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.

2. What is the advantage of Raman microscopy?

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.

3. Why will the team expand their research into tap 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.

4. What is Qian’s attitude towards his research?

A．Skeptical.

B．Objective.

C．Conservative.

D．Positive.

2 . 阅读下面短文，在空白处填入1个适当的单词或括号内单词的正确形式。

When travelling overseas, do you buy water in plastic bottles or take your chances with tap water? Imagine you are wandering about on a Thai island or     1     (admire) the ruins of Angkor. It’s hot so you grab a bottle of water from a local vendor. It’s the safe thing to do, right? The bottle is sealed, and the label says “pure water”. But maybe what’s inside is not so     2     (nature). Would you still drink it if you     3     (know) that more than 90 percent of all bottled water sold around the world contains microplastics?

That’s the conclusion of a recently     4     (release) study, which analyzed 259 bottles from 11 brands sold in nine countries, revealing an average of 325 plastic particles per liter of water. These microplastics included a substance commonly known as PET and     5     (wide) used in the manufacture of clothing and food and liquid     6     (contain). The study was conducted at the State University of New York     7     behalf of Orb Media, a journalism organization. About a million bottles are bought every minute, not only by thirsty tourists but also by many of the 2.1 billion worldwide     8     live with unsafe drinking water.

Confronted with this evidence, several bottled-water manufacturers including Nestle and Coca-Cola undertook     9     (they) own studies using the same methodology. These studies showed that their water did contain microplastics,     10     far less than the Orb study suggested. Regardless, the World Health Organization has launched a review into the potential health risks of drinking water from plastic bottles.

3 . There are a lot of chemicals that can cause indoor air pollution. A recent project conducted has found over 900 different substances in our home are related to it. Many researchers have already examined the causes of indoor air pollution.     1    

It has been proved that different kinds of chemicals can be released by building materials and new furniture. Everything from painting and decorating products, bathroom cleaners and beauty products can contain these chemicals.     2     For instance, cooking generates a lot of harmful emissions, like frying meat in oil.

As a research from Denmark has highlighted, cooking, particularly roasting can damage our body. Roast dinners contain many potentially harmful pollutants.     3     When exposed to cooking emissions, people actually had DNA damage. It can be associated with cell repair processes that trigger cancer—causing genetic changes.     4     And what can we do with it?

As far as cooking emissions are concerned, no one is suggesting switching to takeaways.     5     For example, cooking meat at high temperatures with lots of fat produces more harmful emissions than boiling pasta. Besides, opening windows and using cooker hoods are preferable so that we can enjoy the roasted meat without those undesirable effects.

A．In the long run, these changes lead to cancer.

B．They might also arise from cooking at home.

C．A wide range of sources are under investigation.

D．Therefore, what results from indoor air pollution?

E．However, most of us have ignored their bad effects.

F．So, what are the main contributors to poor air quality?

G．But we can change how we cook to deal with the emissions.

4 . Around 40 million tonnes of electronic waste, known as e-waste, is produced every year. This includes electrical or electronic equipment that has been discarded. But where does it all go? In the US alone, 100 million mobile phones, 41 million computers and over 20 million televisions are thrown into landfills in a year. Even for standard waste this is a big headache, because any materials that are buried in the ground can’t be easily recovered and recycled. Recycling electronics can save energy and means that less of Earth’s natural resources need to be mined.

Failing to recycle e-waste is extremely damaging the environment due to the nature of the materials used in modern devices. While heavy metals and chemicals improve a device’s safety and user experience, these components become poisonous if they’re not dealt with properly. Your old phones, Gameboys, kettles, microwaves and more can end up in landfills, leaking their harmful contents into the soil, water and air. Not only does this kill wildlife and destroy ecosystems, but the accumulation of poison can impact human health too. As heavy metals and chemicals flow into lakes and rivers, drinking water becomes polluted. These poisons spread through the soil, impacting the health of crops and animals that people also rely on.

In some western countries, e-waste isn’t hidden out of sight in landfills but is burnt in giant, open junkyards. They even ship waste electronics to other countries to deal with, and this often ends up in dumps across Africa and Asia. Workers in these places are exposed to polluted lands and chemical gas.

It is urgent that we should reduce the damaging and unsustainable side of e-waste production. Rare earth metals, some plastics and chemicals can be fed into the next generation of electronics. The steps to proper recycling of e-waste are extensive and need large investment, but more and more countries around the world are turning to e-waste recycling.

1. What does the underlined word “discarded” in Paragraph 1 mean?

A．Repaired.

B．Protected.

C．Used.

D．Abandoned.

2. What can be learned from Paragraph 2?

A．E-waste has a permanent effect on the environment.

B．E-waste may do harm to both ecosystems and humans.

C．Heavy metals and chemicals are poisonous to the users.

D．Burying e-waste into landfills is an effective way to recycle.

3. As for some western countries’ actions, the author is ________.

A．supportive

B．objective

C．concerned

D．uncertain

4. What might the author continue to talk about?

A．Solutions to destroying e-waste.	B．Ways to recycle e-waste properly.
C．Applications of recycled materials.	D．Investments in restoring ecosystems.

5 . In the first test of its kind in Europe, and only the second in the world, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws (吸管) for the group of synthetic (合成的) chemicals known as poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The straws are made from five materials — paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and plastic. PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo. They were not found only in steel straws tested.

PFAS are used to make everyday products, from outdoor clothing to non-stick pans, resistant (抵抗to water, heat and stains. They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife and the environment. They have been related to a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines (疫苗), lower birth weight, thyroid disease, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer. They break down very slowly over time and can last thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as “forever chemicals”.

A growing number of countries, including the UK and Belgium, have sopped the sale of single-use plastic products, including drinking straws, and plant-based versions have become popular. The PFAS concentrations (浓缩物) were low in them and, bear in mind that most people tend to only use straws occasionally, bringing a limited risk to human health. However, PFAS can remain in the body for many years and concentrations can build up over time.

It isn’t known whether the PFAS were added to the straws by the producer for waterproofing or the PFAS were the result of contamination. Potential sources of contamination include the soil the plant-based materials were grown in and the water used in the production process. However, the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straws means it is likely that it was, in some cases, being used as a water-resistant coating, say the researchers.

1. Why are PFAS called “forever chemicals”?

A．They are commonly seen in daily life.

B．They bring humans health problems.

C．They remain in the environment for long.

D．They can resist water, heat and stains.

2. How can PFAS harm people’s health?

A．By bringing people air pollution.

B．By polluting humans’ food.

C．By building up little by little in humans’ body.

D．By making people addicted to drinking easily.

3. What does the underlined word “contamination” in the last paragraph mean?

A．Pollution.

B．Discovery.

C．Experiment.

D．Development.

4. What does the text mainly talk about?

A．More and more countries give up single-use plastic products.

B．PFAS are widely used in the production of daily necessities.

C．Certain kinds of new synthetic chemicals were discovered.

D．Environment-friendly drinking straws are actually harmful.

6 . Perhaps one day, robots could be cleaning up human-caused pollution in the ocean. At least that’s what scientists hope to achieve with the development of Jellyfish-Bot (水母机器人), a robotic device which looks like a jellyfish that could help pick up pollutants underwater.

The robot is about the size of a hand. The artificial muscles, called HASELs, can contract and expand, allowing Jellyfish-Bot to move through the water. Like a real jellyfish, the robot’s movements create currents beneath it. Jellyfish use the currents to collect nutrients, while Jellyfish-Bot uses these motions to trap pollutants. The robots move at a speed of 6.1 centimeters per second, trapping objects along the way, whether it’s a single robot or multiple ones working together. With larger objects, it may require at least two robots to collect and bring the items to the surface for recycling.

“It is also able to collect fragile biological samples such as fish eggs. Meanwhile, there is no negative impact on the surrounding environment. The interaction with aquatic (水生的) species is gentle and nearly noise-free,” explained Tianlu Wang, a postdoctoral researcher.

According to the researchers, the robot is no louder than background noise, so it shouldn’t menace sea life. The insulating polymer (绝缘聚合物) shell around the robot shouldn’t harm humans or fish if it were to be torn apart.

For now, the robots are powered by thin wires, which prohibits their practical use in oceanic settings. But the scientists hope that they can achieve a wireless Jellyfish-Bot in the near future.

“Seventy percent of oceanic litter is estimated to sink to the seabed. Plastics make up more than 60% of this litter, taking hundreds of years to degrade. Therefore, we saw an urgent need to develop a robot to move or control objects such as litter and transport it upwards,” Scientist Hyeong-Joon Joo said. “We hope that underwater robots could one day assist in cleaning up our oceans.”

1. What is paragraph 2 mainly about?

A．The working principle of Jellyfish-Bot.

B．The main parts of Jellyfish-Bot.

C．The effect of the robot on the ocean.

D．The threat of pollutants to the ocean.

2. What does the underlined word “menace” mean in paragraph 4?

A．Destroy.

B．Threaten.

C．Transform.

D．Dominate.

3. What do we know about wireless Jellyfish-Bots?

A．They have been widely used underwater.

B．They lack practical use in oceanic settings.

C．They will take the place of the wire robots.

D．They will be researched and developed for use.

4. Which of the following is a suitable title for the text?

A．It’s of great urgency to clean up ocean pollutants

B．A new function of robot is just around the corner

C．Jellyfish-Bot makes a lot of difference to the ocean

D．An underwater robot could help clean up ocean pollutants

7 . The increased use of light-emitting diodes (LED) and other forms of lighting are now brightening the night sky at a dramatic rate. Research has revealed that light pollution is now causing the night sky to brighten at a rate of around 10% a year, an increase that threatens to ruin the sight of all but the most brilliant stars in a generation. A child born where 250 stars are visible at night today would only be able to see about 100 by the time they reach 18.

Physicist Christopher Kyba, of the German Centre for Geosciences told the Observer. “A couple of generations ago, people would have regularly encountered this glittering (闪耀) vision of the universe—but what was formerly universal is now extremely rare.” Nevertheless, the introduction of only a modest number of changes to lighting could make a considerable improvement, Kyba argued. These moves would include ensuring outdoor lights are carefully capped, point downwards, have limits placed on their brightness, and are not predominantly blue-white but have red and orange components.

The problem is that light pollution is still not perceived by the public to be a threat. As Professor Oscar Corcho, of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, has put it: “The negative consequences of light pollution are as unknown by the population as those of smoking in the 80s.”

Yet action is now urgently needed. Apart from its astronomical impact, light pollution is harming human health. “When reddish light shines on our bodies, it stimulates mechanisms including those that break down high levels of sugar in the blood. Since the introduction of LEDs, that part of the spectrum (光谱) has been removed from artificial light and it is playing a part in the waves of obesity (肥胖) and rises in diabetes cases we see today,” said Prof Fosbury from University College London (UCL),

UCL researchers are preparing to install additional infrared (红外线) lamps in hospitals and intensive care units (ICU) to see if they have an effect on the recovery of patients who would otherwise be starved of light from this part of the spectrum.

1. What does the author want to show by citing the child’s example?

A．More objects in the universe will disappear.

B．Light pollution is blinding our view of the stars.

C．People’s perception of the universe is inadequate.

D．New forms of lighting have made stars unnecessary.

2. What does Kyba think of the moves to ease light pollution?

A．They are practical.	B．They are rarely successful.
C．They aren’t worth the effort.	D．It takes ages to see the result.

3. What is top on the agenda of solving light pollution?

A．Controlling population growth.

B．Changing people’s perception.

C．Exploring the unknown universe.

D．Banning smoking in public places.

4. What does the follow-up study aim to find out about infrared lamps?

A．Whether they help patients recover.

B．Whether they increase obesity risk.

C．Whether they leave people starving.

D．Whether they raise blood sugar level.

8 . 阅读下面短文，在空白处填入1个适当的单词或括号内单词的正确形式。

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan was     1     (severe) damaged by a tsunami in 2011, leading to a major nuclear disaster. Since then, water has been continuously used     2    (cool) the damaged reactors (反应堆) and prevent further damage.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the     3    (operate) of the plant, said that the storage tanks took up too much space due to the wastewater. So Japan initially said that it     4    (begin) releasing the water into the ocean in the spring of 2023.

On March 17, part of the equipment     5    was related to the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant started operation for     6    first time, according to Japanese media TV Asahi.

According to The Guardian, the Japanese government argued that the water     7    (treat) to remove most of the radioactive isotopes (同位素), so the water would be safe to be released into the ocean.

However, not everyone agrees with this decision. Environmental groups and local fishermen have expressed concern about the impact of the wastewater     8    marine life and the fishing industry, the BBC reported.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on March14 once again denounced (谴责) Japan’s unilateral (单边的) decision to dump nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea,     9    (consider) the move an attempt to shift the risk of nuclear pollution to all of mankind.

The ministry also warned the country not to start the plan     10    full consultation (磋商) with its neighbors and relevant international institutions.

9 . There is increasing alarm about the extent of microplastic pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more toxic 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 corners 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 may be even more dangerous.

“Nanoplastics are very toxicologically (毒理学地) 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 from the Greenland ice cap and sea ice from Antarctica’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 in that region, 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.

2. What can we learn about nanoplastics?

A．The North and South poles are the birthplace of nanoplastics.

B．Kanoplastics have less influence on the planet 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.

3. What does the underlined word ‘that region’ refer to in Para 6?

A．Greenland ice cap.	B．Antarctica’s McMurdo.
C．The south and north poles.	D．All places in the world.

4. Which of the following can be the best title for the text?

A．Mircoplastics—proving more dangerous.	B．Nanoplastics—making its way to the poles.
C．Nanoplastics—posing a threat to people’s life.	D．Mircoplastics—setting the alarm bells ringing.

10 . The process of mountaintop removal mining (MTR) has caused permanent damage to Appalachia. Although the law requires that mining companies restore the mountaintops after the mining has been completed, the 1.5 million acres of mountains that have already been removed cannot be regrown, rebuilt, or replaced. The companies do secure the rock formations to prevent erosion and landslides, but their efforts cannot recreate the once-beautiful mountain landscape. Furthermore, while companies are usually cautious about securing the rock formations, they seem less interested in restoring the native plants. MTR operations clear enormous areas of forests; some experts estimate that over 2,000 square miles of forests in the Appalachian region will have been razed by mining companies by the end of this year. Instead of replanting the native trees and shrubs that have been cleared, many companies chose to plant cheap, fast-growing plants.

Environmental threats are not only created in preparing a mountaintop for mining, but they also continue once the coal has been extracted. After the explosion, the excess mountaintop——which miners refer to as “overburden”——is usually dumped into nearby valleys or streams. The overburden contains a variety of poisonous substances, including explosive residue, silica, and coal dust. Over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia have been polluted by this dumping. Although the mining companies have built structures known as “sludge dams” that are intended to contain the runoff, these dams may easily burst or leak, sending thousands of gallons of poisonous chemicals into drinking water.

While the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental protection bills can theoretically be enforced to protect Appalachia, local lawmakers have been unwilling to take action for fear of upsetting those who believe that the jobs created by MTR are vital to the community. However, instead of bringing jobs and prosperity to poor Appalachian communities, MTR companies actually bring destruction and poverty. MTR does not involve the amount of human labor required by traditional sub surface mining. Despite the poverty. MTR does not involve the amount of human labor required by traditional sub-surface mining. Despite the fact that coal production has increased between 1950 and 2004. the human labor force working in these mines has sharply decreased. In the 1950s, there were approximately 130,000 people employed by the mining companies; by 2004, that number had decreased to 16,00. Moreover, while the coal companies may make enormous profits from MTR, Appalachian communities located near the mines suffer increased rates of kidney cancer, brain cancer, lung cancer, chronic pulmonary disorders and vision problems.

1. What does the underlined word “razed” in Paragraph I probably mean?

A．Restored.

B．Closed.

C．Researched.

D．Destroyed.

2. What might the author think of the “sludge dams”?

A．They are of little help in avoiding pollution.

B．They are a threat to local mining companies.

C．They are big enough to contain the overburden.

D．They are cleverly designed to prevent flooding.

3. What do the figures in the last paragraph imply?

A．MTR hasn't contributed too much to employment.

B．The population of Appalachia has decreased greatly.

C．The number of mining companies has declined sharply.

D．Mining companies haven't brought in enormous profits.

4. What does the author try to convey in the text?

A．The importance of traditional coal power.

B．His love for Appalachian communities.

C．His concern about the impact of MTR.

D．The urgency of developing Appalachia.