Plastic breath: Quantification of microplastics and polymer additives in airborne particles

The widespread extensive use of synthetic polymers has led to a substantial environmental crisis caused by plastic pollution, with microplastics detected in various environments and posing risks to both human health and ecosystems. The possibility of plastic fragments to be dispersed in the air as particles and inhaled by humans may cause damage to the respiratory and other body systems. Therefore, there is a particular need to study microplastics as air pollutants. In this study, we tested a combination of analytical pyrolysis, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, and gas and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to identify and quantify both microplastics and their additives in airborne particulate matter and settled dust within a workplace environment: a WEEE treatment plant. Using this combined approach, we were able to accurately quantify ten synthetic polymers and eight classes of polymer additives. The identified additives include phthalates, adipates, citrates, sebacates, trimellitates, benzoates, organophosphates, and newly developed brominated flame retardants

A multidimensional account of democratic legitimacy: how to make robust decisions in a non-idealized deliberative context

This paper analyses the possibility of granting legitimacy to democratic decisionmaking procedures in a context of deep pluralism. We defend a multidimensional account according to which a legitimate system needs to grant, on the one hand, that citizens should be included on an equal footing and acknowledged as reflexive political agents rather than mere beneficiaries of policies, and, on the other hand, that their decisions have an epistemic quality. While Estlund\u2019s account of imperfect epistemic proceduralism might seem to embody a dualistic conception of democratic legitimacy, we point out that it is not able to recognize citizens as reflexive political agents and is grounded in an idealized model of the circumstances of deliberation. To overcome these ambiguities, we develop an account of democratic legitimacy according to which disagreement is the proper expression of citizens\u2019 reflexive agency and the attribution of epistemic authority does not stem from a major expertise or specific ability, but it comes through the public confrontation among disagreeing agents. Consequently, the epistemic value of deliberation should be derived from the reasons-giving process rather than from the reference to the alleged quality of its outcomes. In this way, we demonstrate the validity of the multidimensional perspective of legitimacy, yet abstain from introducing any outcome-oriented criterion. Finally, we argue that this account of legitimacy is well suited for modeling deliberative democracy as a decision-making procedure that respects the agency of every citizen and grants her opportunity to influence public choices