Almost 30% of Microplastics Come From Vehicle Tyres
Every year, billions of vehicles worldwide shed an estimated six million tonnes of tire fragments
These tiny flakes of plastic, generated by the wear and tear of normal driving, eventually accumulate in the soil, in rivers and lakes, and even in our food.
Researchers in South China recently found tire-derived chemicals in most human urine samples.
These tire particles are a significant but often-overlooked contributor to microplastic pollution.
They account for 28 percent of microplastics entering the environment globally.
Despite the scale of the issue, tire particles have flown under the radar. Often lumped in with other microplastics, they are rarely treated as a distinct pollution category, yet their unique characteristics demand a different approach.
We urgently need to classify tire particles as a unique pollution category. In our recent international study, colleagues and I found that this approach would drive more focused research that could inform policies specifically designed to mitigate tire pollution.
And it could help ordinary people better understand the scale of the problem and what they can do about it.
Right now, delegates are meeting in South Korea to negotiate the first global plastics pollution treaty. While this landmark agreement is poised to address many aspects of plastic pollution, tire particles are barely on the agenda.
Given their significant contribution to microplastics, recognizing tire pollution as a unique issue could help unlock targeted solutions and public awareness. This is what we need to address this growing environmental threat.
Tire particles tend to be made from a complex mix of synthetic and natural rubbers, along with hundreds of chemical additives. This means the consequences of tire pollution can be unexpected and far reaching.
For instance, zinc oxide accounts for around 0.7 percent of a tire’s weight. Though it is essential for making tires more durable, zinc oxide is highly toxic for fish and other aquatic life and disrupts ecosystems even in trace amounts.
Another harmful additive is a chemical known as 6PPD, which protects tires from cracking. When exposed to air and water, it transforms into 6PPD-quinone, a compound linked to mass fish die-offs in the US.
We know that heavier vehicles, including electric cars (which have very heavy batteries), wear down their tires faster and generate more microplastic particles.
Car industry experts Nick Molden and Felix Leach say that, as weight is so crucial to a vehicle’s environmental impact, manufacturers should be targeted with weight-based taxes under a “polluter pays” principle.
This could encourage lighter vehicle designs while motivating consumers to make ‘greener’ choices.
There are many questions we still need to investigate. For instance, we still don’t know how far these tire particles disperse, or exactly where they are accumulating.
To assess their full ecological impact, we need more detailed information on which tire additives are most toxic, how they behave in the environment, and which species are most at risk (some salmon species are more sensitive to 6PPD-quinone than others, for example).
In the longer-term, standardized methods will be crucial to measure tire particles and create effective regulations.
Regulatory frameworks, such as the EU’s upcoming Euro 7 emissions standard (which targets vehicle emissions), provide a starting point for controlling tire emissions. But additional measures are needed.
Innovations in tire design, such as eco-friendly alternatives to zinc oxide and other materials like 6PPD, could significantly reduce environmental harm. Establishing a global panel of scientific and policy experts, similar to ones that already exist for climate science (known as the IPCC) or biodiversity (IPBES), could further coordinate research and regulatory efforts.
Crucially, we must classify tire particles as a distinct pollution category. Compared to conventional microplastics, tire particles behave differently in the environment, break down into unique chemical compounds, and present distinct toxicological challenges.
With more than 2 billion tires produced each year to fit ever-heavier and more numerous cars, the problem is set to escalate. The environmental toll will only increase unless we recognize and target the specific problem.
Measures like weight-based taxation and eco-friendly tire innovations would not only reduce tire pollution but also pave the way for more sustainable transportation systems.
The question isn’t whether we can afford to act. It’s whether we can afford not to.
See more here sciencealert.com
Header image: Evans Type
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
“zinc oxide is highly toxic for fish and other aquatic life and disrupts ecosystems even in trace amounts.” Put numbers on highly toxic and trace amounts for I am certain that zinc oxide is a natural compound found in a localized NATURAL ENVIRONMENT at some variable concentrations, some higher and lower. Until there are numbers no one can know WHAT IS WHAT!
Have a good day
Reply
Tom
| #
And no tires wear out quicker than “green” EV tires. Another unintended consequence of the FAKE green movement.
Reply
solarsmurph
| #
Microplastics from rubber tires – say what? A very poor article written to alarm people about plastics when that is only a minuscule source of the problem.
When I in my teens – yes, the 70’s – I worked in a tire shop, and casually mentioned about pollution and health issues that might be caused by tire and road wear, rubber dust I called it, and was casually dismissed by everyone I talked to. I found an old article from November 28, 2002 questioning this – https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021126204056.htm, and another from 2012 – https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554997.htm you might find interesting. Yes it is a problem, but very insignificant compared to what the so-called authorities are allowing to be added to our food – man made chemicals, GMOs, vegetable oils and sugars (why would you want Canola oil and sugar added to salad dressings?).
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Solarsmurph,
“(why would you want Canola oil and sugar added to salad dressings?).” My answer: To make it taste better so it sells better and makes the company more money. It’s a competitive world out there and I as a consumer do not really know what is really more healthy besides eating less and physically exercising as much as reasonably possible while working to be a productive individual.
Have a good day
Reply
solarsmurph
| #
Hi Jerry,
Despite what the governments are telling you, Canola is NOT something you want to eat. It is simply profiteering by the governments and corporations. Have a look at “Dark Calories– How Vegetable Oils Destroy Our Health and How We Can Get It Back – Catherine Shanahan”. This is one of many books and articles covering this topic.
Did you know one of the original uses was lubricating oil in submarines as it won’t wash off metal parts immersed in water?
I grew up on a farm with my parents, and although my dad did plant and grow canola, I certainly don’t want to eat it, now knowing more about it than I did then.
Wishing you a Merry Christmas season, and a prosperous and healthy new year.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Solarsmurph,
You are free to believe whomever you wish but I am a chemist and understand that unsaturated fats and vegetable oils like canola oil are more heathy than saturated fats.
I have read that hydrogenate canola to make it an unhealthy just as natural saturated fats are. It would be wrong for me to not share this information with you so you can make an informed decision.
Have a good day
Reply
John V
| #
I used to work at a company that did manufacturing and shipping and distribution out of our building, and we were operating basically 24 hours a day 6 days a week. We had three or four forklifts going constantly inside and outside bringing in material to sort and fill, and then load and distribute. At the end of every shift we would sweep the warehouse floor and trust me, there was a lot of rubber that we swept up every 8 hours.
That being said, I do not believe it is a problem or can be a problem unless you are literally working in the exact proximity of vehicles that are shedding rubber which they all do, which only maybe construction workers and warehouse workers, those type of Industries will have that type of exposure. We also have to remember that the rubber, even in a fine particulate form is heavier than air and will sink to the ground. Yes it will be continually stirred up into the air as another vehicle rolls across it and grabs it and throws it back up in the air. So if I was a construction worker holding up a stop or slow sign on the highway while they are tearing up the road, things of that nature, I would probably wear an N95 mask or at least a paper mask to protect my lungs. People living in a house 50 ft away from a roadway that has maybe 5 or 10 cars go by it every day I wouldn’t really be too concerned.
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Well I call bull schist on this alarmist hype. Average passenger car tire only looses 8% of it’s total new weight as the tread becomes unserviceable and the tire must be replaced. And this occurs over typical life of 40,000 miles. And average annual mileage is 10,000, so this tire tread is lost over a 4 year period.
The amount of tire tread between a new tire and a worn one is an average of 912 grams, lost over 4 years. This compared to the new tire weight of 11,343 grams. Replacement passenger tires in the US is 200 million per year. So there is 182.4 million kg of tread rubber divided by 4 is 45.6 million kg per year being put into the environment.
The lower 48 states have an area of 2.949 million square miles. That puts tire dust at a value of 15.46 kg per square mile. That puts the density of the tire dust at 0.0000000000202 grams per square meter. Which is why you do not see tire dust accumulating on or near roads and highways!
Furthermore, it is made to be inert, impervious to water, many solvents and resistant to UV degradation, etc etc. So while it’s not good, it is not leaching into the water or ground. And the amount is exceptionally small per unit area – again which is why the only evidence you see from tires, is skid marks when someone does a burnout or locks up the brakes. And then half the rubber lost is burned not made into dust.
It is not the “problem” alarmist dogma makes it out to be when you run the numbers.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
In my productive years commuting to school and work over the span of many years, in dense traffic of over 1.5 million miles and 20+ cars I was exposed to tailpipe emissions of pre-cat convertors, tetra ethyl lead additives and yes, rubber dust. At 81 I’m still around walking two miles every other day and managing/maintaining my 4 Ac property and its mechanicals.
Early in my career as a lab tech I was exposed, unprotected, to Styrene , Butadiene & Vinyl Chloride monomers, plastisol and co-polymer dust and other assorted toxic chemicals.
In addition I’ve been using Roundup as long as it has been around.
And have been a consumer of process foods forever including my share of junk foods and carbonated sugar laced beverages.
As a Professional Chemical Engineer for over 55 years what’s the problem? Genetics???
Reply