Market News

3.4 billion disposable face masks were discarded each day at the start of 2021, according to a study by Benson, Bassey and Palanisami. While a proven safety measure for protecting public health, we must address the environmental impact of facial coverings. Here Dr Ashlee Jahnke, director of research at biodegradable biopolymer research platform Teysha Technologies, discusses the issues surrounding single-use face masks.

Imports of face masks into the European Union (EU) have more than doubled since the start of the pandemic, according to a report by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The general consensus among medical organisations and the scientific community is that masks help to limit the spread of respiratory viruses like COVID-19. One study, looking into secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2, found that face masks were 79 per cent effective in preventing transmission.

However, while masks have proven effective at limiting the spread of COVID, they could be causing damage elsewhere. The EEA’s report also finds that an uptake in disposable mask wearing has led to an increase in littering, which can harm wildlife and contribute to the spread of microplastics.

Microplastics, major problem
Wearing masks is incredibly important in helping stop the spread of contagions. However, public health does not have to come at the expense of plastic pollution. The release of microparticles and heavy metals into the environment is one of the greatest risks disposable masks pose.

Disposable medical masks are produced from polymers such as polypropylene and polycarbonate to create three protective layers. The inner layer is made up of soft fibres, the middle layer has a melt-blow filter and the outer layer uses dyed, nonwoven fibres that are water-resistant to create a barrier against droplets.

When these masks begin to degrade, over time or through contact with water, they release microplastic fibres. These fibres are under five millimetres in size and can be ingested by humans and other forms of wildlife. Human consumption of microplastics can lead to issues such as oxidative stress, immunotoxicity and metabolic disturbances. Currently, the full extent of microplastic exposure to humans remains unknown.

The future is bioplastics
19 billion face masks are incinerated in the UK each year. The rest end up in landfills, or are littered across our streets. While some businesses have started reusing plastics to create personal protective equipment (PPE), UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that recycling materials “is not the answer” as it justifies overproduction and encourages the “industrial addiction” to plastic.

Other solutions include making reusable masks from materials such as cotton. However, there is an argument that these masks do not offer the same level of protection as medical grade options. Priorities need to be devised, handling the pandemic and stopping its spread is the most important thing at the moment. But in the long term, as mask wearing becomes the norm, there needs to be a full investigation into the impact of disposable masks.

The 2019 directive agreed by EU states and Norway to restrict single-use plastics from being produced and sold in the EU came into effect in July 2021. As more anti-plastic legislation is passed around the world, we could see further interest and investment in the bioplastics industry.

Some bioplastic companies, like Teysha Technologies, are going further than developing a single polymer system through investment and working with world leading research scientists.

Teysha’s unique IP is a platform technology that uses sustainable feedstocks in the form of various modified natural-product monomers and co-monomers to generate polycarbonate material. A key feature of this platform is that the material’s physical, chemical and mechanical properties can be tuned. One example of this is developing a system where the main mechanism of polymer degradation is water driven. This allows for the formation of a wide variety of final products with multiple applications.

This technology allows us to remain agile and responsive to unanticipated product demands, such as the sudden need for billions of disposable masks caused by the global pandemic.

Continued use of face-masks is incredibly important to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. However, we must push for further research and development into face-masks if we want to protect the planet as well as public health.

~ How single-use masks are impacting the environment ~

3.4 billion disposable face masks were discarded each day at the start of 2021, according to a study by Benson, Bassey and Palanisami. While a proven safety measure for protecting public health, we must address the environmental impact of facial coverings. Here Dr Ashlee Jahnke, director of research at biodegradable biopolymer research platform Teysha Technologies, discusses the issues surrounding single-use face masks.

Imports of face masks into the European Union (EU) have more than doubled since the start of the pandemic, according to a report by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The general consensus among medical organisations and the scientific community is that masks help to limit the spread of respiratory viruses like COVID-19. One study, looking into secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2, found that face masks were 79 per cent effective in preventing transmission.

However, while masks have proven effective at limiting the spread of COVID, they could be causing damage elsewhere. The EEA’s report also finds that an uptake in disposable mask wearing has led to an increase in littering, which can harm wildlife and contribute to the spread of microplastics.

Microplastics, major problem

Wearing masks is incredibly important in helping stop the spread of contagions. However, public health does not have to come at the expense of plastic pollution. The release of microparticles and heavy metals into the environment is one of the greatest risks disposable masks pose.

Disposable medical masks are produced from polymers such as polypropylene and polycarbonate to create three protective layers. The inner layer is made up of soft fibres, the middle layer has a melt-blow filter and the outer layer uses dyed, nonwoven fibres that are water-resistant to create a barrier against droplets.

When these masks begin to degrade, over time or through contact with water, they release microplastic fibres. These fibres are under five millimetres in size and can be ingested by humans and other forms of wildlife. Human consumption of microplastics can lead to issues such as oxidative stress, immunotoxicity and metabolic disturbances. Currently, the full extent of microplastic exposure to humans remains unknown.

The future is bioplastics

19 billion face masks are incinerated in the UK each year. The rest end up in landfills, or are littered across our streets. While some businesses have started reusing plastics to create personal protective equipment (PPE), UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that recycling materials “is not the answer” as it justifies overproduction and encourages the “industrial addiction” to plastic.

Other solutions include making reusable masks from materials such as cotton. However, there is an argument that these masks do not offer the same level of protection as medical grade options. Priorities need to be devised, handling the pandemic and stopping its spread is the most important thing at the moment. But in the long term, as mask wearing becomes the norm, there needs to be a full investigation into the impact of disposable masks.

The 2019 directive agreed by EU states and Norway to restrict single-use plastics from being produced and sold in the EU came into effect in July 2021. As more anti-plastic legislation is passed around the world, we could see further interest and investment in the bioplastics industry.

Some bioplastic companies, like Teysha Technologies, are going further than developing a single polymer system through investment and working with world leading research scientists.

Teysha’s unique IP is a platform technology that uses sustainable feedstocks in the form of various modified natural-product monomers and co-monomers to generate polycarbonate material. A key feature of this platform is that the material’s physical, chemical and mechanical properties can be tuned. One example of this is developing a system where the main mechanism of polymer degradation is water driven. This allows for the formation of a wide variety of final products with multiple applications.

This technology allows us to remain agile and responsive to unanticipated product demands, such as the sudden need for billions of disposable masks caused by the global pandemic.

Continued use of face-masks is incredibly important to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. However, we must push for further research and development into face-masks if we want to protect the planet as well as public health.

To find out more about Teysha Technologies and its research into customisable, biodegradable biopolymers, visit the Teysha Technologies website.

Fields littered with abandoned tents and plastic bags, bottles and containers. These are the images people often see on the TV after a large music festival. An estimated 23,500 tonnes of waste is left by UK festival goers each year according to think-tank Powerful Thinking. That’s more than double the weight of the Eiffel Tower. Here, Duncan Clark, head of operations at biodegradable biopolymer research platform Teysha Technologies, explains some of the best solutions for festival organisers to minimise their plastic problem.

for many, the return of events like Reading Festival will be a blessing after a long period of isolation during the global pandemic. However, many people are waiting in trepidation for the scenes of fields covered with discarded plastic waste that have been a regular occurrence since the iconic Woodstock Music and Art fair in 1969.

However, music festivals don’t have to be synonymous with mass littering and festival organisers are trying to change this stereotype. For example, Glastonbury, which produces around 2,000 tonnes of waste per year, has required attendees to adhere to the Glastonbury Green Pledge since 2019. Single-use plastic bottles were no longer available, and attendees were encouraged to refill their water bottles for free at water taps. While this is a step in the right direction, there is still so much more that music festival can do to limit their plastic waste.

Go a step further

Firstly, it’s not enough to just ban the sale of single-use plastic bottles. This needs to be extended to all areas of packaging supplied by festivals. Sustainable products are increasing and many events are currently utilising them, music festivals must do the same. From food and drink packaging to small plastic trinkets, limiting the amount of traditional plastic allowed will see a direct decrease in plastic waste.

Secondly, music festivals should encourage attendees to make sustainable choices. Every year more than 250,000 tents are abandoned at music festivals in the UK. Though some may be salvaged and given to those in need, this only pushes the plastic problem onto another location when the cheap tents eventually become unusable.

If music festivals were to offer attendees eco-friendly alternatives to the main culprits of waste, the problems would lessen. Teysha has developed a unique polycarbonate platform from renewable resources that can be customised for a multitude of applications. These products can even undergo selective degradation into non-harmful substances, a good solution if attendees continue to litter.

Festivals can encourage visitors to purchase products made from these alternative materials through festival branding or endorsement from performing artists on stage and social media. Encouraging a change in attendee behaviour is just as important as providing greener alternatives.

Finally, festivals need to start investing more heavily in sustainability schemes. Eco-friendly materials, like biodegradable biopolymers, are only able to compete with the traditional petroleum-based plastic industry with funding. Contributions will not only fund further developments in how to make products more durable and user friendly, but they also make a statement of solidarity in progressing towards green technology. The more events push towards sustainable products, the more options they will begin to see.

For the first time ever, the Plastic Waste Makers Index has reported that 55 per cent of the world’s plastic waste is produced by just 20 companies. While the report stimulates the necessary ‘name and shame’ conversations, it’s now time for the most influential businesses to take responsibility for driving the climate crisis. Here, Duncan Clark, head of operations at biopolycarbonate research platform Teysha Technologies, discusses how investing in biodegradable polymer alternatives could lead to the termination of single-use plastics for good.

National Geographic estimates that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, spanning from the west coast of North America to Japan, is comprised of 1.8 trillion plastic pieces. If the report by the Plastic Waste Makers Index is to be believed, just 20 companies could be responsible for more than half of this debris.

While oil and gas giants, like ExxonMobil and Sinopec, each produce more than five per cent of single-use plastics, financiers such as Barclays Bank and HSBC are being held accountable for lending more than $3.1 billion each to virgin polymer producers.

If these companies are to take responsibility for their huge plastic waste footprints, they need to start investing in the search for cheaper, durable and truly sustainable alternatives. But how can this be achieved?

Digging for liquid gold

We know that plastic is damaging our environment. So, why do we still produce it? Firstly, it’s durability, malleability and low-cost mean it’s convenient for use in a variety of consumer and industrial products. What’s less considered is its inability to degrade naturally or within a reasonable timeframe without the help of energy-intensive, greenhouse gas-producing industrial catalysts, or without releasing harmful chemical pollutants into the environment.
In fact, every stage in the lifecycle of plastic contributes significantly to the climate crisis. Fracking, for example, leaks thousands of tonnes of harmful gases into the atmosphere every day. National Geographic estimates that 540,000 tonnes of methane per year is produced in the North Texas Barnett Shale region alone, which is the equivalent of 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. What’s more, fracking drills often must invasively dig up to 5,000 feet underground using explosive charges to puncture holes in Earth’s shale layer.

Currently, only 14 per cent of oil fracked globally is used to make plastic. But our increased reliance on this material over the next few decades will undeniably increase the need for these destructive activities. Therefore, the solution for these companies is not to dig a little deeper, but rather switch the focus to creating a biodegradable, sustainable polymer with the strength and convenience of traditional plastic.

Financing future research, not fracking

If researchers were given just half of the funding granted by the world’s biggest banks, we’d be a lot further along in the transition to zero-waste plastic.  Despite this, research into developing biodegradable biopolymers is continuing to yield promising results, with companies like Teysha Technologies making landmark breakthroughs in viable plastic substitutes.

Teysha have developed a plug-and-play platform where various modified natural-product monomers, co-monomers and additives can be combined to create versatile, tuneable materials akin to traditional plastic. Because platforms like these use a variety of natural components, everything from strength to thermal stability and degradation rates can be carefully controlled according to the application.

Most petrochemical-derived polycarbonates achieve their versatility through control of molar mass, crystallinity and blending with other potentially toxic petrochemicals. The resulting materials can persist in the environment for more than 450 years, causing irreparable damage to organisms and their ecosystems. By diverting funding away from the production of virgin plastics and towards biodegradable biopolymer production, it may be possible to reverse the climate crisis.

Leading this change should be the companies identified in the Plastic Waste Makers Index report. If each one were to silence their drills and direct their attention to the search for sustainable plastics, a healthier, greener carbon-neutral world may just be possible.

~ Looking at the impact of each stage in the plastic lifecycle ~

“People and the planet are only as healthy as the ecosystems we depend on.” This is a statement to encourage ecosystem restoration published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). But ecosystem restoration is more than a pathway to achieving climate goals. Here Duncan Clark, head of operations at biopolymer researcher Teysha Technologies, explains how we can take steps in restoring ecosystems by terminating the use of Earth’s biggest polluter, plastic.

The WWF describes plastic pollution as one of the most visible symptoms of the environmental crisis, damaging natural habitats and threatening wildlife. In fact, the Geneva Environment Network estimates that the cumulative production of plastic surpassed eight billion metric tons worldwide in 2020 and is expected to increase in the coming decades.

The images we see in the media of litter-strewn beaches and marine life tangled up in single-use plastic bags are powerful conversation starters, but they don’t represent the entire problem. Plastic is harmful from the point of manufacture and even with more robust recycling policies, the plastic crisis will persist into the future if we can’t source a sustainable alternative.

To understand the extent of this issue, we must dig deeper into how plastic is produced.

Plastic’s ugly truths

Most plastic production requires a core ingredient: crude oil dug deep from the Earth’s crust. The seismic vibrations caused by oil extraction is enough to disrupt some habitats. But when you factor in the threat of oil spills and the infrastructure needed to transport resources in-land, thousands of species have been displaced to accommodate demand for crude oil.

It may not seem much, but five per cent of all global crude oil extracted is used for the manufacturing of plastics. This actually equates to approximately 35m barrels per year.

Plastic production is also extremely energy intensive, consuming 2000 times the amount of energy it takes to treat and distribute tap water. It also generates harmful pollutants that damage the Earth’s atmosphere and leach into our land and water systems.

The carbon emissions from producing plastic are threatening thousands of species who are struggling to adapt to rapidly changing environmental temperatures. National Public Radio (NPR) estimates that carbon emissions from plastic production could amount to 56 gigatons between now and 2050.

Finally, the products made from plastic pose an even bigger threat to our ecosystems. One single-use plastic bottle, whose contents may take minutes to consume, will persist in the environment anywhere from 450 years to several thousand years.

The result is that there are now some 80,000 tonnes of plastic — the equivalent weight of 500 jumbo jets — in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch alone, according to The Ocean Clean Up. Once broken down into microplastic particles, these are consumed by marine life, only to work their way back through the food chain and end up on our plates.

The evidence is clear that plastic is a cause for concern, but it’s convenience cannot be understated. The good news is that there is now a viable alternative that means we can feasibly outlaw traditional plastic for good.

Solving the polymer puzzle

Teysha Technologies has developed a polymer platform using sustainable feedstocks to generate Earth-friendly polycarbonate materials. This plug-and-play system incorporates natural monomers and co-monomers, rather than hydrocarbons from crude oil, formulated from starches or agricultural waste.

A major benefit of this is that the resulting material’s physical, mechanical and chemical properties can be tuned to fit specific applications. Even the polycarbonate’s degradation rates are tuneable. Food packaging, for example, is often disposed of after a single use, so it could be tuned to break down quicker in an environment with sufficient moisture.

A common problem with traditional bioplastics, despite being composed of ‘greener’ materials, is that they still need industrial catalysts and the right microbial conditions to degrade. Most countries simply don’t have the infrastructure to facilitate this.

By considering the impact of each stage in the lifecycle of plastic on ecosystems, we can start to transition from petrochemical-based plastics towards truly natural, harmless materials. To find out more, visit Teysha Technologies’ website.