1 . There is increasing alarm about the extent of micro plastic pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more poisonous form of plastic pollution entering remote reaches of the globe. A new study published in Environmental Research found significant quantities of nanoplastics in ice samples from both the North and South Poles.
“Now we know that nanoplastics are transported to these comers of the Earth in these quantities. This indicates that nanoplastics are really a bigger pollution problem than we thought,” study lead author Dusan Materic said in a press release.
Nanoplastics are plastics that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Their small size means they are more difficult to study than microplastics, or plastics between five millimeters and a micrometer. But they maybe even more dangerous.
“Nanoplastics are very toxicologically active compared to, for instance, microplastics, and that’s why this is very important” Materic said.
Materic and his team used new methods to measure nanoplastic pollution in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They sampled a 14-meter-deep ice core (核) from the Greenland icecap and sea ice from Antarcia’s McMurdo Sound. They found that there were an average of 13.2 nanograms per milliliter of nanoplastics in the Greenland ice and an average of 52.3 nanograms per milliliter in the Antarctic ice.
But what was even more surprising than the amount of nanoplastics in the remote ice was just how long they had sat there. “In the Greenland core, we see nanoplastic pollution happening all the way from the 1960s. So organisms, despite the lack of the solid evidence, likely all over the world, have been exposed to it for quite some time now,” Materic said.
The study also looked at the types of plastic present in the samples. Half of the Greenland nanoplastics were polyethylene (PE), the kind of plastic used for plastic bags and packaging. A quarter came from tires and a fifth were polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is, used for clothing and bottles.
1. Why should researchers focus more on nanoplastics?| A．They are more important to science. | B．They are smaller but more dangerous. |
| C．They are easily polluted by ocean water | D．They are more active in cold surroundings. |
| A．The Greenland core. | B．The Antarctic ice. |
| C．The amount of nanoplastics. | D．Nanoplastics pollution. |
| A．The North and South poles are the birthplace of nanoplastics. |
| B．Nanoplastics have less influence on the pa net than microplastics. |
| C．Nanoplastics found in the samples are widely used in the daily life. |
| D．Nanoplastics have been existing since the 1960s throughout the world. |
| A．Microplastics—proving more dangerous. |
| B．Nanoplastics—making its way to the poles. |
| C．Nanoplastics—posing a threat to people’s life. |
| D．Microplastics—setting the alarm bells ringing. |
2 . Every year, over 17 trillion pounds of plastic are washed into the oceans, making five huge areas in the world’s oceans “soups” of floating trash. One of these areas, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, is three times as large as France.
Over a year ago, a group called Ocean Cleanup began using a huge floating screen (隔板) to try to clean up plastic pollution in the ocean. After several failures, the group is now collecting plastic. But the plastic is spread out over a large area, so it’s impossible to collect it piece by piece. Ocean Cleanup’s plan is to gather up the floating plastic, making it easier to remove.
Boyan Slat, a member of Ocean Cleanup, got the idea for the Ocean Cleanup system: a 2,000-foot-long floating U-shaped tube with a screen hanging below it. As the tube and screen are pushed by the water and the wind, the U tube is meant to collect plastic trash, making it easy for a ship to collect and remove the plastic. The system uses the power of the wind and ocean, so it doesn’t need fuel.
The group began testing the first version, called “System 001”, in September, 2018. But it soon became clear that the screen was just moving with the plastic, not collecting it. But Mr. Slat saw the project as an experiment, which meant a failure is a chance to learn. The team collected and studied lots of information about what worked well and what didn’t. Then they changed the design. In last June, an improved version, called “System 001/B” was born.
The new version has a parachute (降落伞) attached to it. This makes the system move slightly slower than the plastic, allowing plastic to be collected inside, as planned. System 001/B is now collecting plastic of all sizes, from a large fishing net to tiny bits of plastic as small as 1 millimeter.
But this success is still just the beginning of the work for Ocean Cleanup. Now the group want to use what they’ve learned to design a better and larger system that can collect plastic for up to a year before a ship comes to remove it.
1. What was the problem that Ocean Cleanup faced at first?| A．The plastic was hard to collect. | B．The rubbish was too much. |
| C．They lacked good screens. | D．They had few members. |
| A．It proved to be a success. | B．It was connected to a ship. |
| C．It was environmentally friendly. | D．It collected plastic piece by piece. |
| A．Recycle clear plastic. | B．Work longer on the sea. |
| C．Have wide applications. | D．Collect tinier bits of plastic. |
| A．A magazine. | B．A guidebook. |
| C．A science fiction. | D．A diary. |
3 . Hardware in general, and smartphones in particular, have become a huge environmental and health problem in the Global South's landfill sites （垃圾填埋场）.
Electronic waste（ e-waste ） currently takes up 5 percent of all global waste, and it is set to increase rapidly as more of us own more than one smartphone, laptop and power bank. They end up in places like Agbogbloshie on the outskirts of Ghana's capital, Accra. It is the biggest e-waste dump in the world, where 10, 000 informal workers walk through tons of abandoned goods as part of an informal recycling process. They risk their health searching for the precious metals that are found in abandoned smartphones.
But Agbogbloshie should not exist. The Basel Convention, a 1989 treaty, aims to prevent developed nations from unauthorized dumping of e-waste in less developed countries. The e-waste industry, however, circumvents the regulations by exporting e-waste labelled as "secondhand goods" to poor countries like Ghana, knowing full well that it is heading for a landfill site.
A recent report found Agbogbloshie contained some of the most dangerous chemicals. This is not surprising: smartphones contain chemicals like mercury （水银），lead and even arsenic（砷）. Reportedly, one egg from a free-range chicken in Agbogbloshie contained a certain chemical which can cause cancer and damage the immune system at a level that's about 220 times greater than a limit set by the European Food Safety Authority（EFSA） . Most worryingly, these poisonous chemicals are free to pollute the broader soil and water system. This should concern us all, since some of Ghana's top exports are cocoa and nuts.
Some governments have started to take responsibility for their consumers' waste. For example, Germany has started a project that includes a sustainable （可持续的）recycling system at Agbogbloshie, along with a health clinic for workers. However, governments cannot solve the problem alone, as there is an almost limitless consumer demand for hardware, especially when governments green policies are focused on issues like climate change.
Only the manufacturers can fix this. A more economically sustainable and politically possible solution is through encouraging hardware manufacturers to make the repair, reuse and recycling of hardware profitable, or at least cost-neutral.
1. What can we infer from Paragraph 2？| A．Electronic products need improving urgently. |
| B．Electronic waste is too complex to get fully recycled. |
| C．Electronic waste requires more landfill sites across Ghana. |
| D．Electronic pollution is a burning question in Agbogbloshie. |
| A．Tightens. | B．Abolishes. |
| C．Gets around. | D．Brings in. |
| A．The violation of EFSA's standards. |
| B．The lack of diversity in Ghana's exports. |
| C．The damage to chicken's immune system. |
| D．The threat of polluted food around the world. |
| A．Manufacturers' developing a sustainable hardware economy. |
| B．Governments' adjusting their green policies about e-waste. |
| C．Reducing customers 'demands for electronic products. |
| D．Letting governments take on the main responsibility. |
4 . Fireworks have been enjoyed by countless people ever since they were invented in China during the Tang Dynasty hundreds of years ago. From small family gatherings (团聚) to huge global celebrations, there isn’t a party that couldn’t be made more fun with a few fireworks. But it seems that there’s a big price to pay for some brief beauty and fun.
It’s been discovered that fireworks contain metals such as copper (铜) and lead, in addition to other pollutants like perchlorates (高氯酸盐). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, perchlorates can form naturally or be made. They are an industrial chemical used in rocket fuel and explosives (炸药), and are soluble (可溶解的) in water.
This is a reason for concern because perchlorates negatively affect the thyroid gland (甲状腺), which influences important bodily functions like blood pressure and heart rate.
Furthermore, a study conducted by Terry Gordon, a professor at New York University, examined the emissions(排放物) whose sizes were big enough to enter the lungs. They concluded that these emissions may lead to various dangerous conditions like cancer, heart attacks, and strokes (中风).
It is worth noticing, however, that no studies have proven the connctions between these conditions and the dangerous chemicals in fireworks.
However, the negative effects of firework emissions can be observed in birds. Britain’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds warns against setting off fireworks close to wildlife areas as they may cause confusion among birds.
In 2010, an incident involving 5,000 red-winged blackbirds falling out of the sky on New Year’s Eve in Arkansas, US supported this idea. A fireworks display held at a nesting ground for blackbirds led to the birds’ night sight being affected, causing them to fall to their deaths.
Arguably (可以说), the use of fireworks during celebrations may be because people don’t realize how they pollute our environment. Companies and researchers could take this cue (线索) and find other new, eco-friendly ways.
After all, for all the beauty fireworks bring, there’s no better beauty than that of our planet’s.
1. According to the article, perchlorates contained in fireworks ______.| A．do harm to the thyroid gland |
| B．raise the risk of cancer |
| C．are dangerous when put in water |
| D．are made from copper and lead |
| A．fireworks are directly connected with lung cancer |
| B．the waste from fireworks could threaten our body |
| C．chemicals in fireworks could increase our blood pressure |
| D．our body is strong enough to fight against the pollutants in fireworks |
| A．Positive. | B．Negative. |
| C．Indifferent. | D．Neutral. |
5 . Scientists say a huge percentage of bird species are in danger because their habitats are disappearing.
The scientists studied the migration, or flight, paths, of almost 1,500 species and decided that 91 percent of them passed through dangerous areas. The major danger for migratory birds is development. Building and paving have covered over nature where birds stop and feed as they move from one part of the world to another.
For example, a bird called the bar-tailed godwit migrates from its breeding grounds in the Arctic. It flies all the way to Australia and New Zealand. The problem, according to investigators, is that many of these small birds die along their migration because they don't have a safe place to eat and rest. There is no place to restore their energy for the next part of their journey. "They simply perish along the way," says one of the scientists.
Countries in North Africa, Central Asia and those along the coasts of East Asia are having the most difficult time conserving land. The scientists say these countries do not have enough areas that are safe for birds.
"Our world gets poorer every time we lose a species,’’ one of the scientists says.
The researchers say countries need to work together and come up with safe stopover areas for birds that pass through their boundaries.
For example, one country might have preserved safe zones for migrating birds. But a neighbor country might not. A bird might die.
One scientist who is not involved in the report tells the Los Angeles Times that while some habitats are changing, more work can be done to make urban areas safe for birds. He says small changes—like planting more native plants or keeping cats out of areas birds would be likely to use—could make a big difference.
1. What’s the major danger for migratory birds according to the passage?| A．They can’t find enough food along the way. |
| B．They have lost their way because of human development. |
| C．Human development has occupied their natural habitats. |
| D．They are sometimes struck by human diseases. |
| A．They fly from the Arctic south to Australia every year. |
| B．They can pick out good resting place along the way. |
| C．They have died out because of human hunting. |
| D．They have their conserved land in Australia. |
| A．Continue. | B．Die. |
| C．Settle. | D．Migrate. |
| A．Countries working together to protect the sea. |
| B．Protecting the original habitats for the migrating birds. |
| C．Reserving some land for the birds to rest along the way. |
| D．Planting some native plants for the migrating birds to use. |
