Researchers develop indicator to measure plastic pollution footprint of different products

This study is particularly interesting because it broadens our understanding of the sustainability of materials and products. Traditionally, the carbon footprint has been the main indicator used to compare more sustainable alternatives. However, this study introduces a new dimension, the plastic particle footprint (PPF), which allows us to assess the impact of using plastic objects in terms of the generation of micro- and nanoplastics throughout their life cycle. In this way, it provides a complementary perspective to conventional analysis, highlighting a less visible but significant aspect of the environmental impact associated with plastic.

One of the most notable aspects is how this new dimension can alter the interpretation of which options are more sustainable. In some cases, materials or solutions with a lower carbon footprint (for example, due to reduced weight during transport) may contribute more to plastic pollution. This highlights the need to consider the full life cycle of products and their various externalities. Furthermore, the study reinforces the idea that the process of plastic fragmentation begins with its production and use, and that current recycling is not sufficient to close the loop, leading to the accumulation of a ‘reservoir’ of future pollution.

However, although the approach represents a significant step forward, there are still aspects to be integrated, such as the role of chemicals associated with plastics and their potential effects on human health, organisms and ecosystems. In this context, the study highlights a key recommendation: beyond optimising materials or improving recycling, reducing the use of plastics remains one of the most effective strategies for minimising their long-term environmental impact.

In this article, the authors propose a new indicator for measuring pollution from plastic particles, microplastics and nanoplastics, known as the plastic particle footprint (PPF). The underlying principle is that the entire weight of a plastic item will, sooner or later, break down into persistent particles, unless it is destroyed at a molecular level through processes such as incineration. The authors compare the results of this approach with the carbon footprint and conclude that, although certain plastic items may reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they should be penalised because they generate pollution from persistent particles that does not exist in alternatives such as wood or cotton.

The justification for this approach lies in the fact that determining the actual rates of plastic fragmentation and its impact on the environment and human health is, in essence, unfeasible given the current state of scientific knowledge. As an alternative, the authors apply the precautionary principle, assuming that all plastic fragments down to nanoplastics and that everything that fragments poses a hazard, unless proven otherwise, including all plastics deposited in landfills. The consideration of the maximum potential flow of contaminating particles is an interesting contribution that may help to refine decisions which might otherwise underestimate the long-term environmental impact of plastics. However, given the highly simplified nature of the estimates involved, this could lead to significant overestimates, and the calculation should therefore be treated with caution.