Public Comment Open on a Draft Federal Report on Microfiber Pollution

Please do not allow trash or waste of any kind in our oceans. Have education and stick systems at bears to stop debris from entering waterways Protect as all marine areas and ocean life. Thank you.

Please protect our waterways and wildlife. Microfibers can not be seen but they are and are so destructive. PLease develop a plan quickly to take care of this serious problem.

Water is life and protecting oceans from microfiber pollution is essential. I support any and all steps we can take to reduce water contamination. The answer is education and activism. Increase public awareness of the devastating effect of single use plastic, nurdles and other products in our waterways and urge people to invest in renewables and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. As the saying goes, 'there is no planet B'

Microfibers that came from different sources. These sources add on in sewage, river, and finally mixed in oceans that causes harmful effects on marine flora and fauna. Airborne microfiber is also a source of this type of pollution that also causes harmful effects on a different areas. Please make a policy for the control of microfiber in every country and implement this policy effectively.

Goal #4 “focuses on developing a better understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological hazards associated with microfibers (including the chemical additives they may contain, as well as the contaminants they may have absorbed from the environment” the actions listed though do not speak to the work that will be done to assess the absorption of toxins by these fibers. Microfiber pollution is a huge problem for the Great Lakes. Thank you for sharing this report and asking for our comments.

Based on our review of the Draft Federal Report on Microfiber Pollution, we offer the following comments: 1. We recommend that the report better illuminate the state of the science concerning what is known concerning human exposure to microfibers/microplastics. For example, it should indicate whether there is exposure duration information of people to drinking water containing microfibers. This draft just says exposures are noted, without temporal information. If exposures have been extensive, the report should address whether there a potential for epidemiological studies. 2. We recommend that the report discuss the history of the microfiber/microplastics issue and how it has evolved over the years, and, thereby, explain why, after decades of documented exposure to microfibers/microplastics, no extensive assessment has been made of the possible impacts to the environment and human health. Has the scientific community considered this a “minor” issue and focused on more “tangible“ risks such as those from PFOA/PFOS, legacy priority pollutants? 3. We recommend that the report discuss, and, if possible, provide estimates of what percentage of impacts to aquatic life as a whole are due to microplastics, microfibers and macro plastics. Is it possible to tease out the relative contributions of each to impacts on aquatic life? Does one dominate the overall toxic impact? 4. We recommend that consideration be given to dropping the reference to the WHO report, since its message seems disingenuous and confusing. It says on one hand that more research is needed on human health exposure and risk, but on the other hand states there is a low risk from drinking water based on current data. It seems to provide a false sense of security based on a very meager sample size. 5. While we applaud the draft's call for a Federal plan to address microfiber pollution that puts research as a first goal: "Goal 1: Conduct, fund, and support research to address the most critical research needs related to microfiber pollution." (p. ), we recommend the report be strengthened by providing: (1) greater emphasis, with accompanying rationale and discussion, on the need for Federal research leadership and coordination to ensure development of research strategies that facilitate effective integration of research planning efforts and of communications with scientists reflecting different scientific disciplines as well as policy makers. While the draft acknowledges that approximately 60 percent of microfibers are a subset of microplastics (p. ), it should emphasize that the research needs for many, if not most, plastic microfibers are identical to those for microplastics generally. The report should include a discussion of why and how these efforts should be integrated. (2) criteria that are to be met for effective microfiber/microplastic research coordination mechanisms that can be used or developed, and appropriate recommendations concerning. (3) discussion, if only in summary form, of nanofibers and nanoplastics, even if the mandate for the Report is limited to microfibers.

To the noaa.gov webmaster, Great job!