The Dangers of Expanded Polystyrene

Waste
By: Megan Baker, Abby Hawkins, Kally Morozin, and Meghan Perry

In recent years, plastic pollution has become one of the biggest issues for the United States. A
2014 study done by the 5 Gyres Institute estimates that 8 million tons of plastic are dumped into
the ocean each year (Foekema et al., 2013). One of the most dangerous types of these plastics is
expanded polystyrene. Because of its’ lack of degradation properties and ability to absorb
chemicals, expanded polystyrene poses a large threat to marine life that mistake it for food and
consume it. These fish absorb the toxins carried by the expanded polystyrene, provoking
devastating effects on their behavior and reproduction (Rochman, Manzano, Hentschel, Massey
Simonich, & Hoh, 2013) Even more concerning, these fish have the potential to pass on toxins
when humans eat them.

Various local governments in coastal cities have begun to regulate the distribution of expanded
polystyrene by means of financial incentives, eco-friendly alternatives, and recycling. Despite
these cities’ efforts, expanded polystyrene is generally commercially available and distributed.
There is a lack of national policy in place. In order to lessen the threat to marine life and human
health, coastal governments must ban expanded polystyrene entirely.

Context and Importance of the Problem

Expanded Polystyrene is one of the most harmful plastics polluting the ocean. It is marketed
in the United States as Styrofoam. Styrofoam has become a common household item, appearing
in forms such as meat packaging, disposable coolers, and disposable cups. It is particularly
prevalent in the restaurant industry in the form of take out containers. Even if these products
properly make their way into landfills, they are still capable of migrating into oceans. Cities
within 90 miles of the coast are responsible for most of this pollution.
 Commented [1]: The map depicts the distribution of
plastics in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean surrounding
the United States and Mexico.

Expanded Polystyrene is created using the styrene molecule which is known to have
harmful effects on humans. The long-chained molecule styrene, much like many other plastics,
is essentially non-biodegradable (Rubio, 2015). It takes hundreds to thousands of years to
decompose. The styrene molecule is also known to have negative health effects on humans, and
it is recognized by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as a neurotoxin (ATSDR,
2010). A neurotoxin is a chemical that is poisonous or destructive of nerve tissue. Although
humans are not eating expanded polystyrene directly, the molecule has the ability to migrate into
food sources through expanded polystyrene packaging. This can especially happen when we
microwave our take out containers. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives
sets a limit of 40 micrograms (a fraction of a grain of sand) per kilogram of body weight per day
for tolerable expanded polystyrene daily intake. Moreover, Vitrac and Leblanc estimated a
median styrene intake ranging from 1 to 35 micrograms per day per person, just from normal
food packaging. Essentially, humans are surpassing this threshold everyday, resulting in negative
health effects. Furthermore, Tang et al. reported an estimated annual general population
exposure to styrene ranging from 0.8 to 4.5 milligrams (an average snowflake) per person from
food alone (Gelbke, Banton, Faes, & Duhayon, 2013).

Expanded polystyrene is composed of

foam beads which are separated by small
gaps, giving it excellent absorption
properties. Expanded polystyrene is able to Commented [2]: Expanded polystyrene is capable of
breaking down into smaller foam beads that are easier
become waterlogged when water invades the for marine animals to consume.
gaps. When it gets cold enough, the water
expands causing the expanded polystyrene
beads to separate from the whole structure. This also happens through UV and thermal
degradation (Sen, 2007). In both instances, the plastic beads are heated up enough that they
break into smaller beads and get as small as 5 millimeters. These forms of degradation also
cause the expanded polystyrene to release toxic chemicals into the environment.

Leaving absorptive materials in the ocean creates polluted hubs of toxic chemicals that
become feeding grounds for unsuspecting marine life. The small beads of expanded Commented [3]: Fish eat expanded polystyrene, and
because they are unable to digest it, it remains
polystyrene that make their way into the ocean can unaltered in their stomachs.
absorb the harmful chemicals that contaminate the
Commented [4]: _Marked as resolved_
ocean (such as oil, toxic metals, and persistent organic
Commented [5]: _Re-opened_
pollutants) (Ocean Health Index, n.d.). Larger fish
then mistake the beads for zooplankton, and ingest the
beads along with the harmful chemicals they contain
(Cole et al., 2013). This pollution affects more than
fish. There was a study published by Savoca,
Wohlfeil, Ebeler, and Nevitt in 2016 that focused on
birds eating plastic in the ocean. The study explains how expanded polystyrene and other
plastics provide a good scaffold on which algae grow. This algae then releases the same gas
(dimethyl sulfide) as the birds’ feeding grounds. The birds are attracted to the smell of the gas
and mistakenly eat the expanded polystyrene. Once the expanded polystyrene is ingested, it
releases the chemicals it absorbed into the bird’s bloodstream, inducing serious health issues.
The ingested expanded polystyrene can also cause gas to build up in stomachs. The stomach
eventually explodes, killing the bird (NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2017).

As these animals make their way down the food chain - accompanied by the expanded
polystyrene - they find their way onto dinner tables. A 2013 study by Foekema et al.
concluded similar results to Savoca, Wohlfeil, Ebeler, and Nevitt, but in regards to fish. Fish,
too, are mistaking plastic in the ocean for food. When these fish consume expanded polystyrene,
their stomachs absorb the harmful chemicals contained in it. These chemicals then travel
through the bloodstream, and can even make a home in areas that humans consume.

Commented [6]: Expanded polystyrene, and the

harmful chemicals it contains, travels down the food
chain.

Discussion of Current Policy

The United States lacks national policy on regulations and restrictions of expanded
polystyrene usage. Despite the harmful effects of expanded polystyrene, the United States does
not have a uniting national policy regarding its distribution. Some local governments have taken
measures to regulate expanded polystyrene, however. Nearly 150 cities and counties in the
United States have active ordinances limiting or banning the use or distribution of expanded
polystyrene products. Many of these restrictions focus on single-use expanded polystyrene
foodware, such as cups and take out containers. California leads this effort with 98 expanded
polystyrene ordinances in
place. Despite local
efforts, less than 7% of
the United States
population is affected by
these laws, so expanded
polystyrene will continue
to be a problem unless
more cities join the
movement (Wagner,
2017).

Other countries have

successfully implemented bans on expanded polystyrene products. Large cities such as
Paris, France and Toronto, Canada have had bans on expanded polystyrene foodware containers
since 2007 and 2008, respectively (McIlroy, 2015). The longevity of the expanded polystyrene
policies in these two cities suggest the bans have been successful. Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, a south Caribbean nation, went as far as enacting national policies that ban the
import, manufacturing, and sale of all expanded polystyrene food products (Browne, 2017).

Recycling and Alternatives

Aside from implementing regulations, recycling expanded polystyrene is a solution. While
expanded polystyrene is not biodegradable, it can still be recycled into new products (Song,
Murphy, Narayan, & Davies, 2009). After the expanded polystyrene is collected and sent to
specialized recycling centers, the recycling process begins by shredding and breaking down
expanded polystyrene into smaller pieces. These scrap pieces are then subjected to heat and high
pressure; under these conditions the expanded polystyrene turns into a thick paste that can be
reprocessed into new expanded polystyrene goods (Clean Water Action California, n.d.).

Expanded polystyrene recycling efforts have proven to be problematic. The main issue with
expanded polystyrene recycling deals with cost and availability. Specialized expanded
polystyrene recycling centers are expensive to establish and maintain, thus explaining the
scarcity of them. Even in places that do have recycling centers, recycling is inconvenient due to
the lack of expanded polystyrene-specific recycling bins. California has more recycling centers
than any other state, yet only 1% of the expanded polystyrene sold and distributed ends up being
recycled (Clean Water Action California, n.d.).

While recycling expanded polystyrene is expensive, cleaning up expanded polystyrene litter

is much more costly in the long run. As lightweight materials are often disposed incorrectly,
expanded polystyrene litter is easily carried by rainwater into storm drains and sewers. A study
conducted by the California Department of Transportation estimated that 15% of the waste
littering storm drains is expanded polystyrene products. In coastal cities, these sewers often
empty into the ocean, carrying expanded polystyrene with it. In the ocean the expanded
polystyrene can eaten by fish, or it can be washed back up onto beaches where it must be
cleaned. A 2012 study of communities on the West Coast, exhibited that these communities
spend about 13 dollars per resident yearly on beach cleanup of marine debris (Heverly, Lu,
Middleton, & Ghai, 2017). Furthermore, beach litter leads to cleaning expenditures as high as
428 million dollars for the state of California alone (Stickel, Jahn, Kier, & Monroe, 2013).

Additionally, mealworms, a type of beetle larvae, can recycle and repurpose expanded
polystyrene. Mealworms are capable of biodegrading and mineralizing polystyrene into a useful
form. A study was conducted in 2015 by Wei-Min Wu, in which mealworms were fed only a
diet of polystyrene foam. This investigation discovered not only that mealworms can survive on
an all polystyrene diet, but also that they can biodegrade the ingested polystyrene. The
mealworms have bacteria in their digestive tract that allows them to breakdown the polystyrene
into mostly gaseous CO2, and a small white residual product known as fecula biomass. Residual
fecula biomasses can be incorporated into soil to fertilize plants, as well.

Environmentally friendly alternatives exist for all expanded polystyrene products. Wood
and plant fibers are just two examples of eco-friendly biodegradable alternatives. Eco-friendly
materials are also safer in cases of accidental pet consumption. Alternative products are more
expensive than expanded polystyrene, however. It is estimated that for every 1 dollar of an
expanded polystyrene product, an alternative product would average 1.85 dollars (MB Public
Affairs, 2017). Although the distribution of alternatives is expensive, the manufacturing of
expanded polystyrene is costly, as well. The decreased cost of manufacturing polystyrene
would be offset by the increased cost of distributing alternatives. In actuality, after San Diego
enacted an expanded polystyrene ban, they conducted a survey that revealed only 3% of the
sample businesses found the ban to be a financial burden (Heverly, Lu, Middleton, & Ghai,
2017).

Policy Recommendations

Expanded polystyrene must be banned entirely from the restaurant industry. The restaurant
industry includes (but is not limited to) the following entities: restaurants, beach concessions,
food trucks, golf courses, and delivery services. The restaurant industry is easily regulated; a
change in food carrier material would not greatly impact the day-to-day operations of the
business. Because the general public interacts with the restaurant industry so often, this change
may even allow the public to take notice and change their own habits, as well. It is not possible
for this ban to take place overnight; therefore, it must be implemented in steps by local
governments in coastal cities.

Allowing funding for more recycling centers to be capable of handling expanded

polystyrene would reduce future expenses. Not only would more recycling centers with the
appropriate capabilities arise, but the amount of recycling bins in public areas would also be
increased. Enhancing recycling potential intends to chip away at the overall amount of expanded
polystyrene waste in oceans. Recycling centers would need to be established before restaurants
begin to make the switch to alternatives. When the switch takes place, there needs to be facilities
for all the expanded polystyrene that is thrown out. Although the cost of recycling expanded
polystyrene is outrageously high, the long-term benefits outweigh the immediate cost of these
facilities. As previously mentioned, local governments already spend tax money on cleaning up
plastic in the ocean. If the cleanup costs could be reduced, this would balance the increased cost
of recycling expanded polystyrene.

Implementing higher taxes on businesses who continue to use expanded polystyrene would
encourage them to switch to an eco-friendly alternative. Direct, negative consequences
encourage businesses to take immediate action. They would save money by terminating the
usage of expanded polystyrene. After a few entities make the switch, it may serve as an
example for others to follow. They may exhibit the simplicity and success of the process. While
positive financial incentives - such as tax breaks - are an option, businesses would be less likely
to take immediate action. Restaurants would either be experiencing positive consequences or
none at all.
Introducing permanent eco-friendly alternatives is the final step in banning expanded
polystyrene. All businesses in the restaurant industry - located in coastal cities - will be banned
from distributing expanded polystyrene. Instead, they will be given the option to choose
between either plant-based or wood-based materials. These specific materials will vary
depending on their availability in coastal areas across the United States.
Sources
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2010.

Toxicological profile for Styrene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service. Retrieved October 29, 2017.

Browne, R.T. (2017). Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Statutory Rules and Orders. Retrieved

October 9, 2017 from http://customs.gov.vc/downloads/polystreneACT.pdf

Chemical Pollution. (n.d.). Retrieved November 08, 2017, from

http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/methodology/components/chemical-pollution

Clean Water Action California. (n.d.). Recycling Food Service Foam Containers. Retrieved

October 05, 2017, from

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/ca/Foam%20Recycling%20Fact%20Sheet

%20August%202012.pdf

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J., & Galloway, T. S.

(2013, May 21). Microplastic Ingestion by Zooplankton. Environmental Science &

Technology. Retrieved October 29, 2017, from http://libproxy.rose-

hulman.edu:2074/doi/pdf/10.1021/es400663f

Disposable Food Service Products and Packaging Materials, Montgomery County Code § 48-

54(c) (2017). Retrieved November 1, 2017 from

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/bill/2014/20150120_41-

14A.pdf
. (n.d.). Expanded Polystyrene Regulation. Retrieved October 05, 2017, from

http://www.morrobayca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9392

MB Public Affairs, Inc. (January, 2017). Fiscal Impacts of Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene

Food Service Products in Maryland. Retrieved November 09, 2017, from

https://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/Pages/Fiscal-Impacts-of-Prohibiting-Expanded-

Polystyrene-Food-Service-Products-in-Maryland.pdf

Foekema, E. M., De Gruijter, C., Mergia, M. T., Van Franeker, J. A., Murk, A. J., & Koelmans,

A. A. (2013, June 18). Plastic in North Sea Fish. Environmental Science & Technology.

Retrieved October 29, 2017, from http://libproxy.rose-

hulman.edu:2074/doi/pdf/10.1021/es400931b

Gelbke, Heinz-Peter, Marcy Banton, Eric Faes, and Sophie Duhayon. "Derivation of safe health-

based exposure limits for potential consumer exposure to styrene migrating into food from

food containers." Food and Chemical Toxicology. December 04, 2013. Accessed November

08, 2017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513008016.

Glaser, H. (2016). 9.24.030 Use of Non-Compliant Food Service Ware Prohibited. In Chapter

9.24 Ban on Polystyrene Foam Food Packaging. Malibu, CA: City of Malibu.

Heverly, S., Lu, J., Middleton, A., & Ghai, S. (2017, March). Recommendations for Reducing or

Banning Foam Food Service Containers. Center for Sustainable Energy. Retrieved November
 05, 2017, from

https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Guide_for_Polystyrene_Reduction_Policies.pdf

Rochman, C. M., Manzano, C., Hentschel, B. T., Massey Simonich, S. L., & Hoh, E. (2013).

Polystyrene Plastic: A Source and Sink for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Marine

Environment. Retrieved November 09, 2017, from

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es403605f

Rubio, M. R. (2015, July 29). Environmental Impacts of EPS Foam. Retrieved October 05, 2017,

from https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/tag/environmental-impacts-of-eps-foam/

Savoca, M., Wohlfeil, M., Ebeler, S. & Nevitt, G. (2016). Marine plastic debris emits a keystone

infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. 2nd ed. Science Advances. Retrieved October 29,

2017, from: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/2/11/e1600395.full.pdf

Sen, Indraneel, "Degradation Mechanism of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foam in Lost Foam

Casting, PIPS Approach for Synthesis and Novel Expansion Techniques for Cellular Foam. "

PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2007. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/299

Song, J. H., Murphy, R. J., Narayan, R., & Davies, G. B. (2009, July 27). Biodegradable and

compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Retrieved November 09, 2017, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873018/

Stickel, B. H., Jahn, A., Kier, B., & Monroe, L. (2013, August). Waste in Our Water: The

Annual Cost to California Communities of Reducing Litter that Pollutes our Waterways.
 Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved November 01, 2017, from

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/oce_13082701a.pdf

McIlroy, T., (2015, February 8). Shane Rattenbury Considers ACT Polystyrene Ban. The

Canberra Times. Retrieved November 09, 2017, from

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/shane-rattenbury-considers-act-polystyrene-ban-

20150201-133kvb.html

Wagner, T. P., (2017, February 6). The rise of EPS ordinances. Resource Recycling. Retrieved

November 06, 2017, from https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2017/02/06/rise-eps-

ordinances/

NOAA Marine Debris Program. (n.d.). What We Know About: Plastic Marine Debris. National

Ocean Service. Retrieved October 9, 2017, from

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Gen_Plastic_9-20-11%281%29.pdf

Yang, Y., Yang, J., Wu, W.M., Zhao, J., Song, Y., Gao, L., Yang, R., & Jiang, L. (2015,

September 21). Biodegradation and Mineralization of Polystyrene by Plastic-Eating

Mealworms: Part 1. Chemical and Physical Characterization and Isotopic Tests. Environmental

Science and Technology, 49, 12080-12086, doi:#10.1021/acs.est.5b02661