1 . In a new study, researchers have discovered bottled water sold in stores can contain 10 to 100 times more bits of plastic than previously estimated—nanoplastics (纳米塑料) so tiny that they cannot be seen under a microscope.
At one-thousandth the average width of a human hair, nanoplastics are so small that they can migrate through the tissues of the digestive tract or lungs into the bloodstream, distributing potentially noxious synthetic (人造的) chemicals throughout the body and into cells. One liter of water contains an average of 240,000 plastic particles from seven types of plastics, of which 90% are identified as nanoplastics and the rest are microplastics, according to the new study.
According to Sherri Mason, a researcher, the new finding strengthens long-held expert advice to drink tap water from glass or stainless steel containers to reduce exposure. That advice extends to other foods and drinks packaged in plastic.
Nanoplastics are the most worrying type of plastic pollution for human health. “The chemicals can be carried to your liver, kidney, and brain and even make their way across the placental boundary and end up in an unborn child,” said Mason.
“Based on other studies, we expected most of the microplastics in bottled water would come from leakage of the plastic bottle itself, which is typically made of PET (聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯) plastic,”said Qian, a doctoral student at Columbia University. Studies have found that particles of this plastic can be broken off by repeatedly opening and closing the cap of the bottle, crushing the bottle or subjecting it to heat, such as in a car.
“We can avoid consuming foods and beverages (饮料) in plastic containers. We can wear clothing made from natural fabric s and buy consumer products made from natural materials,”said Jane Houlihan, an expert in environmental health.“We can estimate the plastic in our daily lives and find alternatives whenever possible.” Several studies have also reported lower microplastic levels in tap water.
1. What does the underlined word “noxious” in paragraph 2 mean?| A．Identical. | B．Harmful. | C．Primitive. | D．Dynamic. |
| A．By being present in the air. | B．By contaminating the water source. |
| C．By breaking off from the plastic bottle. | D．By being added during the producing process. |
| A．Increasing the use of water containers. |
| B．Purchasing products made from synthetic materials. |
| C．Choosing natural fabrics and materials whenever possible. |
| D．Avoiding products packaged in glass or stainless steel containers. |
| A．How to Reduce Plastic Use in Daily Life | B．New Study on Bottled Water Pollution |
| C．The Benefits of Drinking Tap Water | D．The Health Risks of Nanoplastics |
2 . Eve O. Schaub is the author of Year of No Garbage: Recycling Lies, Plastic Problems, and One Woman’s Trashy Journey to Zero Waste. She calls on people to stop “recycling” plastic.
According to her, plastic, as a material, is not recyclable, and the very best thing we can do to celebrate Earth Day this year is to acknowledge that fact. This seems against the common sense. We’ve been told for decades that the answer to the plastic-waste crisis is more, better recycling: If only we sorted better! If only we had better access to recycling technologies! If only we washed and dried our plastics more adequately!
This is all a smokescreen, designed to distract us from the truth that plastic recycling—if by “recycling” we mean turning a used material into a new material of similar value and function —is a myth. Unlike paper, glass and metal, plastic is not easily, efficiently turned into new products. What passes for “recycling” plastic is costly, energy-intensive and toxic (有毒的).
On top of all that, the process requires the addition of a shocking amount of new virgin plastic— around 70 percent—to hold the newly formed plastic items together. As a result, only about 5 percent of plastic gets “recycled”, compared that with a 68 percent recycling rate for paper and cardboard. Considering that, as a society, we’ve been actively trying to get better at plastic recycling since the 1970s, 5 percent represents an extremely clear failure.
Many environmentalists will oppose this claim. They might correctly point out that plastics labeled with the resin (树脂) identification code of 1 or 2 have a higher measure of recycling success: about 30 percent. Shouldn’t we support recycling at least this kind of plastic? For a long time, I thought so. But this brings us to another myth: that plastic is harmless to human health.
What many people do not know is that plastic is made from two ingredients: fossil fuels and toxic chemicals. What’s worse, there are tens of thousands of chemicals involved in the production of plastic, most of which have never been tested for their effects on human health, although many are known to be harmful to some degree. What this means is that even if we were to get better at recycling plastic, we shouldn’t want to.
1. What can we know according to Eve O. Schaub?| A．The best thing to celebrate Earth Day is to recycle plastic. |
| B．Many people are aware of the high costs of recycling plastic. |
| C．Many people have a wrong understanding of plastic recycling. |
| D．The effective way to solve plastic crisis is to recycle more and better. |
| A．Plastic “recyclıng” process is relatively successful. |
| B．We should be more active in improving plastic recycling. |
| C．Plastic “recycling” is, at heart, an empty, performative gesture. |
| D．We need to add 70% plastic to the recycled to create new products. |
| A．The plastics’ harmful effects on humans. |
| B．The promising future for recycled plastics |
| C．The follow-up studies on recycling plastic. |
| D．The specific approaches to recycling plastic. |
| A．Improve the Recycling Rate of Plastic |
| B．Don’t Ignore Harmful Plastic Products |
| C．More Advisable Ways to Recycle Plastic |
| D．Don’t Waste Your Time Recycling Plastic |
3 . A new study confirms that planting hedges (树篱) between roadsides and school playgrounds can serve as protective barriers against traffic air pollution. The new study differs from conventional air pollution ones because the researchers specifically measured magnetic (磁性) particles — innovatively employing magnetism to study particles which come from vehicle waste gases. That enabled them to distinguish local traffic pollution from other sources of air pollution.
In England alone, studies estimate that 26,000 to 38,000 deaths and thousands of hospital admissions are associated with dust-like particles floating in air pollution — much of which is generated by heavy traffic in urban environments. Particle pollution is composed of a variety of chemical substances, metals and other materials. The bigger particles are called PM10 and are easily absorbed. Finer particles called PM2.5 can go deeper into the lungs. Children attending schools next to busy roads are easily affected by particle pollution because their airways are still developing and they breathe faster than adults.
The team studied magnetic particles obtained by a western red cedar “tredge ” (trees managed as a head-high hedge) which was previously placed outside St Ambrose RC Primary School. “The western red cedar has fine and evergreen leaves into which airborne particles hit and then settle from the roadside air,” said study co-author Professor Barbara Maher.
In the school playground, 30 metres from the road, they measured a 78% decrease in PM10 relative to roadside air and an 80% reduction in PM2.5 particles just behind the tredge. However, they did note a small increase in levels of PM2.5 in the playground, although they were still 63% below roadside air. This shows that some air still goes over or around the tredge. So tredges should be carefully arranged to maximize their ability to absorb particles.
Cllr Tracey Rawlins, Executive Member for Environment and Transport for Manchester City Council, said, “Manchester seeks to willingly accept innovation in our efforts to become a greener city with cleaner air and tackle climate change. The findings underline the contribution which nature-based innovations can make to rising to that challenge.”
1. How did the new study differ from conventional air pollution studies?| A．It applied a new type of pollution analysis. |
| B．It identified the source of magnetic particles. |
| C．It studied the impact of hedges on reducing air pollution. |
| D．It examined the effects of air pollution on children’s health. |
| A．To inform us of the main types of dust-like particles. |
| B．To display the complexity of treating breathing illnesses. |
| C．To analyze the heavy traffic burden on urban environments. |
| D．To highlight the severeness of traffic-related particle pollution. |
| A．It is challenging to reduce air pollution in the playground. |
| B．Red cedar “tredges” can significantly remove PM2.5 particles. |
| C．It is necessary to test other evergreen trees’ ability to absorb particles. |
| D．The placement of tredges has little effect on reducing particle pollution. |
| A．Conservative. | B．Dismissive. | C．Favorable. | D．Ambiguous. |
4 . Have you ever been somewhere truly free from the sounds of humankind? We become immune to the sounds of distant traffic and especially the subtle (不易觉察的) hum of planes high above in the sky, but there are few places that don’t have some form of noise pollution.
Noise pollution is noise that has surpassed surrounding noise levels and has a harmful impact on humans and animals. This type of pollution is generated by humans and is a form of environmental degradation (恶化). It can serve as a source of stress on fauna (动物群), which can have negative effects on animal welfare, and can even cause behavioral changes in birds, according to a study on the impacts of noise pollution on birds.
Noise pollution can be problematic when frequencies that are produced disrupt information transmission in animals, specifically animals that use similar frequencies to communicate. These disturbances can also lead to higher anti-predator behaviors in situations that don’t require it, as well as change species vocalization (发声), increase stress and stress related diseases, and have the potential to decrease populations.
Trees can be used against noise pollution, according to an investigation on the effects of leaves, branches, and canopies (树冠) on noise pollution. By decreasing the area in which noise is made and increasing tree presence with tree belts of at least 12 meters, trees could serve as a noise barrier in urban areas. Another study found that tree belts with a width of 30 meters could be planted on the roadside and have more than 6dB reduction of noise than a grassland would. The conclusion was that more trees, branches, and leaves could reduce noise pollution.
Regulations have also been placed in the US statewide and by local governments to reduce noise pollution. New York, for example, has a regulation that looks at occupational noise exposure; this ranges from monitoring noise to providing personal protective equipment. Many states and local governments in the US have their own regulations regarding noise pollution: however, many focus on the human impacts that noise pollution has and not the environmental impacts.
1. What does the author want to tell us in Paragraph 1?| A．Noise pollution widely exists. | B．Humans aren’t impacted by noise. |
| C．It is hard for humans to hear plane noises. | D．Lots of places are free from noise pollution. |
| A．It can relieve them from stress in life. | B．It can cause much trouble to their hearing. |
| C．It can cause them to behave abnormally. | D．It can prevent them from making any sound. |
| A．Trees can be used to reduce noise pollution. |
| B．A study carried out by scientists on noise pollution. |
| C．The function of leaves, tree branches and canopies. |
| D．The differences between tree belts and grassland. |
| A．The US has spared great efforts to deal with pollution. |
| B．Different states share the same regulations on in the US. |
| C．All government levels take pollution seriously in the US. |
| D．Noise pollution has drawn great attention in the States. |
5 . A new study on baby birds shows that traffic noise can affect their growth and lead to lifelong harm. The finding raises new concerns about the effect of noise pollution on wildlife — and humans as well.
Researchers already knew too much noise is likely to disturb birds, making it more difficult for the parents to communicate with and care for their baby birds. But it wasn’t clear whether the noise itself could directly harm young birds.
Mylene Mariette, a behavioral ecologist at Deakin University, and her team set out to answer that question with birds held on campus in Melbourne, Australia. For 5 nights in a row, they played eggs either road noise or bird songs for several hours. The sounds were kept at a volume of 65 decibels （分贝）— about the same loudness as a conversation in a bar or city traffic. Other eggs were left in silence. After the eggs hatched, the baby birds received one of two treatments — road noise or bird songs — for another 9 nights. The baby birds heard the sounds in a separate room, and then were returned to their nests.
Eggs exposed to traffic sounds were 19% less likely to hatch compared with those exposed to the sound of songs. It shows a clear effect of traffic noise, Mariette says. As the baby birds developed, they also showed worrying development signs. Those exposed to noise grew slower. Moreover, when those birds grew up, they had about half as many offspring （后代） as the birds exposed to songs as youngsters.
Hans Slabbekoorn, an ecologist and animal behavior expert at Leiden University, notes that these concerns apply to humans as well. “The findings suggest that the acoustic （听觉的） environment of birds in cities and along highways should be better managed,” he writes, “and that the acoustic comfort in hospital environments for pregnant mothers and babies requires special attention.” Eventually, the research might help reveal how much and in what ways noise pollution should be reduced.
1. What does paragraph 3 mainly focus on about the study?| A．Its process. | B．Its result. | C．Its difficulty. | D．Its purpose. |
| A．By giving examples. | B．By analyzing reasons. |
| C．By making comparisons. | D．By making predictions. |
| A．Move the birds from cities to protected areas. |
| B．Make laws to close highways and other noisy places. |
| C．Educate people on the bad effects of noise pollution. |
| D．Pay special attention to the hospital environment for babies. |
| A．Traffic noise helps birds communicate | B．Scientists have found ways to reduce noise |
| C．Hospital environments are greatly affected | D．Traffic noise causes lifelong harm to baby birds |
6 . There are five trillion(万亿) pieces of plastic in our oceans. Most of the plastic found at the bottom of the sea is waste such as plastic bottles and bags, designed to be used just once, then thrown away. Some researchers found that sea creatures living in the deepest reaches of the sea had small pieces of plastic in their stomachs and muscles. A huge whale washed ashore in Spain last year with 28 kilos of plastic in its stomach died.
This year Sir David calls for actions against plastic pollution and the UN leads a campaign against plastic pollution seen as one of the world's most pressing environmental issues. The European Union is set to approve a total ban on one-use plastics. Bangladesh(孟加拉国)became the first country to ban plastic bags in 2002, after floods linked to plastic waste. Since then. 54 countries have banned lightweight plastic bags. According to Greenpeace statistics, every minute of every day, the same amount of a truck of plastic enters the world's oceans Waste such as bottles, nappies and beer holders can last for up to 450 years in the environment Some plastics last for 1, 000 years.
Andy Sharpless, CEO of a non-profit group Oceana says, “Our focus on recycling is, unfortunately, making the problem worse. Recycling will never stop the flow of plastics into our seas, so to focus on recycling efforts is a fatal mistake. In fact, plastic bottles usually made from natural plastic, if recycled, can become something like clothes and carpets. This change in the quality makes the use of recycled plastic limited.”
“Governments need to do their part too,” Sharpless argues, “and big businesses need to shoulder more responsibility—as the central problem is the amount of plastic being produced.” “The solution needs to focus on both usage of plastic and making it in large quantities.” says TrewinRestorick. CEO of environmental behaviour change charity Hubbub.
1. What can we know about the plastic in the ocean?| A．Plastic is polluting the oceans. | B．Sea creatures are fed plastic |
| C．Plastic can disappear in the seas | D．Plastic pollution has been taken seriously |
| A．Supportive. | B．Critical. | C．Indifferent. | D．Appreciative |
| A．Recycle more plastic. | B．Raising awareness of environmental protection |
| C．Limiting plastic production. | D．Find alternatives to plastic |
| A．Opinion. | B．Culture. | C．Environment. | D．Entertainment |
7 . The large plastic objects break down into micro-and nanoplastics (纳米塑料), constantly raising particle numbers. Microplastics have been found everywhere, from the deepest place on the planet, the Mariana Trench, to the top of Mount Qomolangma. And now more and more studies are finding that microplastics are also in our bodies.
A study in Italy, reported in 2020, found microplastics in everyday fruits and vegetables. Uptake from soil containing the particles is probably how they get into our produce in the first place. Microplastics are found in blood of pigs and cows, and in our drinking water, whether it’s from the tap or bottled. Microplastic particles are also floating in the air. If you keep a piece of fish on the table for an hour, it has probably gathered more microplastics from the surrounding air than it has from the ocean. People might be consuming about tens of thousands of microplastic particles per person per year.
Studies in mice suggest microplastics are not benign, showing that exposure to microplastics can cause many physical disorders, negatively affecting learning and memory. But studies on the health effects of exposure in humans are just getting under way, so it could be years before scientists understand the actual impact in people.
The first step in determining the risk of microplastics to human health is to better understand and quantify human exposure. Studying and analyzing these smallest of plastics in the environment and in our bodies is extremely challenging. The tools and techniques required for this are still being developed.
Alongside knowing people’s level of exposure to microplastics, the second big question scientists want to understand is what level of real-world exposure is harmful. This work is complicated by the large number of different plastic particle types, given their variations in size, shape and chemical composition, which can affect uptake and toxicity (毒性).
There are ways to reduce exposure. For example, keeping the windows open, buying clothes made from cotton, and not heating plastic containers in the microwave, even if they claim to be food grade. Perhaps the biggest thing people can do is rely on plastics less.
1. What do the first two paragraphs mainly tell us?| A．Microplastics do great harm to humans. | B．How microplastics come into being. |
| C．Microplastics are found everywhere. | D．How microplastics get into our bodies. |
| A．Valuable. | B．Friendly. | C．Harmful. | D．Fierce. |
| A．Because we lack technology. | B．Because it’s hard to collect evidence. |
| C．Because it takes too much money. | D．Because people take it for nothing. |
| A．Use plastic objects of food grade. | B．Turn to other materials instead of plastics. |
| C．Wrap yourself up when you are outsides. | D．Keep the windows closed as long as possible. |
8 . The environment is a concern for many, and individual actions like reducing plastic use and recycling contribute positively. However, some issues, like acid rain, require global policies and industry regulations to address more effectively.
Acid rain has been observed for over 150 years, with Scottish scientist Robert Angus Smith identifying elevated (偏高) acid levels in rain during the 1850s, correlating it with industrial growth. While natural events like volcano eruptions contribute to acid rain, man-made sources like factories, power stations burning coal, and car emissions are the primary causes. These emissions, containing nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, combine with water in clouds to form sulfuric and nitric acids.
Technically known as acid deposition (沉积), acid rain occurs when acids move from the atmosphere to Earth's surface through rain, snow, or fog, as well as dry particles and gases carried by wind. The impacts of acid rain are significant, evidenced by lakes turning clear due to loss of life, deformed fish, dying trees, disrupted food chains, and adverse effects on human health.
Efforts to combat acid rain began in the 1980s, resulting in reduced emissions globally and improvements in rain acidity levels. However, challenges remain, particularly in farming and preserving natural ecosystems. While the recovery process is ongoing, the effects of acid rain on structures, sculptures, and monuments serve as a reminder of its long-term impact.
In conclusion, addressing acid rain requires collective action and ongoing monitoring to safeguard the environment and human health, highlighting the importance of global cooperation in addressing environmental challenges.
1. According to the passage, what are the major sources of acid rain?| A．Recycling and reducing plastic use. |
| B．Natural events like volcano eruptions. |
| C．Factories, power stations and car emissions. |
| D．Individual actions to address environmental concerns. |
| A．prevent | B．ignore | C．worsen | D．promote |
| A．Natural events are the main cause of acid rain. |
| B．Acid rain has no significant impact on human health. |
| C．Global policies alone are sufficient to address the issue. |
| D．Effective measures require both global policies and individual actions. |
| A．The history of acid rain research. |
| B．Efforts to address acid rain pollution. |
| C．The impact of acid rain on the environment. |
| D．Individual actions to address environmental concerns. |
9 . One e-toy for every person on Earth — that’s the surprising amount of electric trains, talking dolls, and other children’s devices thrown away every year. People usually consider electronic waste from computers, smartphones, and TVs to be e-waste, but they may not realize that “nontraditional” e-waste materials like power tools, LED lights, USB cables and countless other similar, also need special recycling. In all, people across the world throw out about 9 billion kilograms of e-waste commonly not recognized as such by people.
This “invisible e-waste” is the main focus of the sixth annual International E-Waste Day on October 14, organized by Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Forum. According to the findings, for example, the total weight of all USB cables thrown away every year equals 6 Eiffel Towers. Meanwhile, if all this invisible electronic waste were packed into trucks, it could fill half a million 40-ton trucks, enough to cause a long traffic jam covering about 3,504 miles.
“People are familiar with common e-waste. But many invisible e-waste are ignored. How to have them recycled remains a big problem.” Pascal Leroy, Director-General of the WEEE Forum, said in a statement. Pascal Leroy asks that instead of throwing them away, people should take it to the local recycling facility. He says that a lot of electronic waste is right around us, and we need to raise awareness about this issue. He also refers to past campaigns that successfully made people more aware of plastic pollution and believes the same can happen with e-waste awareness.
1. Which of the following belongs to the "invisible e-waste"?| A．Smartphones. | B．Computers. | C．Talking toys. | D．USB cables. |
| A．To make the number exaggerated. | B．To show the destination of the wastes. |
| C．To prove it also has the same problems. | D．To give a vivid description of the large amount. |
| A．Hopeful. | B．Unclear. | C．Doubtful. | D．Disappointed. |
| A．Recycle or Not? That’s a Problem |
| B．New Electrical Wastes that Go Unnoticed |
| C．The Shocking Amount of Electronic Products |
| D．The Focus of the Sixth International E-waste Day |
10 . Rivers and streams in Alaska are changing colors — from a clean, clear blue to a rust y orange — because of the toxic metal s released by thawing permafrost (融化的冻土), according to a new study.
The finding surprised researchers who conducted tests at 75 locations in the waterways of Alaska’s Brooks Range. The rivers and streams in the range appeared to rust and became cloudy and orange over the past five to 10 years, according to the study published in the journal Communications: Earth & Environment.
The discoloration (变色) and cloudiness are being caused by metal s such as iron and lead, some of which are toxic to the river and stream ecosystems — as permafrost thaws and exposes the waterways to minerals locked away underground for thousands of years.
“We’re used to seeing this in parts of California where we have mining history. This is a classic process that happens in rivers here for over 100 years,” said Brett Poulin, a co-author of the study and a professor of environmental toxicology at UC Davis. “But it’s very shocking to see it in some of the most remote wilderness and far from a mine source,” Brett added.
Arctic soils naturally contain organic carbon, nutrients and metals within their permafrost. High temperatures have caused these minerals and the water sources around them to meet as permafrost melts. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. “It’s really an unexpected consequence of climate change,” said Brett.
This discoloration has been linked to dramatic declines in sea life, raising concerns about how the continued melting of permafrost will affect communities that rely on those waterways for drinkıng and fishing.
These studies have extended beyond the US in the past. Similar research on increases in metal and rare earth element concentrations in mountain rivers and streams has been done in the European Alps and the Pyrenees in northern Spain. Although some of these areas have been exposed to mining sites and thus have seen metal concentrations in rivers and streams over the years, the noted increases raise questions about how climate change will continue to impact mountain water sources.
1. What leads to color changes in the waterways in Alaska?| A．Fast circulation of water. | B．A long history of mining. |
| C．Exposure of certain minerals. | D．Imbalanced water ecosystems. |
| A．It’s a natural process in Alaska. | B．It often happens in the wilderness. |
| C．It existed in California not long ago. | D．It’s linked to the rise in temperature. |
| A．Fishermen will catch fewer fish. |
| B．The Arctic will be warmer and warmer. |
| C．Metal concentrations in water will drop quickly. |
| D．Most European mining sites will be closed down. |
| A．Melting Permafrost in the Arctic. |
| B．Color change of waterways in Alaska. |
| C．The impact of climate change worldwide. |
| D．Underground minerals exposed in California. |
