Question map
Why is there a great concern about the 'microbeads' that are released into environment?
Explanation
The correct answer is option A because microbeads are a danger to the environment, especially the oceans because they do not easily degrade and are often washed into the sea[1]. They can cause physical and mechanical harm (e.g., cause abnormalities in internal organs) to marine organisms when they mistakenly ingest microplastics[2]. Additionally, as microplastics exist in micro-level to nano-level sizes, they are virtually impossible to remove once released into the environment[3], making them a persistent threat to marine ecosystems.
Option B is incorrect as there is no evidence in the sources linking microbeads to skin cancer in children. Option C, while microplastics can be absorbed by crops grown using soil or fertilizers that have microplastics in them[4], this is not the primary concern specifically about microbeads. Option D is incorrect as the sources do not mention microbeads being used as food adulterants; rather, humans consume fish that may be contaminated with microbeads[1], which is an indirect exposure pathway, not food adulteration.
Sources- [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151227/
- [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151227/
- [4] https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/microplastics-sources-health-risks-and-how-protect-yourself
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Buzzword Awareness' question. Microbeads were heavily debated in 2016-2018 due to bans in cosmetics (USA, UK, and proposed in India). While standard books cover 'Marine Pollution', the specific term 'microbeads' and their mechanism (passing through filtration systems) was purely a Current Affairs topic found in DownToEarth and The Hindu.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Are microbeads released into the environment harmful to marine ecosystems?
- Statement 2: Do microbeads released into the environment cause skin cancer in children?
- Statement 3: Can microbeads released into the environment be absorbed by crop plants in irrigated fields?
- Statement 4: Are microbeads released into the environment often found to be used as food adulterants?
- Explains microplastics are persistent and virtually impossible to remove once released, increasing long-term exposure.
- States microplastics pose hazards to humans and the environment and can cause physical/mechanical harm to marine organisms when ingested.
- Identifies ecotoxicity sources (polymers, monomers, additives, impurities) that can harm marine life.
- Describes chemical pathways by which microplastics are harmful: they can leach toxic chemicals as they break down.
- Notes microplastics can absorb other toxic substances, which can then be transported into environments, increasing ecological risk.
- Frames marine plastic pollution as having far-reaching ecological impacts on marine ecosystems.
- Provides an estimate of economic damage to marine ecosystems from plastics, indicating significant harmful effects.
Explicitly states that plastic pollution can interfere with plankton and other organisms that form the base of the marine food web.
A student could infer microbeads (a form of plastic) might similarly be ingested or physically interfere with plankton, propagating effects up the food web.
Notes that petroleum releases are particularly harmful to seabirds, zooplanktons, and microorganisms, showing that small-scale pollutants affect a range of marine life.
By analogy, a student could test whether micro-sized plastic beads similarly impact zooplankton and microorganisms through ingestion or surface interactions.
Lists general toxic and ecological effects in aquatic systems (toxin release, oxygen depletion, fish kills, loss of coral reefs).
A student could investigate whether microbeads contribute to these pathways (e.g., carrying toxins, shading affecting oxygen/primary production) to evaluate harm.
Describes marine ecosystem zones (pelagic, benthic, plankton presence) and that plankton are central in pelagic zones.
Using this, one could predict where microbeads accumulate (surface/pelagic vs. benthic) and which organisms (plankton, nekton, benthos) are most likely exposed.
Explains that pollutant impacts vary with proximity to shore, currents, season and community composition—showing pollutant effects depend on environmental context.
A student could use this pattern to assess microbead risk by combining knowledge of local currents, shorelines and sensitive habitats to judge likely harm.
This snippet links plastics and their manufacture/disposal to carcinogenic by-products (dioxin) and other toxic effects.
A student could note microbeads are plastic particles and therefore investigate whether they can carry or release similar carcinogenic chemicals into environments children contact.
This lists that water pollution can cause various cancers and skin diseases, showing pollutants in water can produce both cancerous and dermatological effects.
One could check whether microbeads contaminate water bodies and whether associated chemicals or sorbed pollutants on beads reach children (e.g., via bathing or drinking) to assess plausibility.
States certain pollutants (lead) particularly affect children and can sometimes cause cancer, illustrating children’s greater vulnerability to environmental toxicants.
A student could use this pattern to prioritize studying exposures of children to microbeads (hand-to-mouth, bathing) when evaluating cancer risk.
Explains that an environmental agent (UV-B from ozone depletion) is a known cause of skin cancer, showing environmental exposures can produce skin cancer via known mechanisms.
Use this as a model: identify plausible mechanisms (chemical carcinogens, increased exposure routes) by which microbeads or their sorbed chemicals might lead to skin cancer in children and then seek evidence for those mechanisms.
- Explicitly states that microplastics can be taken up by crops grown in contaminated soil or with contaminated fertilizers.
- Directly links microplastic presence in agricultural inputs/soil to plant uptake, which is the core of the statement about irrigated fields.
- Says fragmented micro- and nanoplastics are small enough to be absorbed by plants and animals.
- Supports the plausibility that microbeads in environmental media (soil, irrigation water) can enter crop plants and move into the food web.
- Describes how microplastics can absorb toxic substances and ‘hitch a ride’ onto agricultural land, introducing them into soils used for crops.
- Provides a pathway (transport to and leaching into agricultural soil) that would allow microbeads to become available for uptake by irrigated crops.
Describes drip/micro/localized irrigation that applies water close to the plant and wets only the root zone where uptake occurs.
A student could combine this with the fact that microbeads in irrigation water would be delivered directly to the root zone and then ask whether particle sizes and root uptake pathways permit entry into roots or rhizosphere retention.
Explains sprinkler irrigation sprays water over or under the crop canopy, exposing leaves as well as soil to irrigation water.
One could extend this to hypothesize that microbeads in sprayed water might deposit on leaf surfaces (foliar exposure) or fall to soil, so a student could check deposition patterns and leaf/epidermal uptake mechanisms.
Defines micro‑irrigation systems as using small-diameter supply/distribution lines and localized delivery (drip, micro-jet, micro-sprinkler).
A student might combine this with the observation that many such systems use plastic pipes/emitters and ask whether these systems could introduce or transport microplastic particles (microbeads) into irrigation water reaching crops.
Describes how in some irrigation methods water is held in strips and then absorbed into the soil so plants take water (and anything dissolved/suspended) from soil.
Using this, a student could infer that suspended microbeads present in irrigation water would enter the soil matrix where roots extract water, prompting examination of particle retention in soil vs availability to roots.
Notes that crop roots can penetrate deeper to extract moisture from the water table, indicating roots access water from different soil depths.
A student could extend this to consider whether microbeads that move with percolating irrigation water could reach root zones at varying depths and thus have opportunities to interact with roots.
- States microplastics leach toxic chemicals into soil and "hitch a ride onto agricultural land," indicating environmental contamination of food-growing areas rather than intentional use as food adulterants.
- Describes absorption of other toxic substances by microplastics, supporting the idea that they contaminate food chains through environmental pathways.
- Explains that microplastics are refractory to biodegradation and "virtually impossible to remove once released into the environment," supporting that they persist as contaminants rather than being deliberately added to food.
- Notes microplastics cause harm when ingested by organisms, indicating their role as pollutants entering the food chain unintentionally.
- Lists everyday activities (cloth washing, use of personal care products, driving, painting) that "would also release microplastic into the environment," indicating sources of unintentional environmental contamination.
- Supports the view that microplastics enter the environment from multiple diffuse sources rather than being used deliberately as food adulterants.
Shows that micron-sized plastic particles in the environment are readily ingested unselectively by aquatic organisms, indicating microparticles can enter the food web.
A student could extend this by tracing how ingestion by plankton/zooplankton could transfer microbeads up the aquatic food chain to fish and seafood consumed by people, suggesting a plausible route for microbeads to appear in food.
Explains that certain persistent organic pollutants become widely distributed and bioaccumulate in organisms and the food chain.
By analogy, a student can reason that persistent microplastics (like microbeads) released into environments may also accumulate in organisms and concentrate at higher trophic levels, increasing likelihood of detection in food.
Notes newspaper reports of pesticide residues in ready-made food and asks about potential sources of contamination entering food products.
A student could use this pattern (environmental contaminants reaching prepared foods) to hypothesize environmental microbeads as another contamination source to investigate in food testing.
Points out non-compliance with food safety regulations, implying regulatory gaps that can allow contaminants or adulterants to persist in the food supply.
A student could extend this by considering that weak enforcement might mean microbeads in environment or processing could go undetected in foods unless specifically monitored.
States that microorganisms and other small entities are present in water, soil and some food items, illustrating that tiny environmental particles can contaminate foods.
Combine this with knowledge that microbeads are small, a student could infer environmental presence makes contamination of exposed foods plausible and worth testing.
- [THE VERDICT]: Current Affairs Sitter. If you read about the 'Microbead-Free Waters Act' or similar bans, this was free marks. If you relied only on static ecology books, it was a guess.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Environmental Pollution > Marine Pollution > Plastic Waste Management Rules.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize: 1. Definition of Microplastics (<5mm). 2. Primary Microplastics (Microbeads, Nurdles) vs Secondary (breakdown of bottles). 3. Major sources: Synthetic Textiles (35%), Tyres (28%), City Dust (24%). 4. Bioaccumulation vs Biomagnification. 5. The 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch'.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Trace the lifecycle of the pollutant. Microbeads are in face wash -> go down the drain -> are too small for Sewage Treatment Plants -> enter Rivers/Oceans -> ingested by Zooplankton. The 'pathway' (Drain to Ocean) dictates the answer.
Plastics pollution can interfere with plankton species that form the foundation of the marine food web, disrupting ecosystem balance.
High-yield for environment questions: understanding how a pollutant class (plastics) affects foundational trophic levels links to biodiversity loss, fisheries decline and food security. Helps answer questions on pollutant pathways, bioaccumulation and cascading ecological effects.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 5: Environmental Pollution > 5.12. PLASTIG POLLUTION > p. 96
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 6: Environmental Degradation and Management > Sources of Marine Pollution > p. 45
Wastes and pollutant inputs alter dissolved oxygen concentrations and can lead to fish kills and loss of desirable species.
Crucial for questions on eutrophication, hypoxia and coastal management; connects water quality indicators to socio-economic impacts (fisheries, human health) and policy responses such as waste treatment and regulation.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 6: Environmental Degradation and Management > Sources of Marine Pollution > p. 45
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 4: Aquatic Ecosystem > Toxicity > p. 38
HAB events cause shellfish poisoning, marine mortalities and habitat alteration, and their occurrence is tied to environmental change.
Useful for integrated questions on climate change impacts, coastal ecosystem health and public health risks; enables answering linkage questions between climate drivers, ecosystem responses and management measures.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 4: Aquatic Ecosystem > 4.4.4.Is HAB's an environmental hazard? > p. 39
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 4: Aquatic Ecosystem > 4.4.7. HABs and Climate Change > p. 40
UV-B radiation increases the occurrence of skin cancer and is linked to ozone depletion.
High-yield for environment and health questions: explains the direct mechanism connecting atmospheric ozone depletion to human health (skin cancer, cataracts) and links to policy topics on CFCs and air quality. Useful for questions on environmental drivers of disease and public health responses.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 19: Ozone Depletion > Effects of human and animal health > p. 271
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 6: Environmental Degradation and Management > ozone depletion > p. 12
Dioxin produced during plastic manufacture and burning is described as highly carcinogenic and transferable to infants.
Important for questions on pollution-health nexus: connects plastic production/disposal practices to long-term cancer risk and maternal-child exposure pathways, informing policy debates on waste management and chemical regulation.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 5: Environmental Pollution > S.ro.3. Effects > p. 84
Lead accumulates in the environment, affects children in particular, and can in some cases cause cancer.
Essential for toxicology and public health segments: links industrial/consumer uses of lead to developmental and carcinogenic outcomes in children, relevant for regulatory, health screening, and remediation policy questions.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 5: Environmental Pollution > Lead > p. 64
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 5: Environmental Pollution > s.11. E - WASTE > p. 92
Irrigation method controls where water — and any suspended particles — is applied relative to the plant root zone.
High-yield for questions on contaminant transport and crop exposure because different systems (drip vs sprinkler vs surface) change soil wetting patterns and potential for particle contact with roots; connects water management, agronomy, and pollution vulnerability; enables analysis-style questions comparing risks under different irrigation types.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 12: Major Crops and Cropping Patterns in India > Other Methods of Irrigation > p. 73
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 11: Agriculture - Part II > 2. Drip/Trickle/Micro/Localized Irrigation > p. 334
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 11: Agriculture - Part II > 3. Sprinkler Irrigation > p. 335
While microbeads (cosmetics) get the attention, the largest source of primary microplastics in oceans is actually 'Laundering of Synthetic Textiles' (35%) and 'Abrasion of Tyres' (28%). Expect a question comparing sources.
Use the 'Sink Logic'. Microbeads are washed off the body -> down the drain. Where does drain water ultimately go? Water bodies. Option A (Marine) is the ultimate sink. Option C (Crops) implies irrigation (possible but secondary). Option B (Skin Cancer) implies direct dermal toxicity, but they are inert plastics. Option D (Adulterant) implies intentional addition to food, which is illogical for a waste product.
Links to GS-3 (Environment - Pollution) and GS-2 (Governance - Plastic Waste Management Rules). It also touches on International Relations via the UN 'Clean Seas' campaign.