1 . In many ways, life has become far more comfortable and convenient in the past few decades.
Air Pollution
The main cause of air pollution is the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles and power plants. Other human activities, such as construction and the burning of waste, also contribute to air pollution. The effects on our health can be very serious.
You can easily contribute to reducing air pollution by only using a car to make journeys when it’s absolutely necessary.
Global Warming
Global warming is the increase in the temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans. It’s caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the atmosphere. These trap the Sun’s heat and warm up the planet.
Global warming has already caused a wide range of problems.
Overflowing Landfills
Landfills are used for waste disposal (处理) in many countries around the world. However, these landfills are now nearing their limit. When this happens, the chances of dangerous chemicals in the waste entering our water supply increase.
The amount of waste in landfills in China has risen sharply over the last ten years.
| A．If it isn’t, try using public transport instead. |
| B．Sea levels are rising due to the melting of polar ice sheets. |
| C．However, this has come at a huge cost to the environment. |
| D．This resulted in the flooding of the River Po near Turin in Italy. |
| E．For instance, that in Hong Kong is likely to reduce within a few years. |
| F．Thus, the government is now trying to find alternative waste disposal methods. |
| G．Apart from the three Rs, some experts have called for the fourth R—Responsibility. |
2 . 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. |
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.
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.
As a research from Denmark has highlighted, cooking, particularly roasting can damage our body. Roast dinners contain many potentially harmful pollutants.
As far as cooking emissions are concerned, no one is suggesting switching to takeaways.
| 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 . At any moment, about half the world’s population is wearing denim (牛仔布). But few realize tiny bits of denim have been adding up to a surprising amount of pollution in water, as a new study shows.
Sam Athey, one of the study’s authors, says, “Even though denim is made of a natural material—cotton—it contains chemicals.” Cotton fibers are treated with many types of chemicals, she notes. Some improve its durability (耐久性) and feel. Others give denim its distinctive blue color.
Athey and her team washed jeans and found that about 50,000 microfibers come off from each pair per wash. Not all of those fibers make their way into the environment. Wastewater treatment plants catch about 83 to 99 percent of them. Catching 99 percent may sound pretty good. But one percent of 50,000 is still 500 fibers per wash. And since every pair of jeans is washed again and again, it still adds up to lots of microfibers entering water environments.
Denim microfibers showed up in sediment (沉淀物) from the Great Lakes. More of these fibers polluted a series of shallow lakes in southern Ontario. They even turned up in sediment from the Arctic Ocean in northern Canada. The team found denim accounted for 12 to 23 percent of microfibers in the sediment. There were other microfibers too. But the team focused on denim because so many people wear jeans.
“Everyone wears jeans so they could be our largest input of microfibers into our streams and soils,” Athey says. “An easy way to limit that is by washing our jeans less often.” Athey grew up thinking she should wash her jeans after every couple of wearings, but most jean companies recommend washing them no more than once a month. “The solution is not that you shouldn’t wear jeans,” she says. “We need to buy fewer denim clothes and only wash them when they truly need it.”
1. Why are chemicals used to deal with cotton according to the passage?| A．To avoid its harm. |
| B．To make it into denim. |
| C．To remove its blue color. |
| D．To prevent fibers from falling. |
| A．wastewater treatment plants are good at dealing with microfibers |
| B．few microfibers are entering water environments |
| C．catching 99 percent means doing no harm to the environment |
| D．the effects of microfibers can not be ignored |
| A．The seriousness of denim pollution. |
| B．The types of water pollution. |
| C．The wide uses of denim. |
| D．The large water area of Canada. |
| A．Wash jeans more often. |
| B．Avoid wearing jeans. |
| C．Produce less jeans. |
| D．Reduce denim consumption. |
5 . 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. |
| 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. |
| A．supportive | B．objective | C．concerned | D．uncertain |
| A．Solutions to destroying e-waste. | B．Ways to recycle e-waste properly. |
| C．Applications of recycled materials. | D．Investments in restoring ecosystems. |
6 . In the endless sky, the unaided human eye should be able to perceive several thousand stars on a clear, dark night. Unfortunately, growing light pollution has impeded people from the nightly view.
New citizen-science-based research throws alarming light on the problem of “sky glow”-the diffuse illumination (漫射照明) of the night sky that is a form of light pollution. The data came from crowd-sourced observations collected from around the world as part of Globe at Night, a program developed by astronomer Connie Walker.
Light pollution has harmful effects on the practice of astronomy but also on human health and wildlife, since it disturbs the cycle from sunlight to starlight that biological systems have evolved alongside. Furthermore, the loss of visible stars is a great loss of human cultural heritage. Until relatively recently, humans throughout history had an impressive view of the starry night sky, and the effect of this nighty spectacle (壮观) is evident in ancient cultures.
Globe at Night has been gathering data on star visibility since 2006. Anyone can submit observations through the Globe at Night web application. Participants record which one best matches what they can see in the sky without any telescopes or other instruments.
Researchers find that the loss of visible stars indicates an increase in sky brightness of 9.6% per year while roughly 2% is measured by satellites. Existing satellites are not well suited to measuring sky glow as it appears to humans, because they can not detect wavelengths shorter than 500 nanometers (纳米). White LEDs, with shorter wavelengths under 500 nanometers, now are increasingly commonly used in outdoor lighting. But human eyes are more sensitive to these shorter wavelengths at nighttime. Space-based instruments do not measure light from windows, either. But these sources are significant contributors to sky glow us seen from the ground.
“The increase in sky glow over the past decade underlines the importance of redoubling our efforts and developing new strategies to protect dark skies,” said Walker. “The Globe at Night dataset is necessary in our ongoing evaluation of changes in sky glow, and we encourage whoever can to get involved to help protect the starry night sky.”
1. What does the underlined word “impeded” in the first paragraph mean?| A．separated. | B．disabled. | C．demanded. | D．protected. |
| A．Poorer human health. | B．Fewer wildlife species. |
| C．More delicate biological systems. | D．Less nightly culture elements of the sky. |
| A．Crowd sourced data are invaluable | B．Shorter wavelengths are hard to detect. |
| C．Satellites play a vital role. | D．White LEDs are widely used. |
| A．Their consistent efforts pay off. | B．The dataset needs to be updated. |
| C．The sky glow has been over-emphasized. | D．More participants are expected to join in. |
7 . 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. |
| 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. |
| A．Pollution. | B．Discovery. | C．Experiment. | D．Development. |
| 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. |
8 . Not even the sea is safe from the glare (强光) of humans’ light at night. Researchers published the first global map of ocean light pollution. It shows large parts of the sea are lit up at night. And that risks confusing or disrupting the behaviors of sea life.
Tim Smyth led a team to research where in the water this light is strongest. Smyth and his colleagues started with a world map of man-made night-sky brightness that had been created in 2016. Then they added data on the ocean and atmosphere. Some data came from shipboard measurements of man-made light in the water. Others came from satellite images that judge how clear the water is. Particles (微粒) in the water, such as tiny floating plants and animals, can affect how far downward light travels. These factors vary from place to place and may change with the seasons. The team also used computers to copy how different wavelengths of light move through water.
Next, they wanted to know how that underwater light might affect animals. Not all species will be easily affected. The team focused on copepods (桡足亚纲甲壳动物). These common creatures are a key part of many ocean food webs. They use light as a signal to move all together to the dark deep, seeking safety from other surface creatures. Normally they use the sun or the winter moon as their signal. Too much man-made light can mess up their usual patterns.
Light pollution is strongest in about three feet of the water. Here, man-made light can be strong enough to confuse the copepods. Nearly 2 million square kilometers of ocean get such strong night light. That’s an area about the size of Mexico. Farther down, the light gets weaker. But even 65 feet deep, it’s still bright enough to bother copepods across 840,000 square kilometers of ocean.
The team described its findings December 13 in Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.
1. What do we know about copepods from the passage?| A．They are main eaters of other creatures. |
| B．They are not affected by underwater light. |
| C．They can escape attacks with the help of light. |
| D．They can weaken the effect of man-made light. |
| A．By stating opinions. | B．By listing numbers. |
| C．By raising questions. | D．By giving reasons. |
| A．Light Pollution from Sea Life | B．Living Conditions of Copepods |
| C．Discoveries of Copepods | D．Light Pollution Even in Sea |
9 . My husband and I always wanted to go to the Caribbean but didn’t know much about the islands or how we were going to afford it. By chance, a friend of ours in Australia mentioned “pet sitting” and that it is something you can do all over the world.
We quickly created an account on a pet sitting website and began searching for options. There were only a couple of sits available in that part of the world, but we tried our luck, sent a request, and to our surprise, landed a three-month job in Grenada, so our year was going to be taken up with Caribbean pet sits.
Inspired by a Canadian couple, we decided to start our own travel blog. We began by writing about The British Virgin Islands, highlighting the beautiful beaches. However, for every photo album of a beautiful beach, there were 10 photos of trash (垃圾). It was hard to ignore the plastic pollution issue, especially on such primitive and remote beaches. So, we began to share photos of the trash we saw and how much we could pick upon our daily dog walks.
The more we looked into plastic pollution, the more we realized the severity of the global plastic pollution. From that point, we used our platform to create awareness and highlight ways to say no to plastic and travel plastic-free. We changed our daily routines, our way of living, and even our diets to accommodate more organic foods and little to no plastic packaging.
It’s been over three years now and we continue to do what we can. This journey has led us to some amazing places, working with great brands and even organizing a country-wide beach clean-up campaign in Grenada.
Our aim now is to keep on going. We love connecting with like-minded people. It’s been amazing few years that was sparked by a conversation about pet sitting. Who would have guessed?
1. Why did the author do pet sitting?| A．To cover travel expenses. | B．To raise fund. |
| C．To conserve the environment. | D．To shoot beautiful beaches. |
| A．Pet sitting is a new sort of occupation. |
| B．The Caribbean is a perfect travel destination. |
| C．Travel blog is a superb way to gain popularity. |
| D．Actions should be taken to fight plastic pollution. |
| A．Challenging. | B．Significant. | C．Adventurous. | D．Unbearable. |
| A．Shifting Lifestyles by Pet Sitting | B．Address Global Environment Pollution |
| C．Unexpected Gains from Pet Sitting Travel | D．The availability of Pet Sitting in the Caribbean |
10 . 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. |
| A．Destroy. | B．Threaten. | C．Transform. | D．Dominate. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
