right at the source (i.e. WWTPs, indus­ trial facilities, etc.), and should measure the positive impact of educational campaigns and other initiatives for influencing con­ sumers toward eco-friendly practices, as well as the long and short-term impact in the environment from these practices.

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Supporting information Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.clwas.2023.100128.

References Abbott, J.K., Sumaila, U.R., 2019. Reducing marine plastic pollution: policy insights from economics. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy.

Adeyanju, G.C., Augustine, T.M., Volkmann, S., Oyebamiji, U.A., Ran, S., Osobajo, O.A., Otitoju, A., 2021. Effectiveness of intervention on behaviour change against use of non-biodegradable plastic bags: a systematic review. Discov. Sustain. 2, 1–15.

Akoueson, F., Paul-Pont, I., Tallec, K., Huvet, A., Doyen, P., Dehaut, A., Duflos, G., 2023.

Additives in polypropylene and polylactic acid food packaging: Chemical analysis and bioassays provide complementary tools for risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ.

857, 159318.

Alessi, E., Di Carlo, G., Campogianni, S., Tangerine, B., Pietrobelli, E., 2018.Out of the plastic trap: saving the mediterranean from plastic pollution.WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative, Rome, Italy.

Allen, D., Allen, S., Sonke, J., Phoenix, V., 2019a. Atmospheric transport and our planetary boundary layer as an environmental compartment of microplastics pollution. Proceedings of the International Conference on Microplastic Pollution Inthe Mediterranean Sea. Springer Water. Springer,, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 1–8.

Allen, S., Allen, D., Phoenix, V.R., LeRoux, G., DurántezJiménez, P., Simonneau, A., Binet, S., Galop, D., 2019b. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12, 339–344.

Almroth, B.C., Eggert, H., 2019. Marine plastic pollution: sources, impacts, and policy issues. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy.

Almroth, B.C., Carle, A., Blanchard, M., Molinari, F., Bour, A., 2023. Single-use takeaway cups of paper are as toxic to aquatic midge larvae as plastic cups. Environ.

Pollut. 330, 121836.

Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1596–1605.

Aragaw, T.A., 2020. Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the covid-19 scenario. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 159, 111517.

Auta, H.S., Emenike, C., Fauziah, S., 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.

Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S., Milan, M., Benedetti, M., Fattorini, D., d’Errico, G., Pauletto, M., Bargelloni, L., Regoli, F., 2015. Pollutants bioavailability and toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ. Pollut. 198, 211–222.

Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2014. Transport of persistent organic pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions. Estuar., Coast. Shelf Sci. 140, 14–21.

Bank, M.S., Hansson, S.V., 2019.The plastic cycle: a novel and holistic paradigm for the anthropocene.

Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol.

Sci. 364, 1985–1998.

Beaumont, N.J., Aanesen, M., Austen, M.C., Börger, T., Clark, J.R., Cole, M., Hooper, T., Lindeque, P.K., Pascoe, C., Wyles, K.J., 2019. Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 189–195.

Becalski, A., Zhao, T., Breton, F., Kuhlmann, J., 2016. 2-and 3-monochloropropanediols in paper products and their transfer to foods. Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 33, 1499–1508.

Bergmann, M., Mützel, S., Primpke, S., Tekman, M.B., Trachsel, J., Gerdts, G., 2019.

White and wonderful? microplastics prevail in snow from the alps to the arctic. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax1157.

Block, B., 2013.China reports 66-percent drop in plastic bag use.Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute Retrieved November 29.

Brauer, Andrew, Churg, M., 2000. Ambient atmospheric particles in the airways of human lungs. Ultrastruct. Pathol. 24, 353–361.

Briassoulis, D., Babou, E., Hiskakis, M., Scarascia, G., Picuno, P., Guarde, D., Dejean, C., 2013. Review, mapping and analysis of the agricultural plastic waste generation and consolidation in europe. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 1262–1278.

CózarCabañas, A., EchevarríaNavas, F.M., GonzálezGordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., HernándezLeón, S., Palma, A.´ T., Navarro, S., García de Lomas, J., Ruiz, A., et al., 2014.Plastic debris in the open ocean.

Cai, H., Xu, E.G., Du, F., Li, R., Liu, J., Shi, H., 2021. Analysis of environmental nanoplastics: progress and challenges. Chem. Eng. J. 410, 128208.

Carpenter, E.J., Anderson, S.J., Harvey, G.R., Miklas, H.P., Peck, B.B., 1972. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178, 749–750.

Charitou, A., Aga-Spyridopoulou, R.N., Mylona, Z., Beck, R., McLellan, F., Addamo, A.M., 2021. Investigating the knowledge and attitude of the greek public towards marine

Funding No funding was received for this work.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Simantiris Nikolaos: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 7

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

plastic pollution and the eu single-use plastics directive. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 166, 112182.

Chen, C.L., 2015. Regulation and management of marine litter. Mar. Anthropog. litter 395–428.

Cheshire, A., Adler, E., 2009.Unep/ioc guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter.

Cheung, P.K., Cheung, L.T.O., Fok, L., 2016. Seasonal variation in the abundance of marine plastic debris in the estuary of a subtropical macro-scale drainage basin in south china. Sci. Total Environ. 562, 658–665.

Chitaka, T.Y., Russo, V., von Blottnitz, H., 2020. In pursuit of environmentally friendly straws: a comparative life cycle assessment of five straw material options in south africa. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 1818–1832.

Coffin, E.S., Reeves, D.M., Cassidy, D.P., 2022. Pfas in municipal solid waste landfills: sources, leachate composition, chemical transformations, and future challenges.

Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health, 100418.

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588–2597.

Council, E., 2019. Directive (eu) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the council of 5 june 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. European Union, Maastricht, The Netherlands. de Oliveira, W.Q., de Azeredo, H.M.C., Neri-Numa, I.A., Pastore, G.M., 2021. Food packaging wastes amid the covid-19 pandemic: Trends and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 116, 1195–1199.

De Wit, W., Bigaud, N., 2019.No plastic in nature: assessing plastic ingestion from nature to people.

Derraik, J.G., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852.

Deshmukh, R.K., Akhila, K., Ramakanth, D., Gaikwad, K.K., 2022. Guar gum/ carboxymethyl cellulose based antioxidant film incorporated with halloysite nanotubes and litchi shell waste extract for active packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.

201, 1–13.

Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., Tassin, B., 2015. Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in greater paris. Environ. Chem. 12, 592–599.

Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., Tassin, B., 2016. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull.

104, 290–293.

Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V., Tassin, B., 2017. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and outdoor environments. Environ. Pollut. 221, 453–458.

Engler, R.E., 2012. The complex interaction between marine debris and toxic chemicals in the ocean. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 12302–12315.

Eriksson, C., Burton, H., Fitch, S., Schulz, M., van den Hoff, J., 2013. Daily accumulation rates of marine debris on sub-antarctic island beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 66, 199–208.

Ertz, M., Huang, R., Jo, M.S., Karakas, F., Sarigöllü, E., 2017. From single-use to multiuse: Study of consumers’ behavior toward consumption of reusable containers.

J. Environ. Manag. 193, 334–344.

Fadare, O.O., Okoffo, E.D., 2020. Covid-19 face masks: a potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 737, 140279.

FAO, 2021 Fishery and aquaculture statistics 2019/fao annuaire. statistiques des pêches et de l’aquaculture 2019/fao anuario. estadísticas de pesca y acuicultura 2019.FAO Yearbook 10.4060/cb7874t.

Farnelli, G.M., 2017. International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships marpol 2012 (and annexes i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi). Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 166–176.

Farrell, P., Nelson, K., 2013. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (l.) to Carcinus maenas (l.). Environ. Pollut. 177, 1–3.

Foteinis, S., 2020. How small daily choices play a huge role in climate change: The disposable paper cup environmental bane. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120294.

Ganguly, M., Ariya, P.A., 2019. Ice nucleation of model nanoplastics and microplastics: a novel synthetic protocol and the influence of particle capping at diverse atmospheric environments. ACS Earth Space Chem. 3, 1729–1739.

Garcia, J.M., Robertson, M.L., 2017. The future of plastics recycling. Science 358, 870–872.

German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), D.o.C., Product Safety, Berlin, G., Beneventi, E., Tietz, T., Merkel, S., 2020. Risk assessment of food contact materials.

EFSA J. 18, e181109.

Geueke, B., Muncke, J., 2018. Substances of very high concern in food contact materials: migration and regulatory background. Packag. Technol. Sci. 31, 757–769.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782.

Ghosh, S.K., 2020. Circular economy in india. Circ. Econ.: Glob. Perspect. 157–185.

Gutierrez, J.N., Royals, A.W., Jameel, H., Venditti, R.A., Pal, L., 2019. Evaluation of paper straws versus plastic straws: Development of a methodology for testing and understanding challenges for paper straws. BioResources 14, 8345–8363.

Hamdani, S.S., Li, Z., Sirinakbumrung, N., Rabnawaz, M., 2020. Zein and pvoh-based bilayer approach for plastic-free, repulpable and biodegradable oil-and waterresistant paper as a replacement for single-use plastics. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59, 17856–17866.

Han, J.H., Krochta, J.M., 2001. Physical properties and oil absorption of whey-proteincoated paper. J. Food Sci. 66, 294–299.

Hantoro, I., Löhr, A.J., Van Belleghem, F.G., Widianarko, B., Ragas, A.M., 2019.

Microplastics in coastal areas and seafood: implications for food safety. Food Addit.

Contam.: Part A 36, 674–711.

Hardesty, B.D., Good, T.P., Wilcox, C., 2015. Novel methods, new results and sciencebased solutions to tackle marine debris impacts on wildlife. Ocean Coast. Manag.

115, 4–9.

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R.C., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075.

Hocking, M.B., 1991. Paper versus polystyrene: a complex choice. Science 251, 504–505.

Holmes, L.A., Turner, A., Thompson, R.C., 2012. Adsorption of trace metals to plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environ. Pollut. 160, 42–48.

Homonoff, T.A., 2018. Can small incentives have large effects? the impact of taxes versus bonuses on disposable bag use. Am. Econ. J.: Econ. Policy 10, 177–210.

Hostachy, J.C., 2010.Use of ozone in chemical and high yield pulping processes-latest innovations maximizing efficiency and environmental performance, In: Conference and Exhibition (64th: 2010: Melbourne, Vic.), Appita Inc. Carlton, Vic.349–354.

Israni, N., Shivakumar, S., 2019. Polyhydroxyalkanoates in packaging. Biotechnol. Appl. polyhydroxyalkanoates 363–388.

Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768–771.

James, J.J., Silva, D.D., Saji, V., Xavier, J., Paari, K., et al., 2019. Drinking straw from coconut leaf: a study of its epicuticular wax content and phenol extrusion properties.

Asian J. Plant Sci. 18, 139–147.

Jang, Y.C., Lee, J., Hong, S., Lee, J.S., Shim, W.J., Song, Y.K., 2014. Sources of plastic marine debris on beaches of korea: more from the ocean than the land. Ocean Sci. J. 49, 151–162.

Jenks, A.B., Obringer, K.M., 2020. The poverty of plastics bans: Environmentalism’s win is a loss for disabled people. Crit. Soc. Policy 40, 151–161.

Kalogerakis, N., Karkanorachaki, K., Kalogerakis, G., Triantafyllidi, E.I., Gotsis, A.D., Partsinevelos, P., Fava, F., 2017. Microplastics generation: onset of fragmentation of polyethylene films in marine environment mesocosms. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 84.

Kansal, S., Singh, M., Sud, D., 2008. Effluent quality at kraft/soda agro-based paper mills and its treatment using a heterogeneous photocatalytic system. Desalination 228, 183–190.

Kansal, D., Hamdani, S.S., Ping, R., Sirinakbumrung, N., Rabnawaz, M., 2020. Food-safe chitosan–zein dual-layer coating for water-and oil-repellent paper substrates. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 6887–6897.

Karapanagioti, H., Endo, S., Ogata, Y., Takada, H., 2011. Diffuse pollution by persistent organic pollutants as measured in plastic pellets sampled from various beaches in greece. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 312–317.

Kaur, D., Bhardwaj, N.K., Lohchab, R.K., 2017. Prospects of rice straw as a raw material for paper making. Waste Manag. 60, 127–139.

Kershaw, P., Rochman, C., 2015.Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: part 2 of a global assessment.Reports and Studies-IMO/FAO/UnescoIOC/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) Eng No. 93.

Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S., Woodring, D., 2011.Plastic debris in the ocean, United Nations Environment Programme.

Khan, A., Huang, K., Sarwar, M.G., Rabnawaz, M., 2020. High modulus, fluorine-free self-healing anti-smudge coatings. Prog. Org. Coat. 145, 105703.

Khan, M.T., Shah, I.A., Hossain, M.F., Akther, N., Zhou, Y., Khan, M.S., Al-Shaeli, M., Bacha, M.S., Ihsanullah, I., 2023. Personal protective equipment (ppe) disposal during covid-19: An emerging source of microplastic and microfiber pollution in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 860, 160322.

Kimmel, S.D., Robert, M., 2014.Life cycle assessment of grocery bags in common use in the united states.

Klein, M., Fischer, E.K., 2019. Microplastic abundance in atmospheric deposition within the metropolitan area of hamburg, germany. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 96–103.

Koelmans, A.A., Bakir, A., Burton, G.A., Janssen, C.R., 2016. Microplastic as a vector for chemicals in the aquatic environment: critical review and model-supported reinterpretation of empirical studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 3315–3326.

Kremer, A., Pal, T., Boleij, J., Schouten, J., Rijcken, B., 1994. Airway hyperresponsiveness, prevalence of chronic respiratory symptoms, and lung function in workers exposed to irritants. Occup. Environ. Med. 51, 3.

Kumar, V., Sarma, M., Saharan, K., Srivastava, R., Kumar, L., Sahai, V., Bisaria, V., Sharma, A., 2012. Effect of formulated root endophytic fungus piriformospora indica and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria fluorescent pseudomonads r62 and r81 on Vigna mungo. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 28, 595–603.

Kwak, H., Kim, H., Park, S.A., Lee, M., Jang, M., Park, S.B., Hwang, S.Y., Kim, H.J., Jeon, H., Koo, J.M., et al., 2023. Biodegradable, water-resistant, anti-fizzing, polyester nanocellulose composite paper straws. Adv. Sci. 10, 2205554.

Lebreton, L.C., Van Der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J., 2017.

River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–10.

Lee, H., Shim, W.J., Kwon, J.H., 2014. Sorption capacity of plastic debris for hydrophobic organic chemicals. Sci. Total Environ. 470, 1545–1552.

Li, Z., Rabnawaz, M., 2018. Fabrication of food-safe water-resistant paper coatings using a melamine primer and polysiloxane outer layer. ACS Omega 3, 11909–11916.

Li, Z., Rabnawaz, M., Sarwar, M.G., Khan, B., Nair, A.K., Sirinakbumrung, N., Kamdem, D.P., 2019. A closed-loop and sustainable approach for the fabrication of plastic-free oil-and water-resistant paper products. Green. Chem. 21, 5691–5700.

Li, L., Zhao, X., Li, Z., Song, K., 2021. Covid-19: performance study of microplastic inhalation risk posed by wearing masks. J. Hazard. Mater. 411, 124955.

Lin, S.Y., Krochta, J., 2003. Plasticizer effect on grease barrier and color properties of whey-protein coatings on paperboard. J. Food Sci. 68, 229–233.

Liu, K., Wang, X., Fang, T., Xu, P., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2019. Source and potential risk assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in shanghai. Sci. Total Environ.

675, 462–471.

8

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128

Loizidou, X.I., Loizides, M.I., Orthodoxou, D.L., 2018. Persistent marine litter: small plastics and cigarette butts remain on beaches after organized beach cleanups.

Environ. Monit. Assess. 190, 414.

Lots, F.A., Behrens, P., Vijver, M.G., Horton, A.A., Bosker, T., 2017. A large-scale investigation of microplastic contamination: abundance and characteristics of microplastics in european beach sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123, 219–226.

Lusher, A.L., Tirelli, V., O’Connor, I., Officer, R., 2015. Microplastics in arctic polar waters: the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–9.

Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., Ohtake, C., Kaminuma, T., 2001. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 35, 318–324.

Mentis, C., Maroulis, G., Latinopoulos, D., Bithas, K., 2022. The effects of environmental information provision on plastic bag use and marine environment status in the context of the environmental levy in greece. Environ., Dev. Sustain. 1–22.

Mezouari, S., Liu, W.Y., Pace, G., Hartman, T., 2015. Development and validation of an improved method for the determination of chloropropanols in paperboard food packaging by gc-ms. Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 32, 768–778.

Mghili, B., Keznine, M., Hasni, S., Aksissou, M., 2023. Abundance, composition and sources of benthic marine litter trawled-up in the fishing grounds on the moroccan mediterranean coast. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 63, 103002.

Misgana, B., Tucho, G.T., 2022. Assessment of community’s perception toward single-use plastic shopping bags and use of alternative bags in jimma town, ethiopia. Environ.

Health Insights 16, 11786302221085047.

Misiurak, A., Ramsay, F., Tang, X., Yuan, Y., 2018.Beyond styrofoam: A life cycle analysis and eco-efficiency portfolio of single-use containers (polystyrene, plastic, biodegradable plastic, paper, and aluminum).

Moore, C.J., Lattin, G., Zellers, A., 2011. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of southern california. Rev. De. Gest.

Coste Integr. -J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 11, 65–73.

Morales-Caselles, C., Viejo, J., Martí, E., González-Fernández, D., Pragnell-Raasch, H., González-Gordillo, J.I., Montero, E., Arroyo, G.M., Hanke, G., Salvo, V.S., et al., 2021. An inshore–offshore sorting system revealed from global classification of ocean litter. Nat. Sustain. 4, 484–493.

Moy, C.H., Tan, L.S., Shoparwe, N.F., Shariff, A.M., Tan, J., 2021. Comparative study of a life cycle assessment for bio-plastic straws and paper straws: Malaysia’s perspective.

Processes 9, 1007.

Mugilarasan, M., Karthik, R., Robin, R., Subbareddy, B., Hariharan, G., Anandavelu, I., Jinoj, T., Purvaja, R., Ramesh, R., 2023. Anthropogenic marine litter: An approach to environmental quality for india’s southeastern arabian sea coast. Sci. Total Environ.

866, 161363.

Nair, A., Kansal, D., Khan, A., Rabnawaz, M., 2022. New alternatives to single-use plastics: Starch and chitosan-graft-polydimethylsiloxane-coated paper for water-and oil-resistant applications. Nano Sel. 3, 459–470.

Nielsen, T.D., 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.

O’Brien, S., Rauert, C., Ribeiro, F., Okoffo, E.D., Burrows, S.D., O’Brien, J.W., Wang, X., Wright, S.L., Thomas, K.V., 2023. There’s something in the air: A review of sources, prevalence and behaviour of microplastics in the atmosphere. Sci. Total Environ.

874, 162193. on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, I.W.G., et al., 2013. Some chemicals present in industrial and consumer products, food and drinking-water. IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. risks Hum. 101, 9.

Pace, G.V., Hartman, T.G., 2010. Migration studies of 3-chloro-1, 2-propanediol (3mcpd) in polyethylene extrusion-coated paperboard food packaging. Food Addit.

Contam. 27, 884–891.

Pauly, J.L., Stegmeier, S.J., Allaart, H.A., Cheney, R.T., Zhang, P.J., Mayer, A.G., Streck, R.J., 1998. Inhaled cellulosic and plastic fibers found in human lung tissue.

Cancer Epidemiol., Biomark. Prev.: a Publ. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., cosponsored Am. Soc. Prev. Oncol. 7, 419–428.

Pearson, M., 2019. Discouraging the use of single-use plastics through graphic design strategies (Ph.D. thesis). Iowa State University.

Pedrotti, M.L., Petit, S., Elineau, A., Bruzaud, S., Crebassa, J.C., Dumontet, B., Martí, E., Gorsky, G., Cózar, A., 2016. Changes in the floating plastic pollution of the mediterranean sea in relation to the distance to land. PloS One 11, e0161581.

Pettipas, S., Bernier, M., Walker, T.R., 2016. A canadian policy framework to mitigate plastic marine pollution. Mar. Policy 68, 117–122.

Podd, B., 2022. Paper and paperboard. Global Legislation for Food Contact Materials.

Elsevier, pp. 99–121.

Qiu, N., Sha, M., Xu, X., 2022. Evaluation and future development direction of paper straw and plastic straw. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

IOP Publishing.

Rabnawaz, M., Liu, G., Hu, H., 2015. Fluorine-free anti-smudge polyurethane coatings.

Angew. Chem. 127, 12913–12918.

RamírezCarnero, A., Lestido-Cardama, A., VazquezLoureiro, P., Barbosa-Pereira, L., Rodríguez Bernaldo de Quirós, A., Sendón, R., 2021. Presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) in food contact materials (fcm) and its migration to food. Foods 10, 1443.

Ranjan, V.P., Joseph, A., Goel, S., 2021. Microplastics and other harmful substances released from disposable paper cups into hot water. J. Hazard. Mater. 404, 124118.

Rastogi, V.K., Samyn, P., 2015. Bio-based coatings for paper applications. Coatings 5, 887–930.

Redford, D., Billy, M., Tom, A., 1992. The united states environmental protection agency’s role in controlling aquatic debris. Chem. Ecol. 6, 189–197.

Rhein, S., Schmid, M., 2020. Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: More than just environmental concerns. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 162, 105063.

Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., Young, N., 2017. Using nudges to reduce waste? the case of toronto’s plastic bag levy. J. Environ. Manag. 188, 153–162.

Robertson, G.L., 1993. Paper and paper-based packaging materials. Food Packag., Princ.

Pract. 144–172.

Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Hentschel, B.T., Kaye, S., 2013. Long-term field measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: implications for plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1646–1654.

Rochman, C.M., Hentschel, B.T., Teh, S.J., 2014. Long-term sorption of metals is similar among plastic types: implications for plastic debris in aquatic environments. PLOS One 9, e85433.

Roy, P., Ashton, L., Wang, T., Corradini, M.G., Fraser, E.D., Thimmanagari, M., Tiessan, M., Bali, A., Saharan, K.M., Mohanty, A.K., et al., 2021. Evolution of drinking straws and their environmental, economic and societal implications.

J. Clean. Prod. 316, 128234.

Rusko, J., Perkons, I., Rasinger, J.D., Bartkevics, V., 2020. Non-target and suspectedtarget screening for potentially hazardous chemicals in food contact materials: investigation of paper straws. Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 37, 649–664.

Samantaray, P.K., Little, A., Haddleton, D.M., McNally, T., Tan, B., Sun, Z., Huang, W., Ji, Y., Wan, C., 2020. Poly (glycolic acid)(pga): a versatile building block expanding high performance and sustainable bioplastic applications. Green. Chem. 22, 4055–4081.

Santana, M., Moreira, F., Turra, A., 2017. Trophic transference of microplastics under a low exposure scenario: insights on the likelihood of particle cascading along marine food-webs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 121, 154–159.

Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S., 2017. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 12246–12253.

Schnurr, R.E., Alboiu, V., Chaudhary, M., Corbett, R.A., Quanz, M.E., Sankar, K., Srain, H.S., Thavarajah, V., Xanthos, D., Walker, T.R., 2018. Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (sups): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 157–171.

Schwartz-Narbonne, H., Xia, C., Shalin, A., Whitehead, H.D., Yang, D., Peaslee, G.F., Wang, Z., Wu, Y., Peng, H., Blum, A., et al., 2023. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in canadian fast food packaging. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 10, 343–349.

Senturk, G., Dumludag, D., 2022. The relationship between consumption of single-use plastic bags, environmental awareness, and socio-demographic factors. J. Mater.

Cycles Waste Manag. 24, 1494–1507.

Setälä, O., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., Lehtiniemi, M., 2014. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ. Pollut. 185, 77–83.

Shen, J., Fatehi, P., Ni, Y., 2014. Biopolymers for surface engineering of paper-based products. Cellulose 21, 3145–3160.

Silva, A.L.P., Prata, J.C., Walker, T.R., Campos, D., Duarte, A.C., Soares, A.M., Barcelò, D., Rocha-Santos, T., 2020. Rethinking and optimising plastic waste management under covid-19 pandemic: policy solutions based on redesign and reduction of single-use plastics and personal protective equipment. Sci. Total Environ. 742, 140565.

Simantiris, N., Avlonitis, M., Theocharis, A., 2022a. Simulation of the transport of marine microplastic particles in the ionian archipelago (ne ionian sea) using a lagrangian model and the control mechanisms affecting their transport. J. Hazard. Mater., 129349 Simantiris, N., Vardaki, M.Z., Koralli, P., Chochos, C.L., Gregoriou, V.G., Kourkoumelis, N., Avlonitis, M., 2022b. Seasonal evaluation of floating microplastics in a shallow mediterranean coastal lagoon: abundance, distribution, chemical composition, and influence of environmental factors. Estuar., Coast. Shelf Sci., 107859 Simantiris, N., Vardaki, M.Z., Kourkoumelis, N., Avlonitis, M., Theocharis, A., 2023.

Microplastics in the mediterranean and elsewhere in coastal seas.

Singh, P., Thakur, I.S., 2004.Removal of colour and detoxification of pulp and paper mill effluent by microorganisms in two step bioreactor.

Sivan, A., 2011. New perspectives in plastic biodegradation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 22, 422–426.

Stafford, W., Russo, V., Nahman, A., 2022. A comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of single-use plastic shopping bags and various alternatives available in south africa. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 27, 1213–1227.

Suaria, G., Avio, C.G., Mineo, A., Lattin, G.L., Magaldi, M.G., Belmonte, G., Moore, C.J., Regoli, F., Aliani, S., 2016. The mediterranean plastic soup: synthetic polymers in mediterranean surface waters. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10.

Suhrhoff, T.J., Scholz-Böttcher, B.M., 2016. Qualitative impact of salinity, uv radiation and turbulence on leaching of organic plastic additives from four common plastics—a lab experiment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102, 84–94.

Takou, V., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T.F., Damgaard, A., 2018.Lca of single use plastic products in denmark.Department of t68l Environmental Engineering, DTU Environment.

Teuten, E.L., Rowland, S.J., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C., 2007. Potential for plastics to transport hydrophobic contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7759–7764.

Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., et al., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos.

Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 364, 2027–2045.

Torres, F.G., Dioses-Salinas, D.C., Pizarro-Ortega, C.I., De-laTorre, G.E., 2020. Sorption of chemical contaminants on degradable and non-degradable microplastics: recent progress and research trends. Sci. Total Environ., 143875 Torres-Agullo, A., Karanasiou, A., Moreno, T., Lacorte, S., 2021. Overview on the occurrence of microplastics in air and implications from the use of face masks during the covid-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 800, 149555.

Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vanreusel, A., Mees, J., Janssen, C.R., 2013. Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 182, 495–499.

Wakkaf, T., ElZrelli, R., Kedzierski, M., Balti, R., Shaiek, M., Mansour, L., Tlig-Zouari, S., Bruzaud, S., Rabaoui, L., 2020. Microplastics in edible mussels from a southern

9

N. Simantiris

Cleaner Waste Systems 7 (2024) 100128 Xanthos, D., Walker, T.R., 2017. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

118, 17–26.

Xing, C., He, T., Peng, Y., Li, R., 2018. Synthesis and characterization of poly (methyl methacrylate)/polysiloxane composites and their coating properties. J. Appl. Polym.

Sci. 135, 46358.

Yamamatsu, T., Uemura, M., 2008.Paper cup comprising a sheet of polylactic acid laminated paper.US Patent App. 12/013,597.

Yu, X., Ladewig, S., Bao, S., Toline, C.A., Whitmire, S., Chow, A.T., 2018. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics at selected coastal sites along the southeastern united states. Sci. Total Environ. 613, 298–305.

Yuan, R., Ding, W., Sui, H., Liu, W., 2021. Migration studies of chloropropanols from paper straws: an improved method using gc-ms/ms. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.

1–14.

Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A., Ruano, M.A., 2020. Do you need a bag? analyzing the consumption behavior of plastic bags of households in ecuador. Resour., Conserv.

Recycl. 152, 104489.

Zhang, K., Zhai, D., 2022. Are paper straws friendly to the marine ecosystem? Sci. Soc. Res. 4, 119–122.

Zhang, B., Wu, D., Yang, X., Teng, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, C., Zhao, J., Yin, X., You, L., Liu, Y., et al., 2019. Microplastic pollution in the surface sediments collected from sishili bay, north yellow sea, china. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 9–15.

Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2015. Characterization of small plastic debris on tourism beaches around the south china sea. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 1, 55–62.

Zimmermann, L., Scheringer, M., Geueke, B., Boucher, J.M., Parkinson, L.V., Groh, K.J., Muncke, J., 2022. Implementing the eu chemicals strategy for sustainability: the case of food contact chemicals of concern. J. Hazard. Mater. 437, 129167.

mediterranean lagoon: preliminary results on seawater-mussel transfer and implications for environmental protection and seafood safety. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 158, 111355.

Walker, T.R., Grant, J., Archambault, M.C., 2006. Accumulation of marine debris on an intertidal beach in an urban park (halifax harbour, nova scotia). Water Qual. Res. J. 41, 256–262.

Walker, T.R., McGuinty, E., Charlebois, S., Music, J., 2021. Single-use plastic packaging in the canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8, 1–11.

Walker, T.R., 2016. Green marine: an environmental program to establish sustainability in marine transportation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 105, 199–207.

Waller, C.L., Griffiths, H.J., Waluda, C.M., Thorpe, S.E., Loaiza, I., Moreno, B., Pacherres, C.O., Hughes, K.A., 2017. Microplastics in the antarctic marine system: an emerging area of research. Sci. Total Environ. 598, 220–227.

Wang, J., Tan, Z., Peng, J., Qiu, Q., Li, M., 2016. The behaviors of microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Environ. Res. 113, 7–17.

Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E., Hardesty, B.D., 2015. Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 11899–11904.

Wong, C.K., Wadsworth, L.C., 2015.Degradable recycling material.US Patent App. 14/ 653,401.

Wong, A., 2019. The rise and fall of the plastic straw: sucking in crip defiance. Catal.: Fem., Theory, Technosci. 5, 1–12.

Woodall, L.C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L., Coppock, R., Sleight, V., Calafat, A., Rogers, A.D., Narayanaswamy, B.E., Thompson, R.C., 2014. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 1, 140317.

Wright, S.L., Kelly, F.J., 2017. Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 6634–6647.

10