Microplastics invading the inland lakes

By Mark H. Stowers

Leo Hendrick Baekeland innocently invented plastic in 1907. The easily shaped, durable, and inexpensive material became a staple in homes and businesses, with thousands of beneficial uses. Other scientists would come along and build upon the invention, but few probably foresaw the global problems they were creating in their labs.

Today, the world is heavily invested in plastic in every aspect of life. But this once-great innovation has become one of the world’s biggest problems, especially in the waterways like oceans and freshwater rivers, lakes and streams. The world’s oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface and produce 50 percent of the world’s oxygen. Over 1.25 billion people rely on fish from them as their main source of protein. However, plastic is now widespread in the world’s seas with estimates of total plastic ranging from 75–199 million tons, with about 5.25 trillion pieces of debris and growing. That's equivalent to dumping one garbage truck of plastic into the ocean every minute.

This problem keeps growing and leading to even bigger issues. The North Pacific Ocean contains the most plastic (198.2 million pounds) As of early 2026, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is estimated to cover approximately 1.6 million square kilometers (roughly 620,000 square miles). Located between California and Hawaii, this area is about twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France, with pollution levels described as growing exponentially.

According to the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI.com), a major Switzerland-based academic publisher of open-access, peer-reviewed journals, these emerging contaminants, 1.15 to 2.41 million tons of plastic, enter the world’s oceans annually via rivers, with 74 percent transported between May and October. Asian rivers contribute 67 percent of this total, led by the Yangtze River, which delivers 0.33 million tons annually to the East China Sea, followed by the Ganges River, carrying 0.12 million tons to the Bay of Bengal. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that plastic pollution incurs a financial cost of $13 billion per year.

But only one percent of plastic floats on the surface while the rest sinks to the sea floor, threatening marine ecosystems from the surface to the deepest trenches.

The Great Lakes, the world’s largest collection of freshwater, are a target for plastic pollution, according to the Alliance for the Great Lakes, which reports that 22 million pounds of plastic are dumped into them annually. Of that amount, 86 percent is plastic that breaks down into microplastics, which find their way into aquatic life, other wildlife, and eventually humans. Most of this plastic originates from local land-based sources, such as urban areas and litter, rather than coming from distant oceans, with 86 percent of beach litter being plastic. Microplastics are broken-down pieces of plastic defined as particles smaller than five millimeters.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Microplastics have been found in every ecosystem on the planet, from the Antarctic tundra to tropical coral reefs, and have been found in food, beverages, and human and animal tissue.”

Plastic pollution poses a serious threat to the environment and could also threaten public health. It’s estimated that each person ingests about a credit card-sized amount of plastic every week. The building blocks of plastic are harmful on their own. Once in water, plastic fragments absorb toxic chemicals and can harbor potentially dangerous microbes. This poses a serious threat to the environment and could pose a threat to public health.

As far back as 2012, a study found an average of 43,000 microplastic particles per square kilometer in the Great Lakes. And in some places, the total was much higher. In one area downstream from two major cities, researchers found 466,000 particles of plastic. Hotspots like the Detroit River exceeded two million particles/km². The United States Geological Society (USGS) conducted a study in Wisconsin of inland streams to the Milwaukee River to Lake Michigan in 2019, looking at water surface, water subsurface and sediment and microplastics were detected in each of the 96 water samples and nine sediment samples collected.

Patricia Corcoran, PhD, Professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Western Ontario, has been part of studies regarding microplastics and the Great Lakes from her Canadian view in 2018, 2020 and 2024.

“We were able to compare concentrations and distribution across all five Great Lakes. And then determine if the overall amount of plastic has decreased after six years. That was a more recent study. We did notice that those visible plastic debris items and the pellets have all decreased,” Corcoran said.

The problem has been building for decades and her research unfortunately underscored the fact.

“We did one study in which we had lake core from Lake Ontario and Lake Huron, and we were able to determine the pollen dates, and we were able to determine that we have fifty-six years of microplastics accumulating in Lake Huron and seventy-two years in Lake Ontario. It was already accumulating in lake bottom sediment. I was very surprised as there was about 280 microplastic particles per gram of sediment. That’s crazy. It’s a lot of microplastic,” she said.

The problem is hard to contain because it’s so pervasive in society, according to Corcoran.

“Microplastics are everywhere. Anything that we use that’s synthetic is considered plastic, even tire rubber. It’s everywhere. It’s in the air that we breathe. It’s in the food that’s packaged in plastic but it’s also in the air. On a daily basis, we are eating microplastics, and we’re breathing them in. They’ve been found in all types of human organs and fluids. They’ve been found in human feces. They’re found in lungs, in the brain, in placenta, in urine – it’s everywhere. It’s not just animals and waterways. There are two big concerns. One is that because microplastics are so small, if they’re more available to a wider range of organisms of different sizes. The other issue is that a lot of plastics in general are produced with chemicals, such as additives and dyes. When they are in the water, they’re hydrophobic. They actually accumulate chemicals. It’s the chemicals that are the biggest concern. Because if we are ingesting so many or inhaling so many microplastics, how are those chemicals in the plastics affecting us?”

She explained some steps have been taken over the year including bans.

“BPA used to be in baby bottles. But now it’s banned. You no longer have baby bottles composed with BPA. But there’s still BPA in our in food cans because BPA is used as a resin. The lining inside a food can or soup can is a type of plastic, but they use BPA to make it stick to the can. These are awful types of chemicals. We also have flame retardants, which used to make sense because you don’t want your carpet or your furniture to easily catch fire. But the problem is flame retardants contain dioxins, really bad stuff. And so even if you burn plastic, it’s really bad for you. Horrible for the environment, but horrible for you to breathe in that because the dioxins can create cancer. The persistent organic pollutants, they mimic estrogen in our systems. You end up with a male species that starts to have some female attributes or infertility. So, the hormonal system, the endocrine system, is what those disrupt.”

Ashley Flintoff, Executive Director of the Friends of the Rouge, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit dedicated to restoring, protecting and enhancing the Rouge River watershed through stewardship, education and collaboration, notes the organization monitors the health of the river and is concerned about microplastic contamination.

“This whole issue of microplastic contamination and PFAS and PFSs ties in to our mission because the work we’re doing is really about connecting people with their river and letting them know that this river is an asset, and it’s something that they can recreate on and near,” Flintoff said. “And if it’s also at the same time contaminated or fish are contaminated, that becomes a barrier to folks really truly being able to access the river.”

The problem has been around a while and the Rouge River has been a focal point.

“It’s something that we have been really aware of for a very long time. We’re the most urbanized river or watershed in the state. And we’re also an EPA area of concern. Issues of contamination are really the reason why our organization was started 40 years ago.”

Those issues have included major concerns over the years and now, Flintoff said, “Microplastics are just unfortunately the next on the list of emerging contaminants that we have to worry about. But quite honestly, the top items we find in the river, whether during a cleanup or just while monitoring and being on the river, are plastic. Plastic bottles, plastic caps, food packaging and plastic cups. The majority of the items that we pull out of the river are plastic. In 2023, we worked with the Ecology Center in Ypsilanti to conduct a study and test fish in both the Rouge River and the Huron River for PFAS. They were really looking at, what are these chemicals? Many of which come from plastic or the production of plastic. How are they showing up? It’s something that we’ve been aware of since before 2023, but really 2023 was the year where we really started to lean in and partner with folks to say, let’s do some like really intensive testing on some of these contaminants in some of these issues.”

Flintoff noted that a paper published by Wayne State University researchers last year focused on the influence of drainage, infrastructure and land use on microplastics looking at the Huron and the Clinton watersheds.

“They looked at the microplastic, levels of microplastic and then where it was coming from and realizing how much of it really is coming from stormwater runoff. Everything that folks are throwing away, that they’re tossing out on the ground, that they’re dropping in parking lots and then it rains and all of that gets washed into the rivers and washed into our streams. It’s a major source of microplastics. One of the easiest things that people can do is just properly dispose of items, properly dispose of litter, reduce, recycle and obviously reuse as much as possible. Not tossing stuff out your car window, or tossing it in the parking lot or not walking the 10 extra steps to the trash can. You are taking all of that and putting it in the right place and keeping it out of the rivers and streams and lakes.”

Flintoff also explained elementary lessons can make a difference.

“The three R’s that we all learned in grade school – reduce, reuse, recycle – are the best way that we can try to combat this. The other thing, too, is really supporting research. Supporting science, there’s very little research done right now on microplastics. There’s more and more every day but supporting research so that we truly understand how and what these things are doing to our bodies, what these things are doing to our environments, understanding how they’re getting there, understanding ways that we can continue to push for new ways to be able to recycle or reuse that sort of thing.”

Microplastics find their way into waterways, ground surface areas across the world. From the Arctic Circle to Antarctica and everywhere in between. From garbage that gets into drainage systems and breaks down, flowing into Michigan lakes, streams and rivers, to home-created pollution from washing clothes and using simple plastic implements, to even a major spill on a Michigan highway.

In late January, 26,000 pounds of plastic pellets or ‘nurdles’ spilled from a semi-trailer on I-96 and were spread for 11 miles near Saugatuck, mixing in with snow and eventually found their way into soil, the bottom of the Kalamazoo River. Even more was spilled when the truck was not properly secured and was towed away.

Wayne State University Professor Donna Kashian has been studying microplastics for several years with her students.

“One student recently published her work, looking at how it’s entering the system once it goes into the outflows,” Kashian said. “By measuring downstream of wastewater discharge, that’s what eventually gets in your inland lakes. We are trying to determine where it’s partitioning. ‘Is it going in the soil? Is it in the water?’ It’s in bulk. A bit of it settles out into the soil, but some of it still continues downstream into your receiving waters, like your inland lakes, or if it’s a bigger stream, it’ll go into the Great Lakes.”

When it hits Michigan lakes, microplastics start to clog up the natural filtering systems.

“We’ve also done work on how it interacts with other living organisms in the lakes, in zebra and quagga mussels, they can actually disrupt the filter feeding. Microplastics clog gills, so anything with gills has the potential to clog the gills and make it harder for them to breathe.”

Microplastics are also disrupting aquatic food sources.

“When you go out and step on a rock, it’s always slimy. That happens to microplastics. They’re in the water, they get algae build up on it, but that algae build up makes it look like food. Then you have fish and insects, seeing it and eating it because they think it’s food. You are getting food and it’s not actual nutritional food. That could potentially cause health issues. The aquatic life is not getting the nutrition and the calories they need.”

One study Kashian participated in examined how microplastics disrupted the life cycle of frogs.

“It sped up their metabolism, so it essentially is acting like a stressor and their conversion from tadpole to frog, the microplastics speed up their growth. We see this in the environment, with many stressors. When a tadpole feels stressed, it’ll metamorphose into a frog sooner because it’s trying to get out of a pond that might dry up. We actually didn’t expect this result. When tadpoles ate these microplastics, they grew faster. We actually thought we’d see the opposite.”

She also observed decreased growth rates in Yellow Perch that ingested microplastics.

“They’re getting full, but they’re not getting full on something that’s actually helping them,” Kashian said.

She explained that microplastics are coming from everywhere.

“One, they’re made by industry, so there’s microplastics being put in products. But then they are also coming from soda bottles, fleece-like clothing. Those are microplastics. The paint on the road is latex that turns into microplastics. Tire wear, that’s a microplastic. Latex paint in your house is a microplastic. But then you think of everything else. Your plastic pencils, your straws, your bags, all of your medicinal equipment, your packaging. There’s no slowing to this stuff coming in the environment. It doesn’t decompose to nothingness. It stays around a really long time.”

Yoorae Noh, an Assistant Professor in the School of Packaging (SoP) at Michigan State University (MSU), has been studying microplastics for the past decade. The South Korean native has a PhD in civil engineering and studied chemical engineering, and her research made her an expert in environmental engineering. With a varied focus, she realized she needed to become an expert in plastic. She first went to Auburn University and then MSU, landing in the school packaging program.

“I realized that the packaging sector is primarily using virgin plastics. That’s why I chose school packaging at Michigan State University,” Noh said. “Microplastics are the emerging issue in the plastic world. That’s why I have to study microplastics in soil, water and the atmosphere and the microplastics released during or after the manufacturing. We try to investigate the overall fate of the microplastic. But the source of the microplastic will be various.”

Microplastics are divided into two categories – primary and secondary.

“The primary microplastic is intentionally manufactured as a smaller size of plastics and the secondary microplastic is unintentionally but artificially broken down into small pieces. The microplastics that are found in the ecosystem or the environment, that is the secondary microplastic, but still we can capture some of the primary microplastics,” Noh explained. “The plastic model is intentionally manufactured to a size similar to that of the plastic. We can consider it as a primary microplastic. The debris is usually degraded into the natural environment. The source can be from the resident area wastewater treatment plant, as well as emissions from the polymer manufacturing or the packaging manufacturing facilities.”

She noted that, “In 1970, we realized that plastic debris was present in the open ocean area. This is twenty years after we produced the first commercial plastic around 1950. We are generating a lot of the microplastics.”

Noh is part of a research collaboration between Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Michigan Tech.

“We try together to gather the microplastic experts. And then see what the current limitation of the microplastic is. What is the gap in making the connection between the current practice versus the strategy building? Michigan launched the MSU PHC, which is a Plastic and Health Consortium. This PHC is designed to foster the interdisciplinary collaboration by supporting the individual research projects and the individuals. And we are facilitating the network within or beyond MSU about the microplastic work. We try to organize the academic conferences or statewide programs on plastic and the health implications,” Noh said.

The consortium was created eight months ago and includes a variety of academic experts, including those in molecular toxicity, agricultural engineering models and hydrology modeling, environmental contamination, environmental communication, medicine, polymer science and more.

“We try to bring a different perspective to the complex microplastic study because, when people think about microplastics, they usually assume it's just plastic that can be cleaned up. However, that's not the case. There are thousands of polymer types with various additives, making the situation much more complicated. Their fate and behavior vary greatly depending on their composition. That’s why we need to collaborate with experts from different fields. My expertise is in polymer science, so my group is investigating what types of polymers and what size and what surface energy the microplastics have that exist in Grand River, the water source that enters Lake Michigan by estimating the abundance and diversity of the polymer,” Noh said.

There is also a project – a bubble barrier – being set up in the Grand River to try and clean up microplastics. MSU Professor Ruth Kline-Robach explained more.

“The Great Bubble Barrier – we’re working with Meijer and the city of Lansing and a group of faculty members from Michigan State University and Grand Valley State University to put a device called a bubble barrier in the Grand River in the city of Lansing that will help to separate the plastic out of the water,” Kline-Robach said.

A bubble barrier is a perforated rubber tube placed diagonally across the bottom of a waterway. A compressor pumps air through the tube, creating a curtain of bubbles with an upward current that pushes garbage to the surface. Once it’s at the surface, the flow of the water directs trash into a catchment system. The system’s designers estimate a catch rate of 86 percent of floating plastic pollution with pieces as small as one millimeter and as large as one meter.

One significant “polluter” actually comes from our homes, according to Kline-Robach.

“Our laundry. Synthetic fabrics like polyesters, our polyester fleeces, our acrylic textiles, when we do the laundry, that comes out in the wash water. So those microfibers then are discharged if you’re in an area that has a municipal wastewater treatment plant, and then if you are on your household onsite wastewater system, a septic system, those microfibers are potentially in the discharge that goes into your drain field. Wastewater treatment plants were primarily designed to remove pathogens, suspended solids and nutrients from the wastewater. They have settling and filtration processes that can remove a significant amount of the microplastics, but not necessarily all of them. So then after the wastewater goes through the treatment process, then it’s discharged to our area waterways. And so that’s one potential pathway.”

Another source is our roadways and the debris from automobile tires. “When we have rain events, that stormwater is picking up all of that debris from synthetic rubber polymers with the road, dust and rinsing that into our storm drains into our surface waters,” she said. “Another pathway is agricultural plastics. Wrap for hay bales and irrigation tape, things like that. And that weathers over time and can potentially end up in the waterways. It’s coming at us from different areas. And atmospheric deposition too.”

When those microplastics end up inside our bodies, they can cause horrific damage to human tissue.

“There is a widely cited study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, ‘Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events.’ They’re looking at microplastics or nanoplastics in human tissue. And what does that mean in terms of blood and the arterial plaque samples? There’s a lot that we don’t know about human health impacts. It’s an emerging area of research, like the long-term health effects of chronic human exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics.”

In order to find ways to minimize the microplastics problem, Kline-Robach notes, “We usually break it down into source reduction, and then how we are treating things, and then how we are manufacturing things. Source reduction is where people who live on a lake can play a role. Use alternative materials, not plastic bags, not buying plastic bottles of water. Then, we can look at better filtration techniques either for drinking water sources or wastewater treatment plants, membrane filtration or different types of filtration that will filter out some of those smaller particles that might not otherwise get filtered and will make it their way through the treatment plant.”

Kline-Robach also noted that septic systems need to be looked at to help with the solution of keeping microplastics out of water systems. “It’s estimated that we have 1.3 million septic systems in Michigan. And we don’t really know if microplastics are being adequately treated in these drain fields or they’re getting through into the soil and into our groundwater. That’s another gap in the research,” she said. “If you have an onsite wastewater system, your laundry is going into that septic system.”

Noh from MSU added, “Another student in my lab is investigating the microplastics derived from agricultural plastic because they are found not only in the wastewater treatment plant facility near the river but also during our agricultural practices. However, many people usually ignore the microplastics in agriculture. They often use a lot of pesticides covered with plastic liners. The ideal cycle would be to fully recycle this microplastic into a new, value-added product. But studies show that even during recycling, a lot of microplastics can be released. Also, not all microplastics enter recycling facilities because, in the U.S., the focus is mainly on recycling high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and PET (polyethylene terephthalate). Theoretically, we could recycle LDPE, similar to linear low-density polyethylene, or polystyrene, but that isn't economically feasible given current facility operations. That’s why most U.S. recycling facilities only accept HDPE and PET. Our goal has been to seek funding for this, but ultimately, we want to explore how microplastics can be incorporated into value-added products, even if they aren't fancy. For example, they could be used as filament material for 3D printers or part of artificial structures on beaches, like benches.”

With aquatic animals and organisms, microplastics are absorbing these heavy metals and are getting ingested, causing even bigger problems.

“That’s why we call it the Trojan horse effect,” she said.

Microplastics pose a human hazard because once they enter the body, they can contain harmful substances. BPA (bisphenol A,) is an industrial chemical that research has shown can alter fertility and fetal development. It can mimic and disrupt the body’s natural hormones.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals added to plastics to make them more flexible and durable. Phthalates can be found in some cosmetics such as nail polish, perfumes and some shampoos. These can change hormone functioning and increase a person’s risk of cancer. Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and chromium are known to accumulate in many organs over time and can lead to heart disease. All coming from microplastics.

As these are ingested by fish and other marine life, the food chain slowly becomes a toxic stream that reaches our dinner tables. The Department of Energy, Great Lakes and Environment (EGLE) has received funding for testing of Michigan rivers, lakes and streams. Eddie Kostelnik, an environmental quality analyst - emerging pollutants section of the water resources division for EGLE, explained more.

“We’re working on microplastics in multiple avenues. One of the main things that I am involved with is that we’ve been sampling microplastics and rivers and streams in Michigan. This sampling randomly targets rivers and streams throughout the state three times a year, and we’ll be doing it for four years.”

By the end of the sampling period, 200 rivers and streams will have been sampled three times each year.

“There is going to be various data analysis and quality checks that need to happen with that data. On top of that, we’re also developing more targeted sampling plans to potentially sample Great Lakes inland lakes and do some more method development,” he said. “We’re working on surface water sampling side, then we’re also developing a plan to assess impacts of microplastics and drinking water in Michigan. Then we’re in the process of developing a statewide microplastic strategy, which will look into what we need to do to better understand microplastics problem in Michigan, and that plan would include monitoring, policy education and outreach.”

One year of sampling has already taken place with three more to go.

“I am working on developing the targeted sampling for this year. The data is still being quality-checked, and based on the way we sampled, we need a larger data set to draw stronger conclusions. But what I can say is that we did find microplastics in the rivers and streams across the state in widely varying concentrations.”

For the random river and stream sampling, EGLE is using “grab” samples.

“We’re taking a glass bottle that’s known not to have microplastics in it. It’s been rinsed by the lab and we’re taking a grab sample at a specific depth in the river or stream. We’re looking into other methods that have been recommended from places such as the International Joint Commission, which has some methods that they recommended for microplastic sampling that we’ll be looking into,” Kostelnik said.

EGLE is also working with other states such as New Jersey and California where such sampling is being done to try and find a consistent way to sample for better results.

The state legislature is looking to help in the fight against microplastics with the implementation of legislation aimed at the problem. According to the Michigan Environmental Council, there are three bills working through the legislature as a package, Senate Bill 503/House Bill 4766, Senate Bill 504/House Bill 4768 and Senate Bill 505/House Bill 4767.

Senate Bill 503, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), and House Bill 4766, sponsored Rep. Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia) is legislation that would ban the use of microbeads in Michigan. Microbeads are tiny, manufactured plastic particles that are usually smaller than one millimeter (similar to the size of glitter) and can be found in personal care products like toothpaste. This bill goes beyond the scope of the federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 to cover additional products, such as cleaning supplies.

Irwin’s interest in microplastics piqued when he saw the dangers they created in the world’s oceans, and he wondered what microplastics were doing to the Great Lakes.

“The first thing I found was that we didn’t know enough, right here in the heart of the world’s greatest assemblage of fresh water,” Irwin said. “This was a problem that didn’t receive enough attention. We started working on putting together legislation.”

He formed a partnership with former Representative Rachel Hood to build expertise with EGLE with budget support.

“That legislation does a few things,” he explained. “It calls for a statewide strategy on microplastics. It calls for more monitoring and it calls for getting microplastics out of some of the products where they’re really not necessary and where it’s easiest to remove them from our waste stream.

At press time, that legislation had made it out of committee to the Senate floor. Though the bills are bipartisan, Irwin noted there hasn’t been enough across-the-aisle support.

“I think that Republicans will say that they’re clean water fans when they’re asked on the campaign trail,” he said. “They’ll say what I think everyone as voters believes, which is we need clean drinking water, we need that to be safe. And I think they believe that as well. But that belief gets chased away pretty quickly when the Chemistry Council or the Michigan manufacturers or big retailers come to Lansing and say, ‘We don’t want to have to follow additional rules. We don’t want to have to change our products. We don’t want to have that responsibility for the Great Lakes into clean water.’ And their influence speaks loudly and also financially.”

According to Irwin, big business wants to continue business as usual. “When these bills came up in committee, we heard from big industry and big business saying that they didn’t think this was a good idea and that this is going to bring Michigan’s economy to its knees, it’s going to kill jobs, blah blah blah. We can’t protect the environment and have a healthy economy at the same time.”

He noted this argument came in the middle of the nurdle spill on I-94 that dumped tons of microplastics along 11 miles of roadway that wasn’t reported for another month. The beads were cleaned up as much as possible but there is no way to know the environmental damage as of yet.

“Emerging research that shows we’re finding out that microplastics are in all of our body and our bloodstream and our brain. So, it’s interesting that they’re still coming with the same playbook,” Senator Irwin said.

He noted the bills “build on some of the work that we were able to do through the budget a couple years ago, which I was mentioning with Representative Hood, where we funded some research within EGLE to look into this and to start to develop some data and start to look around the state. Much like we started doing with PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) ten years ago. That started with an investigation, and that’s definitely got to be part of it. I would just encourage people to trust their eyes. We’ve all been in Michigan parks, we’ve all been along Michigan roadways, we’ve all been on Michigan beaches and we’re seeing an increase in plastic pollution. And it makes a lot of sense for us to attend to that very visible pollution. But I just want to remind folks that while you are seeing that around us in our environment, These plastics, particularly when they become microplastics or even nanoplastics, they enter our bodies, and they start to pollute the pathways within our bodies. There are some very real health consequences that could be coming from these. And I just think it makes a lot of sense for us to take it very seriously and to be the place in the world that focuses on this and really focuses on figuring out how we, in a freshwater environment, make sure that microplastics don’t ruin this jewel that we have here in Michigan.”

Senate Bill 505, sponsored by Sen. Sue Shink (D-Ann Arbor), and House Bill 4767, sponsored by Rep. Denise Mentzer (D-Mount Clemens) require EGLE to create a comprehensive research and monitoring plan for microplastics in the Great Lakes across the state. The plan will examine the presence of microplastics in the environment and the Great Lakes ecosystem to assess ecological, health and economic impacts.

Shink first became aware of the microplastic problem from a governmental view as a Washtenaw County Commissioner.

“In terms of working for policy solutions, I was a county commissioner, starting in 2019, and I worked in that position to get support for a bill to allow local governments to ban or tax or otherwise regulate larger plastic items, single-use plastics,” Shink explained. “The legislature preempted that kind of action before then, around 2016 or 2017. Now I’m fighting to get that back. Since I’ve been in the legislature, I have worked to lift that preemption so local communities can make their own decisions. That bill is called SB 195 this session.”

Shink’s initial work began with her interest in contaminants and toxic chemicals while as a law student in the early 1990s.

“My first legal job was working on polluter pay legislation. I was able to work on cases under the polluter pay law at the time,” she said. “Now we’re fighting to get polluter pay back. But I’ve been very interested in toxic chemicals. I’ve worked to reduce plastics in my personal life, but that’s not really enough because there are so many plastics in the environment that they end up in our bodies through our drinking water without our permission. There are actually microplastics in the air and rainwater now, and they’re definitely in the lakes. I heard from researchers that even in the deepest parts of Lake Superior, there are microplastics and macroplastics, too.”

In explaining Senate Bill 505, Shink said, “This bill would add legislation that would create a statewide micro prep, microplastics research and monitoring plan, and would require EGLE to develop a statewide microplastics research and monitoring plan that would assess the occurrence and the impact of microplastics on the plants, animals, waterways, and drinking sources of the state. And then figure out, ‘what the heck are we going to do about this?’”

She noted its harder in the United States to stop the microplastic invasion as “you have to double and triple prove that something is harmful before you can get anyone to do something about it. Microplastics affect us in so many ways. I read an AARP (story) about a research study that showed if you have microplastics in the plaque in your arteries and you have a heart attack, you are much more likely to die than if you don’t. And we know that plastics are endocrine-disrupting, so they affect our hormones. And many cancers are very sensitive to hormones. I know a lot of doctors suggest to cancer survivors, or people who are trying to prevent it that they avoid plastic, but it’s hard if it’s in your drinking water.”

She noted that Senate Bill 503 would help rid microplastics that are put in everyday consumer products.

“Microbeads are tiny bits of plastic, people often don’t even realize they are tiny bits of plastic. You could see them in facial scrub, but they’re in so many other things as well that you wouldn’t even notice.”

High-tech clothing, such as polar fleece and other synthetic clothing, is a “microplastic polluter.” When washed and even dried, these clothing items shed microplastics that if not filtered find their way into the atmosphere.

“One thing we can do is get filters for our dryers, and then we put them in the trash, and that is better than sending them out into the air. But also, if you line dry your synthetic clothing, it helps reduce the plastic shed,” Shink said.

Simply reusing bags for shopping can make a small impact that builds into a larger one.

“I do want to encourage people to take those actions in their life. Also, I think when people realize they can live with less plastic, it helps them understand that legislation that would require us to find alternatives,” she said.

In explaining more about Senate Bill 504, Senator Shink said, “It would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EGLE to establish microplastic baseline conditions in public water supplies. And then develop methodologies for measuring that. We would eventually have a limit on how much microplastics could be in public water supplies. It’s really this is a stepped approach. It’s not as fast as some would like. But it’s what we think is practical and can actually get done.”

She noted there is opposition to the legislation from manufacturers and industry.

Senate Bill 504 is sponsored by Sen. Dayna Polehanki (D-Livonia) and House Bill 4768 is sponsored by Rep. Veronica Paiz (D-Harper Woods).

This legislation would require EGLE to establish a statewide microplastics monitoring program focused on public drinking water supplies. EGLE must conduct quarterly testing across various water sources, including the Great Lakes, tributaries, and inland lakes, to evaluate baseline levels and potential health risks. The department must also publish a detailed report summarizing findings, including microplastic characteristics, possible sources, and recommendations for risk assessment and mitigation.

Kashian from Wayne State University explained, “There are three bills on the table that we need to get on the ballot. The third bill is about providing funding to the DNR to conduct more monitoring, as we currently do not have microplastic monitoring in the state. We don’t even know, other than academics like me who are doing these short-term spot monitoring by outfalls. This bill would give the DNR the resources to actually figure out how much it is and where it is. Then we could start doing a better job of at least cleaning up a spot or preventing it from spreading.”

Samantha Pickering, Policy Manager with the Michigan Environmental Council, added more insight.

“I want to be optimistic, but it’s oil companies. They have a lot more money and power than any of us do, and they want to produce. And honestly, it’s super cheap for people to buy and make their products. They’re going to opt for that option over anything else. Basically, all environmental issues are really complex, and we have to go about mitigating and finding solutions from a few different angles. Right now, have our bill package that has had some good action in the Senate. They were recently passed out of the Senate’s Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee. They’ve moved on to the Senate floor, and from there, if they were voted out, would move over into the House Natural Resources Committee. There are three bills and one calls for comprehensive research and monitoring, a microplastic strategy bill that would have EGLE basically put together a sampling methodology for sampling for microplastics in the Great Lakes and give us a foundation to start building off of because a lot of the data and research here is still emerging. We don’t have many long term databases. So his would help us build towards that.”­­