1 . Plastic is everywhere, from the Arctic ice to vital organs in the human body. In fact, previous estimates suggest that the average person swallows a credit card-worth of microscopic plastic particles(颗粒) every week. But new research shows that this could actually be an understatement.
Microplastics are plastics smaller than 5 millimeters, found in industrial waste, beauty products, and formed during the degradation of larger plastic pieces. Over time, they break down into even smaller nanoplastics. These tiny particles can pass through our intestines and lungs into our bloodstreams, reaching vital organs like the heart and brain.
While the idea of eating plastic is unsettling in itself, the major concern here is that these plastic particles contain chemicals that can interrupt our body’s natural release of hormones, potentially increasing our risk of reproductive disorders and certain cancers. They can also carry toxins(毒素) on their surface like heavy metals.
In the past, researchers have shown bottled water can contain tens of thousands of identifiable plastic fragments in a single container. However, until recently, only the larger microplastics were detectable with available measuring tools, leaving the area of nanoplastics largely a mystery.
Using Raman microscopy (显微镜学), capable of detecting particles down to the size of a flu virus, the team measured an average of 240, 000 particles of plastic per liter of bottled water, 90 percent of which were nanoplastics, a revelation 10 to 100 times larger than previous estimates.
These plastics likely originate from the bottle material, filters used to “purify” the water, and the source water itself. “It is not totally unexpected to find so much of this stuff, ” the study’s lead author, Columbia graduate student Naixin Qian, said in a statement. His team hopes to expand their research into tap water and other water sources to better inform our exposure to these potentially dangerous particles. “The idea is that the smaller things get, the more of them I reveal, ” he added.
1. What is the primary focus of the new research?| A．The presence of plastic particles. | B．The use of plastic in everyday products. |
| C．The detection methods for microplastics. | D．The potential risks of nanoplastics to human. |
| A．Finding the source of plastic particles. | B．Helping to cure the deadly flu virus. |
| C．Detecting the smaller plastic particles. | D．Improving the quality of bottled water. |
| A．To focus on areas with higher plastic pollution. |
| B．To be aware of the dangerous particles in daily life. |
| C．To further measure the types of particles in tap water. |
| D．To detect the smaller plastic particles in industrial areas. |
| A．Skeptical. | B．Objective. | C．Conservative. | D．Positive. |
2 . New research links outdoor air pollution — even at levels considered safe — to an increased risk of diabetes (糖尿病) globally, according to a study from the VA St. Louis Health Care System. The findings raise the possibility that reducing pollution may lead to a drop in diabetes cases in heavily polluted countries such as India and less polluted ones such as the United States.
Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases, affecting more than 500 million people worldwide. The main drivers of diabetes include eating an unhealthy diet, having a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, but the new research indicates the extent to which outdoor air pollution plays a role.
“Our research shows a significant link between air pollution and diabetes globally,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the study’s senior author and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington. “We found an increased risk, even at low levels of air pollution currently considered safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This is important because many industry lobbying (游说) groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened.”
While growing evidence has suggested a link between air pollution and diabetes, researchers have not attempted to quantify that burden until now. “Over the past two decades, there have been bits of research about diabetes and pollution,” said Al-Aly. “We wanted to thread together the pieces for a broader, more solid understanding.”
The researchers also found that the overall risk of pollution-related diabetes tilted (倾斜) more toward lower-income countries such as India that lack the resources for environmental mitigation systems and clean-air policies. For instance, poverty-stricken countries facing a higher diabetes-pollution risk include Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and Guyana, while richer countries such as France, Finland and Iceland experience a lower risk. The US experiences a medium risk of pollution-related diabetes.
1. What does the underlined word “stringent” in paragraph 3 mean?| A．Strict. | B．Slight. |
| C．Bright. | D．Ordinary. |
| A．To identify the causes of diabetes. |
| B．To make better air pollution control policies. |
| C．To lead the study of diabetes and air pollution. |
| D．To figure out the link between pollution and diabetes. |
| A．India. | B．Finland. |
| C．The US. | D．Guyana. |
| A．Current pollution control levels need to be tightened |
| B．Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases globally |
| C．Air pollution contributes significantly to diabetes globally |
| D．Poverty-stricken countries face a higher diabetes-pollution risk |
3 . To solve a big environmental problem, chemists have been thinking small. Really small: a new mini robot with the purpose of helping clean up tiny plastic that pollutes water across the world.
The new microrobots, each of which is no bigger than the tip of a pencil, are magnetic(有磁性的)and shaped like four-pointed stars. When the sunlight shines on them, they can swim in a direction; when the sunlight disappears, they stop moving. Finding a piece of plastic, they hold onto it, produce chemical reactions and start to break it down.
The project is led by chemist Martin Pumera, a researcher who also studies ways to build microrobots at the Czech University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. About ten years ago, he noticed the microplastic was everywhere, from the bottom of the ocean to the ice on the top of mountains. It even turned up in drinking water, both bottled and tap water. Just think about how much plastic you meet every day. It doesn’t easily degrade ( 降 解 ) which is a big problem. Therefore, Pumera chose to focus on the problem of water pollution caused by microplastic.
The researchers tested the microrobots on four types of plastic in the lab. After a week, all four began degrading, losing around 3 percent of their weight, which showed the microrobots were breaking the plastic down. The robots also turned the plastic’s smooth surface into the rough one. Finally, the scientists showed that magnets could attract the microrobots at the end of the test - along with the plastic waste.
In fact, Pumera says they still have a long way to go. These microrobots are unlikely to succeed in degrading all types of plastic. They’ll also need a lot of testing to show that they’re safe in open waterways, such as at sea. But he thinks that these challenges can be overcome. Someday, the microrobots will play a big role in a worldwide cleanup effort.
1. What can be learned about the new microrobot?| A．It is in the shape of a ball. | B．It is as small as a pencil. |
| C．It is driven by sunlight. | D．It uses physical reactions. |
| A．The microplastic pollution. | B．The ice on the mountains. |
| C．The need for drinking water. | D．The development of ocean resources. |
| A．Sorting it into four types. | B．Making its surface smooth. |
| C．Taking in it completely. | D．Breaking it down to some degree. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Confident. | C．Regretful. | D．Uncertain. |
4 . Electronic waste, also known as e-waste, consists of a discarded phones, printers, TVs, electric toothbrushes and many other electronic goods no longer in use.
A shocking 53. 6 million tons of electronic waste was generated worldwide in 2019 — less than a fifth of which was recycled, according to UN's Global E-waste Monitor 2020 report.
Of the total e-waste last year, Asia contributed the biggest amount — 46.4 per cent — followed by the Americas(24.4 percent), Europe (22.3 percent), Africa (5.4 percent) and Oceania (1.3 percent).
The combined heap of e-waste for 2019 averaged 7. 3 kg for every man, woman and child on Earth. The UK averaged the second-biggest in the world, at 23.9 kg, behind Norway, which averaged 26kg.
The report also reveals that just 17.4 percent of the e-waste was properly collected and recycled. E-waste is a health and environmental hazard (危害), containing hazardous substances such as mercury, which damages the human brain.
After a device is discarded and e-waste is warmed up, toxic chemicals are released into the air, damaging the atmosphere. E-waste in landfills can also seep (渗透) toxic materials into groundwater, affecting animals and plants.
Gold, silver, copper, and other high-value materials were collectively valued at $57 billion. However, they were mostly dumped or burned rather than being collected for treatment and reuse. In countries with developing markets, an increasing number of household electronics like refrigerators, air conditioners, and lamps are now being bought, leading to the rapid increase in e-waste. A global obsession with smart phones, which tend to be replaced by an updated model after a year, also helps build e-waste piles.
It's not that countries don't have policies to fight e-waste since 2014, the number of countries that have adopted a national e-waste policy has increased from 61 to 78, the report says. But advances are slow, enforcement (执行) is poor, and policies fail to encourage the collection and proper management of e-waste. The lack of effective policies around the world needs to be addressed (解决) as soon as possible.
1. According to official figures, how much e-waste was recycled in 2019?| A．53.6 million tons. | B．10.8 million tons. |
| C．9.3 million tons. | D．20.1 million tons. |
| A．health condition | B．electronic products |
| C．energy resources | D．environmental protection |
| A．Tolerant. | B．Indifferent. | C．Ambiguous. | D．Critical. |
| A．E-waste is increasing. | B．E-waste is being reduced. |
| C．E-waste is harmful to people. | D．E-waste is being encouraged. |
5 . On average, we each eat more than 20 kilograms of fish per year. Worldwide, between 1961 and 2016, fish consumption increased faster than meat consumption, and grew twice as fast as the human population. All of these fishy dinners have reduced marine fish stocks to a point where a third of global fish stocks are now classed as "overfished". Fishing also has negative impacts on non-food species in the ecosystem, and pollutes the waters with fishing waste. Temporary fishing bans may help, but what if we banned fishing altogether?
One thing is for sure: the ocean would hopefully become a better place for marine species. Recent years have seen plastic products much less used as the public has woken up to the effects of marine plastics. But few people realize the contribution that fishing makes. Pieces of abandoned fishing tools account for about 10 percent of all marine litter, and according to a 2018 study, 86 percent of the big pieces of plastics floating in the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". Without fishing, we'd also wipe out emission from fishing boats. One 2014 study claimed that fishing industry was actually highly fuel-consuming, like lobsters, with some boats using 20,000 liters of fuel to catch a single ton.
However, what we must not forget is that our planet is highly dependent on fishing in various ways. Around the world,40 million people earn their living directly from catching wild fish, while another 19 million are employed in relevant industries. A total ban on fishing would make it hard for them to put food in their families' mouths. Moreover, seafood is a major source of protein across Southeast Asia and islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. So while in Europe or the US people could eat more meat or soy products to make up for lost protein, there could be food shortage in communities with little land-based farming.
Though not a realistic choice, a total fishing ban is an interesting thought experiment, which may throw light on how man can get along with marine species. After all, the damage fishing does to the entire ecosystem and the pollution it brings about are becoming so enormous that it's time we did something to change it.
1. Why would the ocean become a better place if we banned fishing altogether?| A．Because there would be less pollution to the ocean. |
| B．Because the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" would disappear. |
| C．Because lobster fishing boats would consume less fuel. |
| D．Because people would realize the effects of using plastics. |
| A．Some would suffer from a lack of food. |
| B．Some would change their diet and eat less meat. |
| C．Some communities would start developing land-based farming. |
| D．Some workers would have to find jobs in fishing-relevant industries. |
| A．Favorable. | B．Objective. | C．Disapproving. | D．Concerned. |
| A．The Urgent Need of a Total Fishing Ban. | B．The Harmful Effects of Fishing industry. |
| C．A Newly Launched Policy on Fishing Industry. | D．An Assumption of a Complete Fishing Ban. |
6 . Taking in dirty air does great harm to our health. Air pollution lowers the average life spans by a year worldwide and in more polluted parts of Asia and Africa, dirty air shortens lives up to twice that much. Scientists shared their new findings in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. The study used data gathered in 2016 as part of a project known as the Global Burden of Disease and was the first major country-by-country look at the connection between the length of life and what’s known as fine PM.
Air pollution has been linked to many health problems. Most earlier studies had looked at how tiny air pollutants affected rates of illness or death. Joshua Apte is an environmental scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. By looking at life expectancy (预期寿命), his team had hoped to make the threat easier to understand. PM2.5 is what scientists call tiny particles (颗粒) of pollution in the air. Higher levels of PM2.5 can cause health problems and cut months, if not years, from the average length of life. This analysis shows how pollution affects life expectancy in different parts of the world.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends limiting PM2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Apte’s group calculated how holding pollution to this low level would help people. In countries with very dirty air, meeting this standard would lengthen people’s lives. However, in countries whose air already meets this standard, the study shows no gain in life expectancy. In other words, meeting the WHO standard won’t reduce health costs resulting from dirty air because even below 10 micrograms per cubic meter, pollution still causes serious risks. Meanwhile, the scientists compared how other threats including smoking and cancer shorten the length of life across the globe.
1. What is special about the study?| A．It won recognition from a professional journal. |
| B．It discussed health problems caused by air pollution. |
| C．It gathered lots of data for the Global Burden of Disease. |
| D．It analyzed the link between life spans and PM by country. |
| A．Help people better understand air pollution. |
| B．Study life expectancy in different countries. |
| C．Know how small air pollutants affect health. |
| D．Deal with different kinds of health problems. |
| A．People’s life spans will surely increase. |
| B．It will guarantee people clean air. |
| C．People’s health may not be much improved. |
| D．It will be awarded by the WHO. |
| A．How other threats shorten life expectancy. |
| B．How cleaning up the air can lengthen lives. |
| C．How air pollution shortens lives by country. |
| D．How all the countries deal with severe pollution. |
7 . The World Health Organization warns that millions of people are dying every year from indoor air pollution. Nearly three billion people are unable to use clean fuels and technologies for cooking, heating as well as lighting.
These findings show that the use of deadly fuels in inefficient stoves, space heaters or lights is to blame for many of these deaths.
WHO officials say indoor pollution leads to early deaths from stroke, heart and lung disease, childhood pneumonia and lung cancer. Women and girls are the main victims. These diseases can often result from the burning of solid fuels. These fuels include wood, coal, animal waste, crop waste and charcoal.
The United Nations found that more than 95 percent of households in sub-Saharan Africa depend on solid fuels for cooking. It says huge populations in India, China and Latin American countries, such as Guatermala and Peru,are also at risk.
Nigel Brace is a professor of Public Health at the University of Liverpool. He says researchers are developing good cook-stoves and other equipment to burn fuels in a more efficient way.There are already multiple technologies available for use in clean fuels.There is really quite an effective and reasonably low-cost alcohol stove made by Dometic (a Sweden-based company) that is now being tested out. LPG (Liquefield Petroleum Gas) cook is obviously widely available and efforts are under way to make those efficient. Another interesting development is electric induction stoves. WHO experts note that some new, safe and low-cost technologies that could help are already available. In India, you can buy an induction stove for about $8.00. And in Africa you can buy a solar lamp for less than $1.00.
But this,the agency says, is just a start. It is urging developing countries to use cleaner fuels and increase access to cleaner and more modern cooking and heating appliances/devices.
1. What does the indoor pollution mainly result from?| A．Poisonous fuels. | B．High technology. | C．Space heaters. | D．Solar energy. |
| A．By showing differences. | B．By describing a process. |
| C．By making a list. | D．By analyzing data. |
| A．Indoor pollution results in some deaths. |
| B．Most of the deaths are in developing countries. |
| C．The solid fuels are used in more effective ways. |
| D．There is no indoor pollution in developed countries. |
| A．LPG cooks are being tested out. | B．Alcohol stoves are widely used now. |
| C．Electric induction stoves are expensive. | D．Solar lamps are very cheap in Africa. |
8 . Nobody wants to snack on plastic bags or soda rings, but according to a recent study from the University of Neweastle, we could be consuming roughly a credit card's worth of plastic every week.
Microplastic, which are less than a quarter-inch size and come in various shapes, have polluted the natural world and infiltrated(渗入)our bodies. The first clue to microplastic exposure in humans came around 2013, when scientists discovered plastic particles in seafood prepared for consumption. But in 2019, when the University of Newcastle study was published, the scientific community understood that the problem was considerably broader. Microplastics shed off clothes and tires and have been found in beer, honey, table salt and other food items. We breathe in plastic staying in the air and drink plastic floating in our drinks. It's no stretch to conclude that our exposure is significant. What we don't know is what this means for us.
The amount of evidence collected on this subject is growing rapidly, according to Scott Coffin, a toxicologist(毒理学家). Studies done on mice and rats have found that plastic in their bodies can severely damage cells and cause stress.
Because microplastics are too small to clean up, the only solution is to stop plastic waste at the source. And doing so would take a thorough adjustment, given that plastics are deeply embedded in our economy and lifestyle. Stopping using them would fundamentally affect countless industries, including textiles(纺织业), transportation and manufacturing.
"I think we need to have more studies coming out that are directly related to human health before we see a lot more concern from the general public," Scott said. "It takes a lot to convince people that something that is really convenient for them to use is something they should sacrifice."
The question of microplastics and human health needs more attention—from the scientific community ,the general public, the government and funding groups. The issue isn't being ignored, but it's not being prioritized either.
1. What does the second paragraph mainly tell us about microplastics?| A．Their wide usage in daily life. |
| B．Their harm to human health. |
| C．Their significant exposure in humans. |
| D．The new study conducted on them. |
| A．The way that microplastics exist. |
| B．The pollution caused by microplastics. |
| C．The relationship between microplastics and human health. |
| D．The reason for the existence of microplastics. |
| A．To cut down plastic production. |
| B．To carry out more studies on mice and rats. |
| C．To invent something more convenient than plastics. |
| D．To promote people's awareness on the harm brought by microplastics. |
| A．Is Microplastic pollution harmful to our health? |
| B．Why is Microplastic pollution everywhere? |
| C．Why is plastic harmful? |
| D．What do you know about Microplastics? |
9 . White sand beaches of the Cocos Islands, which are known as a splendid tourist destination surrounded by greenish blue water, have now been filled with wastes like abandoned plastic water bottles, toothbrushes and cigarette lighters.
Jennifer Lavels, a marine scientist, went to these tropical islands with her research team. Knowing that lots of beaches were polluted by plastic wastes, the team conducted a careful scientific examination on the coast, only to find the problem caused by pieces of trash humans left was worse than expected.
Not all plastics are to blame. They are necessary in places like hospitals and airplanes , and make our vehicles lighter and more efficient. However , other plastics, especially disposable(一次性的) plastics , account for the growing mess on the beaches. Islands all over the world are jammed with plastics. And the Cocos Islands are no exception.
It requires the greatest effort of all time to control plastic pollution in modern society. No matter how tall the hurdles are , something has to be done.
Apparently, demand for disposable plastics must be reduced greatly. “Why don't we carry around bags that we can use over and over again?” asked Richard Gross, a chemist who researches innovative ways to make more sustainable plastics. “Let's carry about reusable lunch boxes. We should understand how serious the situation is.”
Although it is important for individuals to make an effort to avoid using disposable plastics, it is also generally believed that only with international rules can such a deep- rooted, common, and worldwide disaster be tackled.
However, the U.N, which engages in dealing with accelerating climate change and public health crises , obviously isn't paying enough attention to calling for international action on plastic pollution. As a result, billions of plastic products will still be produced every year, many of which will end up in the ocean.
Nowadays, fish are eating plenty of plastics, and people eat those fish. It remains unrevealed how it will affect human health, but clearly the amount of plastics used has increased many times in the last several decades, and if this tendency goes on , by 2050 an enormous amount of carbon will be released into the already carbon-saturated
(碳饱和的)skies.
1. Why does the author mention the Cocos Islands in the first paragraph?
| A．To admire the white sand on the islands. |
| B．To present the problem of plastic pollution. |
| C．To introduce a newly-made scientific study. |
| D．To show the damage of the islands caused by tourists. |
| A．People don't take the problem seriously. |
| B．The problem is too tough to deal with. |
| C．The problem is as difficult as jumping over tall hurdles. |
| D．Measures must be taken whatever difficulty there is. |
| A．It's doubtful. | B．It's favourable. | C．It's uncaring. | D．It's cautious. |
| A．Ocean pollution caused by plastics |
| B．Cocos Islands——An unforgettable attraction. |
| C．A scientific research on disposable plastics. |
| D．Disposable plastics——A major concern in the world |
10 . Plastic is the workhorse material of the modern economy. Light and durable, it’s been used to make a vast number of products since its introduction over 100 years ago.
However, a study carried out by the World Economic Forum, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation(基金会) and McKinsey &Company showed the breakdown of the status of the global plastic system. A full 32% of the 78 million tons of plastic packaging produced annually is left to flow into out oceans.
The Ocean Cleanup, a startup founded in 2013, is the brainchild of Boyan Slat, who came up with the idea for the company when he was just 17 years old. Since then, it has received more than $2 million in funding(基金). The company plans to use a large device that will be fixed to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. This will have arms that spread out over 100 km, getting all of the plastic garbage pushed into its nets. This is then collected by a 10,000 metrecube container that will be emptied monthly.
Most recently, the Ocean Cleanup launched a team of explorers aboard a specially refitted C130 Hercules aircraft heavily loaded with specialized sensor equipment. It discovered that the problem was worse than expected with an abundance of plastics measuring up to 1.5m across and at a higher density than previously thought. The organization will continue to pilot the device and will start removing the pile before the end of the decade.
Once the plastic is out, what should we do with it? The foundation hopes that the plastic from the ocean will have a commercial value which can help to fund the project. Ocean plastic is not easy to use, for it’s mixed with everything from intact PET bottles to microplastics. However, some of the world’s biggest companies also see the chance to market products made of ocean plastic.
Transforming today’s plastic economy from its present form (takemakewaste) to a zero waste circular economy (takemaketakemake) is a difficult challenge. However, with cooperative action from producers, recyclers, governments and consumers alike and continuing innovation, it can be done.
1. What’s Boyan Slat’s idea about?| A．A way to collect ocean plastic waste. | B．A new product made of ocean plastic. |
| C．A machine to recycle plastic garbage. | D．An organization to research into plastic. |
| A．About 35 tons. | B．About 25 tons. | C．About 45 tons. | D．About 55 tons. |
| A．It’ll sponsor the foundation. | B．It’ll be recycled by the government. |
| C．It’ll be turned into treasure. | D．It’ll take the form of takemakewaste. |
| A．A diary. | B．A guidebook. | C．A novel. | D．A magazine. |
