Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environment International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint
Review article
Microplastics: Human exposure assessment through air, water, and food
Giuseppina Zuri , Angeliki Karanasiou , Sílvia Lacorte *
Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research of the Spanish Research Council (IDAEA-CSIC), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor: Olga Kalantzi
Background: Microplastics (MP) are plastic particles with dimension up to 5 mm. Due to their persistence, global
spread across different ecosystems and potential human health effects, they have gained increasing attention
during the last decade. However, the extent of human exposure to MP through different pathways and their
intake have not been elucidated.
Objectives: The objective of this review is to provide an overview on the pathways of exposure to MP through
inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact considering data from the open bibliography on MP in air, dust, food,
water and drinks.
Methods: A bibliographic search on Scopus and PubMed was conducted using keywords on MP in outdoor and
indoor air, indoor dust, food including beverages and water and human intake (n = 521). Articles were sorted by
their title and abstract (n = 213), and only studies reporting MP identification and quantification techniques
were further considered (n = 168). A total of 115 articles that include quality assurance and quality control (QA/
QC) procedures are finally discussed in the present review. Based on MP concentration data available in liter­
ature, we estimated the potential inhaled dose (ID), dust intake (DI), the estimated daily intake (EDI) via food
and beverages. Finally, the total daily intake (TDI) considering both inhalation and ingestion routes are provided
for adults, infants and newborns.
Results: The concentrations of MP in outdoor and indoor air, dust, and in food and water are provided according
to the bibliography. Human exposure to MP through dust ingestion, inhalation of air and food/drinks con­
sumption revealed that indoor air and drinking waters were the main sources of MP.
Conclusions: This study reveals that humans are constantly exposed to MP, and that the indoor environment and
the food and water we ingest decisively contribute to MP intake. Additionally, we highlight that infants and
newborns are exposed to high MP concentrations and further studies are needed to evaluate the presence and risk
of MP in this vulnerable age-population.
Keywords:
Human exposure
Total daily intake
Air inhalation
Dust ingestion
1. Introduction
The global production of plastic accounts for more than 390 million
tons per year and its demand increases steadily due to plastics’
extraordinaire combination of durability, applicability, and versatility
(Plastic Europe, 2022). The extensive production of plastic coupled to
the manufacture of building and packaging material, goods, and single-
use products leads to the discharge of tons of plastic litter (Lindwall,
2020) and, consequently, to the generation of an enormous amount of
microplastics (MP) which are then spread in different environmental
compartments. MP is a neologism which appeared for the first time in
literature in 2004, as the contraction of the words “microscopic” and
“plastic”, to refer to plastic particles with size ranging from millimeters
to sub-millimeters (Thompson et al., 2004). It has been suggested a
Acronyms and Abbreviations: ABS, Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; Bw, Bodyweight; DI, Dust Ingestion; DIR, Dust Ingestion Rate; EDI, Estimated Daily Intake; EPC,
Ethylene/propylene copolymer; EPM, Poly(ethylene-propylene) copolymer; Eq, Equation; EVAC, Ethyl vinyl acetate; FPA-μ-FT-IR, Focal Plane Array micro-Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy; FTIR-ATR, Fourier Transform Attenuated Total Reflection; μ-FT-IR, micro-Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy; ID, Inhaled
Dose; LDPE, Low density polyethylene; MP, Microplastic; PA, Polyamide; PAA, Poly(N-methyl acrylamide); PAN, Polyacrylonitrile; PB, Polybutene; PBT, Poly­
butylene terephthalate; PC, Polycarbonate; PCCP, Personal care and cosmetic products; PE, Polyethylene; PES, Polyether sulfone; PET, Polyethylene terephthalate;
PM, Particulate Matter; PP, Polypropylene; PTFE, Polytetrafluoroethylene; PS, Polystyrene; PSU, Polysulfone; PU, Polyurethane; PVA, Poly(vinylalcohol); PVAc,
Polyvinyl acetate; PVC, Polyvinyl chloride; PVF, Polyvinyl fluoride; PVS, Polyvinyl stearate; R, Respiratory rate; SAN, Styrene acrylonitrile; SBR, Styrene/butadiene
rubber; TDI, Total Daily Intake; TV, Tidal Volume.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: slbqam@cid.csic.es (S. Lacorte).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108150
Received 18 May 2023; Received in revised form 23 July 2023; Accepted 12 August 2023
Available online 14 August 2023
0160-4120/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
classification of MP in two main size categories: nanoplastics as MP
having 1–1000 nm diameter (subdivided in nanoplastics 1–100 nm and
sub-microplastics 100 nm – 1000 nm), and MP with a diameter ranging
from 1 μm to < 5 mm (Hartmann et al., 2019). Although in 2008 the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defined MP as plastic
particles having maximum size 5 mm along their longer dimension
(Arthur et al., 2009), there is still no univocal definition of MP range
(Frias and Nash, 2019).
The sources of MP are clustered as primary or secondary. The former
are those in which MP are manufactured intentionally for direct use and
included in personal care and cosmetic products (PCCP) such as cos­
metics and exfoliants. The latter are MP deriving from physical, chem­
ical and/or biological degradation processes, such as bio- and
photooxidation, as well as mechanical weathering of larger plastic ma­
terials (Arthur et al., 2009; Zhu et al., 2021). These processes, which
have a time scale of decades, modify the properties of the polymer over
time, affecting the composition, surface properties as well as its physical
integrity (White, 2006). These changes are dependent both on the type
of polymer and the environmental conditions (Brandon et al., 2016).
Additionally, the smaller the plastic particles produced, the higher the
fragmentation rate since the surface-to-volume ratio is higher (Gewert
et al., 2015). Due to the effects of weathering or ageing, once released
into the environment, primary and secondary MP cannot be distin­
guished (Koelmans et al., 2022).
MP differ in their physical morphology not only in their size, but also
in their shape (Wang et al., 2021). According to their shapes, MP are
categorized as: sheet, film, fiber, fragment, pellet/granule, and foam.
Fibers and fragment-shape MP are the most abundant (Liu et al., 2019b;
Zhu et al., 2021). However, there is no standardized protocol on how to
classify particles, leading to subjective categorization depending on the
researcher performing the analyses. MP shape might indicate the par­
ticles’ origin. In fact, line/fiber usually originates from textiles, fishing
lines, and clothing; film mainly originates from bags or wrapping ma­
terials, while the origin of fragments has not been associated to a specific
source but more in general to larger plastic items degradation.
The presence of MP in various environmental compartments
including air, soil and water is undeniable and implies that humans are
chronically exposed to MP through different routes and pathways.
Airborne MP are released from plastic items, PCCP, clothing (Dris et al.,
2017), road surface, as well as break and tire wear abrasion (Grigoratos
and Martini, 2015), and recycling processes (Wang et al., 2020). In
addition, waste mismanagement acts as a source of MP in soils and water
(Akhbarizadeh et al., 2021b; Cabrejos-Cardeña et al., 2023). Urban
runoff and wastewater discharge act as conduits contaminating aqueous
systems such as rivers, lakes, and oceans (Hajiouni et al., 2022; Takda­
stan et al., 2021). Physical processes such asleaching and wave action
contribute to the spread of MP in aquatic environments (Dobaradaran
et al., 2018; Mohammadi et al., 2022b). Once dispersed in the ocean, MP
are ingested by aquatic organisms, including fish, shellfish, and marine
mammals, and subsequently they might bioaccumulate and biomagnify,
leading to increased concentration at higher trophic levels until they are
consumed by humans. Packaged food and as well as bottled water and
beverages represent an additional pathway of human exposure to MP
(Akhbarizadeh et al., 2020a; Schymanski et al., 2018).
This work stems out from the need to assess total exposure to MP
through various routes such as inhalation and ingestion to assess the
total daily intake of MP under a realistic exposure scenario. Dermal
contact is also discussed. This review compiles relevant articles on MP
present in air, dust, food and beverages and this data is used to evaluate
human exposure. The review is structured in 4 parts: i) MP present in
outdoor and indoor air and estimation of the Inhaled Dose (ID); ii) MP in
indoor dust and estimation of Dust Ingestion (DI); iii) MP present in
food, water and drinks and evaluation of the Estimated Daily Intake
(EDI) iv) total exposure to MP via the calculation of the Total Daily
Intake (TDI) considering all exposures routes except dermal as little
information is available. Data is provided for adults, infants and
newborns to highlight that different age-groups are exposed at various
levels and this might have health implications.
2. Research method
2.1. Literature search and keyword analysis
This review focuses on human exposure to petrochemical-based MP
and has been framed by first identifying relevant papers published in
English in peer-reviewed scientific journals in Scopus and PubMed
electronic databases, while duplicates and conference papers were
excluded. In Scopus database, all keywords were searched in the fields:
“title”, “abstract” and “keywords”, while in PubMed, they were searched
in the fields: “title” and “abstract” and in the Medical Subject Headings
(MeSH) database (whenever available). The search included the
following keywords for which the Boolean operator AND was selected to
narrow down the research: human exposure MP (547 articles), human
inhalation MP (66 articles), MP daily intake (33 articles); human
ingestion MP (73 articles), MP dermal exposure (8 articles), MP in air
(306 articles), MP in food (546 articles), MP in water (5879 articles), MP
in drinks (13 articles). Due to the high number of articles found in some
categories, the research was refined to reduce the number of relevant
papers. MP in air was refined in MP indoors (79 articles) and MP out­
doors (91 articles). MP indoors was further refined for microplastic(s),
indoor air, indoor air pollution, indoor dust (70 articles), while MP
outdoors included microplastic(s), air outdoor environment (59 arti­
cles). MP in food was refined for bivalve, shellfish, mollusk, seafood, salt
and crustaceans (74 articles). MP in water was refined by adding the
word drinking (234 articles) and subsequently adding tap (35 articles)
and bottled (31 articles). A total of 521 articles were identified at this
stage.
2.2. Eligibility criteria
Articles were sorted by their title and abstract, and the full paper
revised to include those papers which provided concentration of MP in
different matrices (n = 213). Only the papers reporting identification
and quantification of MP using analytical techniques to identify the
different polymers were considered (n = 168). A further selection
criteria was adopted to these articles to be included in the current re­
view: i) the article must report a detailed QA/QC section with the pro­
cedures adopted during the analysis of MP such as use of procedural
blanks to assess cross-contamination of samples, and ii) cellulose must
not be considered in the total MP count given that this review focuses on
petrochemical-based plastic polymers. At the end of the screening, a
total of 115 papers have been selected and discussed. An overview of the
literature screening is given in Fig. 1.
3. MP in air
Inhalation of MP occurs due to the presence of MP in air both in
outdoor and indoor environments. Once suspended into the air, MP
become a part of atmospheric particulate matter (PM). In literature, data
available concerning airborne MP concentration are scarce due to the
absence of a validated method to collect and analyze samples (Zhu et al.,
2021). The analysis of airborne MP both outdoors and indoors repre­
sents a first step to evaluate human exposure. The vast majority of
studies related to airborne particles are based on passive sampling which
relies on gravitational forces leading to atmospheric deposition of par­
ticles on a filter or accumulation in the surface dust layer. Active sam­
pling pumps air through a filter and give a more accurate indication of
airborne MP exposure. Additionally, the two sampling methods generate
data in different units that cannot be converted into one other, and
therefore these data are not comparable.
2
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram representing the identification, screening and selection process performed in the current review.
3.1. Outdoor air
improve their stability (Landi et al., 2016). Traffic-related MP are pro­
duced via mechanical abrasion, while the number of particles released
depends on temperature, composition, structure and age of tire, road
surface, type of pavement, and speed (Grigoratos and Martini, 2014).
Therefore, in principle, large cities would be the most impacted by
traffic-related MP. However, so far studies on MP release from tire wear
only report the total particle count without specifying the type of MP as
it is challenging to isolate the particles released from the abrasion pro­
cess on the concrete.
MP occur in outdoor air as a result of the various anthropogenic
pressures (e.g. traffic, urban, industries, etc.). An overview of the studies
carried out outdoors using passive sampling is given in Table 1. The
concentrations of MP found in urban areas range from non-detected to
30 particles m− 2 d-1 (n = 49) in Gdynia, Poland (Szewc et al., 2021), and
from 1586 to 11,130 particles m− 2 d-1 (n = 12) in Paris, France (Dris
et al., 2017). The concentrations reported in rural or remote are within
the range of urban areas and are also detailed in Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes the studies performed in outdoor air using active
sampling where concentrations range from 0 to 14.2 particles m− 3 (n =
12) in the urban area of Bushehr port, Iran (Akhbarizadeh et al., 2018),
to 393 ± 112 particles m− 3 (n = 15) in Beijin, China (Zhu et al., 2021).
Results from active sampling are expressed as particle m− 3 enabling a
better estimation of human exposure through inhalation.
In outdoor air, the most widely identified MP were polypropylene
(PP) and polyethylene (PE), although polystyrene (PS), polyethylene
terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamide (PA), poly­
urethane (PU), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), and plastic copolymers were
also reported. Outdoor sources of MP include industrial emission and
construction materials (Munyaneza et al., 2022), waste incineration (Liu
et al., 2019a), fragments from clothes (Klein and Fischer, 2019), and
traffic (Kole et al., 2017). Transport is a stealthy source of MP. It has
been estimated that the global emissions of tire wear particles are 0.81
kg/year per capita representing a total of almost 6.1 million tons of
particles per year (Kole et al., 2017). Tires consist of a mix of elastomers
such as rubber (natural and synthetic) (Sundt et al., 2016), carbon black,
steel cord, fibers, and other organic and inorganic components used to
3.2. Indoor air
MP have also been detected in indoor environments, defined as mi­
croenvironments going beyond the mere private residence. In fact, mi­
croenvironments comprise indoor spaces where people spend a big
portion of their time and include office workspaces, public buildings,
schools, universities, kindergartens, sports halls, passenger cabins,
metro, and buses (Salthammer, 2022; Torres-Agullo et al., 2022). The
sources of MP in indoor environments are infiltration, tracking, and
penetration (Salthammer, 2022). Infiltration indicates the direct air
exchange through door or window opening or via mechanical ventila­
tion system not incorporating particle filters. Tracking refers to the entry
of particles via footwear and clothing. Penetration is the ability of par­
ticles to enter an environment via small cracks in the building envelope,
including the roof, doors, windows, floors, and walls. Indoor MP are also
generated through the release from plastic items, toys, personal care
products containing microbeads, furniture, textiles, and clothing (Dris
et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019a).
Table 3 summarizes the studies performed using active sampling,
3
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Table 1
Concentration of MP in different outdoor areas including urban, rural, and remote areas collected by passive sampling of atmospheric fallouts. The types of polymers
detected and the identification methods and particle size analyzed is indicated. Data have been clustered depending on the country and, for each area, they are reported
in order of increasing particle concentration.
Country
Area
Sample size
(n)
MP concentration
(particles m− 2 d-1)
Polymers
identified
Identification Method
(minimum size MP
analyzed)
Reference
Gdynia, Poland
Urban
49
0 – 30
(10 ± 8)
μ-FT-IR2
(≥5 μm)
(Szewc et al., 2021)
Kusatsu, Japan
Da Nang, Vietnam
Kathmandu, Nepal
Urban
Urban
Urban
12
12
13
0.4
4.0
12.5
FT-IR
(≥40 μm)
(Yukioka et al., 2020)
Guangzhou, China
Urban
12
51–178
(114 ± 40)
μ-FT-IR
(Huang et al., 2021)
Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
Urban
78
71–917
FT-IR
(NS)14
(Truong et al., 2021)
Christchurch, New Zealand
Urban
11
80 – 1018
μ-FT-IR
(Knobloch et al., 2021)
Dongguan, China
Urban
12
175 – 313
μ-FT-IR
(Cai et al., 2017)
Central London, UK
Urban
8
575 – 1008
(771 ± 167)
μ-FT-IR
(Wright et al., 2020)
Paris, France
Urban
12
1586 – 11,130
PE1
PP3
EPM4
PVA5
PE
PP
PS6
PET7
PE
PU8
PVS9
EPC10
SBR11
PET
PAN12
PP
PA13
PP
PE
PVC15
PE
PET
Acrylic
Epoxy resin
PE
PP
PS
PP
PE
PS
PET
PU
PVC
PP
μ-FT-IR
(>5 μm)
(Dris et al., 2017)
Hamburg, Germany
Urban,
rural
108
136 – 512
(2 7 5)
μ-Raman
(>50 μm)
(Klein and Fischer,
2019)
Ireland (North and South), UK and
Europe
Rural
48
9––15
μ-Raman
(Roblin et al., 2020)
Pyrenees mountains, Europe
Remote
10
365 ± 69
PE
EVAC16
PTFE17
PVAc18
PP
PE
PET
PA
PP
PE
PS
PVC
PET
μ-Raman(NS)
(Allen et al., 2019)
1
PE = Polyethylene.
μ-FT-IR = micro-Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy, 3PP = Polypropylene.
4
EPM = Poly(ethylene-propylene) copolymer.
5
PVA = Poly(vinylalcohol).
6
PS = Polystyrene.
7
PET = Polyethylene terephtalate.
8
PU = Polyurethane.
9
PVS = Polyvinyl stereate.
10
EPC = Ethylene/propylene copolymer.
11
SBR = Styrene/butadiene rubber.
12
PAN = Polyacrylonitrile.
13
PA = Polyamide.
14
NS = Not specified.
15
PVC = Polyvinil chloride.
16
EVAC = Ethylvinil acetate.
17
PTFE = Polytetrafluoroethylene.
18
PVAc = Polyvinyl acetate.
2
4
(NS)14
(NS)14
(NS)14
(NS)14
(NS)14
14
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Table 2
Concentration of MP in different outdoor areas including urban and rural areas collected by active sampling, main plastic polymers detected and identification method
used. Data have been clustered depending on the area and, for each area, they are reported in order of increasing MP concentration.
Country
Area
Sample size
(n)
MP concentration (particles
m− 3)
Polymers identified
Identification method
(minimum MP size
analyzed)
Reference
Bushehr port,
Iran
Shanghai, China
Urban
12
PP, PE, PS, PET, Nylon
μ-Raman
Urban
18
(Akhbarizadeh et al.,
2021a)
(Liu et al., 2019b)
Madrid, Spain
Urban,
rural
Urban,
rural
Urban,
rural
3
63
0 – 14.2
(4.8)1
0 – 48
(1.4 ± 1.4)
1.5 – 13.9
(6.2)1
189 ± 85
15
15
177 ± 59
246 ± 78
PP, PE, PET, PA, PVC
15
15
15
171
267 ± 117
324 ± 145
393 ± 112
1943
Wenzhou, China
Nanjing, China
Hangzhou,
China
Shanghai, China
Tianjin, China
Beijing, China
Weighted
average
1
2
3
all
PE, PET, PA, PAA2, Ryon, EVAC
PET, PA, PS, PU, Acrylic,
Cellophane
PE, PS. PET
–
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(>10 μm)
μ-FT-IR
(>5 μm)
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
(González-Pleiter et al.,
2021)
(Liao et al., 2021)
–
–
(Zhu et al., 2021)
The mean value has been calculated taking into account the raw data given in the paper.
PAA = Poly(N-methyl acrylamide); 2NS = Not specified.
Weighted average of the MP concentration calculated considering all the studies listed in Table 2.
Table 3
Concentration of MP found in indoor air using active sampling sorted by country and type of indoor environment and reported according to increasing concentration.
Polymers identified, technique used for identification and minimum size are also indicated.
Country
Type
Sample size (n) MP
concentration
(MP m− 3)
Polymers
identified
Identification method
(minimum MP size
analyzed)
Reference
Paris, France
Apartment (n = 2); office (n = 1)
3
PP
μ-FT-IR
(>5 μm)
FPA-μ-FTIR-Imaging1
(≥11 μm)
μ-FT-IR
(≥20 μm)
(Dris et al., 2017)
Aarhus, Denmark Not specified
9
Barcelona, Spain Workplace
House
Subway car
Bus
Wenzhou, China Apartment, office, classroom, hospital, train
station3
Weighted
All
average
3
6
3
3
39
1
2
3
4
66
0.4 – 59.4
(5.4)
1.7 – 16.2
(9.3 ± 5.8)
4.2 ± 1.6
4.8 ± 1.6
5.8 ± 1.9
17.3 ± 2.4
1583 ± 1180
4
938
PET, PE, Nylon
PP, PES2, PE,
(Vianello et al., 2019)
(Torres-Agullo et al.,
2022)
PP, PE, PA
μ-FT-IR
(≥20 μm)
(Liao et al., 2021)
–
–
–
FPA-μ-FT-IR = Focal Plane Array micro-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.
PES = Polyether sulfone.
the MP concentration is given as an average for all the indoor environments.
Weighted average of the MP concentration calculated considering all the studies listed in Table 3.
used in most studies, to assess indoor MP concentration. The lowest
concentration of MP found was 0.4 MP m− 3 in a study conducted in
apartments (n = 2) and an office (n = 1) in Paris (Dris et al., 2017), while
the highest was 1583 ± 1180 MP m− 3 in apartments, offices, classroom,
hospitals, and train stations (n = 39) in Wenzhou, China (Liao et al.,
2021). One study carried out in Barcelona reported concentrations of MP
inside the buses of 17.3 ± 2.4 MP m− 3, higher than those of subways
(5.8 ± 1.9 MP m− 3, n = 3), houses (4.8 ± 1.6 MP m− 3, n = 6), and
workplaces (4.2 ± 1.6 MP m− 3, n = 3) (Torres-Agullo et al., 2022). MP
in public transports may be relevant considering that 95.7% of workers
in Europe commute, with an average one-way commuting time of 25
min per day (European Commission, 2020).
Different polymers have been reported from each study, with PP and
PE being the only polymers reoccurring in the different microenviron­
ments (see Table 3).
When comparing Table 2 and 3, the concentrations vary largely
reflecting the specific environments studied, rather than outdoor/indoor
differences. In general, though, the concentration of MP has been re­
ported to be higher indoors than outdoors (Dris et al., 2017), rising
concerns as people usually spend more than 70% of their time indoors.
Extraordinary situations such as COVID pandemic are also responsible of
indoor confinement, resulting in an increased time spent indoor.
3.3. MP daily intake via inhalation of air
The MP intake through inhalation from indoor and outdoor envi­
ronments has been measured in different ways (Nematollahi et al., 2022;
Zhu et al., 2022). In the present review, the potential inhaled dose (ID),
which is the amount of MP inhaled but not necessarily adsorbed, will be
considered (US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 1992). The ID
can be calculated knowing the respiratory rate, tidal volume (TV), which
is the amount of air inhaled with each breath, and body weight of a
specific age group. The average respiratory rate for adults is between 12
and 20 breaths per min (Lindh et al., 2009) and the TV is 0.5 L (Der­
ricksson and Tortora, 2017), resulting in 11,520 L of air (11.5 m3)
inhaled in a day (using an average of 16 breaths min− 1). For 1-year old
infants, the respiratory rate is 26 breaths min− 1, the average TV is 0.09
L, and the resulting average daily volume of air inhaled is 3.4 m3; while
for newborns the respiratory rate is 47 breaths min− 1 at birth, and the
TV is 0.03 L (Motoyama and Finder, 2011) resulting in 2 m3 of air
5
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
inhaled daily. The bw used for each age-category are 70 kg for adults, 12
kg for infants and 4 kg for newborns. The ID was calculated applying
Eq.1:
ID =
[MP]⋅Vair⋅EF
bw
indoors, calculated based on all the data reported in Table 3, is 938 MP
m− 3 resulting in an IDi of 103 MP/kg bw per day for adults, 172 MP/kg
bw per day for infants, and 328 MP/kg bw per day for newborns. When
considering the mean MP concentration inhaled, the contribution of
outdoor air inhalation to the IDt is less than 10%. The highest concen­
tration of MP found outdoor was, 393 MP m− 3 (Zhu et al., 2021), leading
to an ID of 21.3 MP/kg bw per day for adults, 36.0 MP/kg bw per day for
infants, and 68.8 MP/kg bw per day for newborn. Indoor, the highest
concentration of MP was 1583 MP m− 3 (Table 3) (Liao et al., 2021), and
the resulting IDi is 174 MP/kg bw per day for adults, 290 MP/kg bw per
day for infants and 554 MP/kg bw per day for newborns. The daily
intake indoors is therefore more than 8 times higher compared to the
one outdoors. The resulting maximum IDt from outdoor and indoor
environments is 195 MP/kg bw per day for adults, 326 MP/kg bw per
day for infants and 622 MP/kg bw per day for newborns (Table 4).
Results show that the IDt of infants is double, while for newborns is triple
compared to that of an adult. To our knowledge, this is the first time that
estimation of total inhaled MP indoor and outdoor has been carried out
using validated data from the open-bibliography.
Although the presence of MP in air is certain, human health risks due
to their inhalation have not been clarified (Wright, et al., 2020).
(1)
where:
- ID is the daily amount of MP potentially inhaled with air expressed as
MP kg bw-1 per day;
- [MP] is the concentration of MP in one m3 of indoor and outdoor air;
- Vair is the daily volume of air inhaled in m3, calculated by multi­
plying the respiratory rate, R, by the TV;
- EF is the exposure factor and an average of 8 h spent outdoors and 16
h indoors is considered;
- bw is the average weight in kilos.
The ID outdoor and indoor has been calculated using data from the
bibliography indicated in Tables 2 and 3, considering three different
scenarios:
a. The lowest concentration of MP reported outdoors and indoors;
b. The weighed mean concentration of MP reported outdoors and
indoors;
c. The highest concentration of MP to consider the worst-case scenario.
4. MP in indoor dust
Table 5 presents an overview of the studies carried out indoors both
on dust and atmospheric deposition, also called atmospheric fallouts.
The lowest concentration of MP found in dust was given by the average
amount of MP collected in apartments (n = 2) and inside an office (n =
1) in Paris urban area with 0.19–0.67 fibers per g of dust (Dris et al.,
2017), while the highest was found in kindergarten (n = 3) of Bushehr,
Iran, and accounted for 93000–196000 MP per g of dust (Kashfi et al.,
2022). Two studies quantified PET and PC in house dust using liquid
chromatography (Table 5) and the concentration of PET ranged from 38
µg PET per g of dust (Liu et al., 2019a) to 120000 µg of PET per g of dust
(Liu et al., 2019a; Zhang et al., 2020a); for PC the concentration ranged
To distinguish between outdoor, indoor and total ID, the subscripts
“o”, “i”, and “t” are added. The results are given in Table 4. When MP
have not been detected outdoors the IDt equaled the IDi, accounting for
0.04 MP/kg bw per day for adults, 0.07 MP/kg bw per day for infants,
and 0.14 MP/kg bw per day for newborns (Table 4). The weighted
average MP concentration outdoors, calculated based on all the data
reported in Table 2, is 194 MP m− 3 leading to an IDo of 10.5 MP/kg bw
per day for adults, 17.8 MP/kg bw per day for infants, and 33.9 MP/kg
bw per day for newborns. The weighted average MP concentration
Table 4
Data used to calculate the ID from outdoor and indoor exposure to MP for adults, infants and newborn and related result using the lowest and highest concentration of
MP reported in literature for outdoor (Zhu et al., 2021) and indoor (Liao et al., 2021) concentrations, and the calculated weighted average of all the studies listed in
Table 2 for outdoor and Table 3 for indoor calculations.
Age group
Body
weight
(Kg)
Average
respiratory
rate, R
(breaths
min¡1)
Tidal
Volume,
TV (L)
Outdoors
(for an average of 8 h)
Vair
[R⋅TV]
(m3)
[MP]
(MP
m¡3)
IDo (MP/kg bw
per day) Lowest,
average, highest
Vair
[R⋅TV]
m3)
[MP]
(MP
m¡3)
IDi (MP/kg bw
per day) Lowest,
average, highest
70
16
0.5
3.8
0
(min)
1941
(mean)
393
(max)
0
7.7
0.4
(min)
9382
(mean)
1583
(max)
0.04
0.04
103
114
174
195
0
(min)
1941
(mean)
393
(max)
0
(min)
1941
(mean)
393
(max)
0
0.4
(min)
9382
(mean)
1583
(max)
0.4
(min)
9382
(mean)
1583
(max)
0.07
0.07
172
190
290
326
0.14
0.14
328
362
554
622
12
4
1
2
26
47
0.09
0.03
1.1
0.7
Weighted average calculated based on the data reported in Table 2.
Weighted average calculated based on the data reported in Table 3.
6
Indoors
(for an average of 16 h)
10.5
21.3
2.2
17.8
36.0
0
33.9
68.8
1.4
ΣIDt
[IDo þ
IDi]
(MP/kg
bw per
day)
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Table 5
Concentration of MP found in indoor dust and atmospheric fallouts from different indoors environments including apartments, offices, dormitories, hallway, hotels,
schools, etc., sorted and clustered depending on sample type, and have been reported following an increasing MP concentration.
Study area,
Country
Sample Type
Area
Sample
size (n)
MP concentration
different units
Paris, France
Dust
3
0.19 – 0.67 fibers g−
28
10–635 MP g
(195 ± 179 MP g− 1)
62 – 434 MP g− 1
(209 MP g− 1)
74 – 2065 MP g− 1
(843 MP g− 1)
99 – 1166 MP g− 1
(775 MP g− 1)
112 – 1470 MP g− 1
(896 MP g− 1)
150 – 3861 MP g− 1
(1174 MP g− 1)
32000–78000 MP g− 1 (55600
± 23000 MP g− 1)
44000–94000 MP g− 1 (63600
± 26600 MP g− 1)
43000–112000 MP g− 1 (74000
± 35000 MP g− 1)
96000–160000 MP g− 1 (121600
± 33800 MP g− 1)
118000–157000 MP g− 1
(139000 ± 19600 MP g− 1)
27000–92000 MP g− 1
(68600 ± 36100 MP g− 1)
41000–58000 MP g− 1 (48600
± 8600 MP g− 1)
58000–75000 MP g− 1 (65000
± 8800 MP g− 1)
64000–103000 MP g− 1 (87300
± 20500 MP g− 1)
93000–196000 MP g− 1 (134.3
± 54.4 MP g− 1
1550–120000 µg g− 1 (PET)
4.6 µg g− 1 (PC)
Shiraz, Iran
Dust
Apartment (n = 2);
office (n = 1)
Schools
Hangzhou,
China
Dust
University classroom
44
Hotel
53
University dormitory
48
Office
50
Residential
apartment
Hospital
47
3
University
3
Home
3
Kindergarten
3
Mosque
3
Home
3
University
3
Hospital
3
Mosque
3
Kindergarten
3
Shiraz, Iran
Bushehr,
Iran
Dust
Dust
1
− 1
39 major cities
in China
Dust
House
39
12 countries4
Dust
House
286
New Jersey, US
Atmospheric
deposition
Office
Classroom
Hallway
Family house
1
1
1
1
38–120000 µg g− 1 (5900 µg
g− 1) PET
<0.11–1700 µg g− 1 (8.8 µg g− 1)
PC
1290 particles m− 2 d-1
1430 particles m− 2 d-1
18,800 particles m− 2 d-1
26,500 particles m− 2 d-1
Paris, France
Atmospheric
deposition
Atmospheric
deposition
Apartment (n = 2);
office (n = 1)
Hallway
Office
Dormitory
3
1600–11000 fibers m−
1
1
1
1500 MP m−
1800 MP m−
9900 MP m−
Shanghai, China
2
d-1
d-1
2 -1
d
2
2
d-1
Polymers
identified
Identification
method
(minimum MP size
analyzed)
Reference
PP1
μ-FT-IR
(>5 μm)
(Dris et al., 2017)
PET
PP
PS
Nylon
PA
PS
PC
PET
PP
PE
Raman
(NS)3
(Nematollahi
et al., 2022)
μ-FT-IR
(Zhu et al., 2022)
PE
PP
PC
PET Nylon2
Raman
(NS)3
(Kashfi et al.,
2022)
PE
PP
PC
PET Nylon2
Raman
(NS)3
(Kashfi et al.,
2022)
PET
PC
μ-FT-IR
(≥10 μm)
(Liu et al., 2019a)
PET
PC
PET
PE
PVC
PP
PS
PP
PET Rayon
PS
PP
PA
(NS)3
LC-MS/MS
HPLC-MS/MS
(Zhang et al.,
2020a)
μ-Raman
(Yao et al., 2022)
μ-FT-IR
(>5 μm)
μ-FT-IR
(>50 μm)
(Dris et al., 2017)
(NS)3
(Zhang et al.,
2020b)
1
Based on the analysis of 28 randomly selected fibers.
Based on the analysis of 15 randomly chosen particles.
3
NS = Not specified;
4
China (n = 39), Colombia (n = 45), Greece (n = 26), India (n = 33), Japan (n = 5), Kuwait (n = 18), Pakistan (n = 25), Romania (n = 21), Saudi Arabia (n = 30),
South Korea (n = 16), the USA (n = 10), and Vietnam (n = 18).
2
from < 0.11 µg of PC per g of dust to 1700 µg of PC per g of dust (Zhang
et al., 2020a). The lowest concentration detected in atmospheric fallouts
was in an office (n = 1) in New Jersey, US, where the MP concentration
was 1290 particles m− 2 d-1, while the highest was found in a family
house (n = 1) 26,500 particles m− 2 d-1 in New Jersey although the
sample size was very small (Yao et al., 2022). According to the results
reported in Table 5, the dominant MP found in dust are PP, PE, PET, PS,
PA, PC, and PVC.
4.1. MP daily intake via ingestion of dust
The intake of MP through air, intended as the presumed exposure or
consumption of a nutrient or chemical (Medical Dictionary, 2009),
should consider both the ID as indicated in the previous section, and the
fraction of dust ingested (DI) in indoors. In order to have an overview of
the average ingestion of MP through dust, we have calculated the
weighted average of the MP concentration in dust from the data reported
7
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
ranging from non-detected to 7200 MP kg− 1 (Li et al., 2018), followed
by clams of the specie Corbicula fluminae containing 5540 MP kg− 1
(McCoy et al., 2020), tuna and other species (Table 7). Among the plastic
polymers identified, PP and PE were the predominant ones and were
detected in all the food considered except for clams and oysters
(Baechler et al., 2020), while different polymers were identified in the
brands of canned tuna analyzed (Akhbarizadeh et al., 2020a). Other
plastic polymers frequently detected were PET, PTFE, PS, and PA
(Table 7).
MP are reported in many fish and shellfish species at various con­
centrations, being a consequence of the widespread presence of MP
present in coastan and open seas and oceans, Therefore, evaluating MP
in edible seafood is important not only to protect the environment but
also to minimize human exposure, especially in areas where fish con­
sumption is the primary source of proteins.
in Table 5. It was chosen to include only the studies focused on all MP
polymers and to leave out those which only considered a type of MP such
as fibers (Dris et al., 2017) or only a specific plastic polymer (Liu et al.,
2019a; Zhang et al., 2020a). The DI was calculated using Eq. (2):
DI =
[MP]⋅DIR
bw
(2)
where:
- DI is the daily amount of MP ingested via Dust Intake expressed in
MP kg bw-1 per day;
- [MP] is the mean concentration of MP in dust expressed in MP g− 1;
- DIR is the Dust Ingestion Rate expressed in g/day in adults and in­
fants (no DIR data is available for newborns);
- bw is the average body weight in kilos (70 kg for adults and 12 kg for
infants).
5.2. MP in beverages
The DIR was established by Velazquez-Gómez et al. (2019), and their
estimated median and high exposure to dust accounted respectively for
0.02 g day− 1 and 0.05 g day− 1 for adults; and 0.05 g day− 1 and 0.2 g
day− 1 for infants (Velázquez-Gómez et al., 2019). To calculate the DI
from Eq. (2)both the median and maximum DIR are considered, and
only the mean concentration of MP in dust was used, instead of lowest,
mean and highest, to reduce complexity in the MP exposure assessment.
The weighted average of MP per g of dust calculated based on the data
given in Table 5 is 727 MP g− 1 and therefore we calculated a median DI
of 0.21 MP/kg bw per day for adults and 3.04 MP/kg bw per day for
infants; while the DI resulting for the highest exposure is 0.52 MP/kg bw
per day for adults and 12.3 MP/kg bw per day for infants (Table 6). Two
previous studies have been found to assess the amount of MP ingested
from exposure to indoor dust (Nematollahi et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2022).
The DI was estimated as 0.6 MP/kg bw per day for adults and 13.7 MP/
kg bw per day for infants based on the collection of indoor dust in
schools in Iran (Nematollahi et al., 2022). DI of 0.23 MP/kg bw per day
for adults and 7.4 MP/kg bw per day for infants were estimated from
dust sampled from houses, offices, hotels, and dormitories in China
(Table 5) (Zhu et al., 2022). Our estimate is within the range of DI
estimated by the above-mentioned studies.
There are several studies carried out on MP in water, including tap
and bottled water, and drinks. However, only those reporting the
identification of MP are herein being considered (Table 8). MP have
been reported in drinking water (Chanpiwat and Damrongsiri, 2021;
Mason et al., 2018; Oßmann et al., 2018; Pittroff et al., 2021; Schy­
manski et al., 2018; Tong et al., 2020; Weber et al., 2021), white wine
(Prata et al., 2020), milk (Kutralam-Muniasamy et al., 2020; Shruti
et al., 2020), energy and soft drinks (Shruti et al., 2020), food packaging
such as plastic cups (Ranjan et al., 2021) and teabags (Hernandez et al.,
2019). The concentrations in tap water are generally low, ranging from
non-detected (n = 9) (Weber et al., 2021), to 40 MP L-1, both studies
from Germany (Pittroff et al., 2021). In bottled water from Germany,
concentrations reported are 118 ± 88 MP L-1 in reusable PET bottles and
14 ± 14 MP L-1 in single-use PET bottles (Schymanski et al., 2018). Glass
bottled water also from Germany contained 6292 ± 10521 MP L-1 (n =
10) while reusable PET bottles, with 4889 ± 5432 MP L-1 had a higher
amount of MP compared to single-use PET bottles, with 2649 ± 2857
MP L-1 (Oßmann et al., 2018). It has been suggested that the polymer
used to manufacture both the bottle and its cap play a key role in the
migration of MP into water (Akhbarizadeh et al., 2020b). Moreover, a
study highlighted that tap drinking water flowing in polymer-made
pipes had higher mean concentration of MP compared to that in con­
tact with plastic-free pipes (Mohammadi et al., 2022a). The size-range of
MP analyzed according to the analytical technique is also indicated in
Table 8 as the concentrations reported depend on the technique used,
which also delimits the sizes detected.
The concentration of MP reported in water and beverages (Table 8) is
affected by the analytical technique to identify MP and whether an
extrapolation method is used (analysing a small portion of the filter
versus analysing individual particles, as MP are not homogeneously
distributed throughout the whole filter) (Oßmann et al., 2018).
5. MP in food and beverages
5.1. Seafood
Food is another important pathway of human exposure to MP, rep­
resenting a health hazard through the ingestion of contaminated food
(Fadare and Okoffo, 2020; Ma et al., 2021; Morgana et al., 2021). Most
studies report MP in seafood, and there is no data on other types of food
as vegetables, fruits or meat, and therefore a diet based on fish con­
sumption has been considered to assess dietary exposure. An overview of
the concentration of MP found in different foods is given in Table 7. MP
have been detected in seafood including oysters (Baechler et al., 2020;
Jahan et al., 2019; Patterson et al., 2019), mussels (Phuong et al., 2018),
fish (Wu et al., 2020), salt including table salt, sea, lake and rock/well
salt with concentrations ranging from non-detected to 1674 MP kg− 1
(Karami et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018). High concentration of MP are
found in mussels of the specie Mytilus edulis from different countries,
5.3. Estimated daily intake via dietary ingestion
We have calculated the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) from the
ingestion of food from the results presented in Table 7 and for beverages
using the results presented in Table 8, considering a different scenario
for people consuming tap water, single-use PET water, and glass bottled
water. In order to do so, we assumed an adult meal plan considering a
pescatarian diet for which data regarding concentration of MP is avail­
able, and a consumption of 2 L of water was added.
The fish-based meal plan was designed as follows:
Table 6
Data used to calculate the DI for adults and infants and related result using the
median and highest DIR and the weighted average concentration of MP in dust.
Age
Group
Adults
Infants
DIR (g/day)
Median
Highest
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.2
Average MP
concentration in dust
(MP g¡1)
DI (MP kg bw-1
day¡1)
Median
Highest
727
0.21
3.04
0.52
12.3
• Breakfast: a cup of milk (200 mL);
• Lunch: fish (200 g) and a glass of white wine (360 mL);
• Dinner: shrimps (100 g) and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) (100 g) and
a small beer (330 mL).
8
Location
Food
Sample size
(n)
MP
concentration
(MP kg¡1
edible part)
Polymer type
Identification method
(minimum MP size
analyzed)
Reference
7 countries1
Table salt
16
1–10
PE, PP, PET, PA, PS, PAN
μ-Raman
(Karami et al., 2017)
17 countries
9
28
2
5
5
5
7
7
16
5
10
0–148
0–1674
28–462
7–204
43–364
550–681
2–29
35–72
50–280
115–185
9.50 ± 6.10
(2.50–20.0)
PE, PP, PET, PTFE
PC3, PB, PE, PES, PET, PP
μ-FT-IR
(Yang et al., 2015)
PE, PA, PES, PP
FTIR-ATR4
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
(Sathish et al., 2020)
China
Rock salt
Sea salt
Lake salt
Rock/well salt
Lake salt
Sea salt
Bore/well salt
Sea salt
Sea Salt
Well Salt
Sea salt
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
Ecuador
Rock/well salt
Honey
1
14
12.5
43.2
μ-FT-IR
5
5
150 ± 20
160 ± 20
PET, PS, PP, PS-PP, PVC, PS-PET, nylon, LDPE6
(Diaz-Basantes et al.,
2020)
(Akhbarizadeh et al.,
2020a)
5
5
5
90 ± 10
220 ± 20
130 ± 20
5
120 ± 20
5
5
110 ± 10
150 ± 30
5
50 ± 10
5
100 ± 20
2
2
6
2.6
260
230 ± 90
PA, PE, PP, PET, Acrylonitrile
μ-FT-IR
(Wu et al., 2020)
France
Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) Brand A – canned in sunflower oil
Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) Brand A–- canned in sunflower oil
and herbs
Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) Brand A–- canned in olive oil
Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) Brand A–- canned in brine water
Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
Brand B–- canned in soybean oil
Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
Brand C – canned in sunflower oil
Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) Brand D–- canned in sunflower oil
Mackerel fish (Scombermorus commerson)
Brand E–- canned in sunflower oil
Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
Brand F–- canned in soybean oil
Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
Brand G–- canned in soybean oil
Fish (Konosirus punctatus, Larimichthys crocea)
Bivalve (Ostrea Denselamellosa, Sinonovacula constricta)
Mussel (Mytilus edulis)
(NS)2
μ-Raman
(1–100 μm)
UK
Mussel (Mytilus edulis)
>10
1500–7200
PE, PES, PP, PVC, PA, PET
China
Mussel (Mytilus edulis and Perna viridis)
>50
1520–5360
PET, PE, PVC, PP, rayon
Turkey
Mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
342
230
Italy
Mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
60
890–1960
PET, PP, EVA, PA, PAC, PAN, PC, PE, PS, PVC,
PVF8
PE, PP, PET, PA, PS, PVC
Norway
Mussel (Mytilus spp.)
332
970
PET, PP, PE, PA, PS-PB, PVC, PAN, SAN9
New
Zealand
Mussel (Perna canaliculus)
72
0–480
PE, PA
China
India
Spain
Iran
9
China
PET, PE, PP
PE, PP, PES, PET, PS
PE, PAA5, PP
PE, PET, PP, ABS
7
(NS)2
(Kim et al., 2018)
(Iñiguez et al., 2017)
(Lee et al., 2019)
(Phuong et al., 2018)
(Li et al., 2018)
(Qu et al., 2018)
(Gedik and Eryaşar, 2020)
(Gomiero et al., 2019)
(Bråte et al., 2018)
(Webb et al., 2019)
(continued on next page)
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(≥20 μm)
μ-FT-IR-ATR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(≥20 μm)
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(≥40 μm)
G. Zuri et al.
Table 7
Concentration of MP in food including salt, honey, fish, bivalves, and shrimps, ordered according to increasing concentration of MP per kg of the edible part of food.
This value was calculated from the data provided in the paper considering that the average particle per clam found was 6.40 and that, on average, the clam edible part weight was 1.15 g.
Australia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa.
2
NS = Not specified.
3
PC = Polycarbonate.
4
FTIR-ATR = Fourier Transform Attenuated Total Reflection.
5
PAA = Poly(N-methyl acrylamide).
6
LDPE = Low Density Polyethylene.
7
ABS = Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.
8
PVF = Polyvinyl fluoride.
9
SAN = Styrene acrylonitrile.
India
Where:
- EDI is the Estimated Daily Intake of MP expressed as MP kg bw-1
day− 1;
- [MP]food, [MP]bev, and [MP]w refer to the average concentration of
MP in food, the weighted average of beverages and drinking water,
respectively, reported in Tables 7 and 8;
kg.
bw is the average body weight of an adult which corresponds to 70
The results obtained from applying Eq. (3) to the meal plan consid­
ering the lowest, average and highest concentration of MP are reported
in Table 9 and an overview the raw data used are found in the supple­
mentary material (Table S1 and Table S2).
While no difference is observed in the EDI when considering different
types of drinking water at the lowest concentration, the extent of
exposure to MP considering mean and maximum concentrations
increased in the following order: tap water < single-use PET bottled
water < reusable PET bottle < glass bottled water. This comparison
should be regarded with caution as the analytical techniques used and
the sizes measured in the different types of water can affect EDI values.
Taking all into account, we can conclude that water may represent a
major pathway of exposure to MP.
For infants, the EDI has not been calculated due to the lack of data
concerning MP in infant formulas and that at this stage of life solid foods
might be introduced but in small amount (National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2022). For newborn breast­
milk was used to assess the ingestion of MP. Data from 34 breastmilk
samples collected from Italian women aged 28 to 50 years one week
after delivery was used for the purpose of the estimation (Ragusa et al.,
2022). Each sample consisted of 4.16 ± 1.73 g of breastmilk and the
amount of MP ranged from non-detected to 2.72 MP g− 1 (mean of 0.53
MP/g) with PE (38%), PVC (21%), and PP (21%) being the most
abundant polymers identified via Raman spectroscopy. On average, a
newborn weighing 3.5 kg needs approximately 200 mL of breastmilk per
kg/bw per day in the first week, and with an average density of milk of
1.030 g mL− 1, a newborn ingests 721 g of breastmilk per day (National
Health System, 2019). Considering the mean and maximum MP con­
centration in breast milk (Ragusa et al., 2022), a newborn ingests on
average 96 MP/kg bw per day, and up to 498 MP/kg bw per day.
Several studies have estimated the exposure of adults to MP
considering a single type of food or drink, but two studies estimated the
ingestion of MP as cumulative exposure from food and beverages. It has
been estimated that global average ingestion of MP is in the range of 0.1
to 5 g MP/week, being water the greatest contributor (Senathirajah
et al., 2021). Cox et al. (2019) estimated that annual MP consumption
ranges from 39,000 to 52,000 MP/year depending on age and sex using
the American diet as a reference. Furthermore, individuals consuming
only bottled water could ingest an additional 90,000 MP/year (resulting
in 130,000 to 140,000 MP/year) while the intake for those drinking only
tap water increases of 4000 MP/year (resulting in 43,000 to 56,000 MP/
year) (Cox et al., 2019). Considering that MP are recurrently detected in
different types of waters, the type of water influences the EDI people are
exposed to (Cox et al., 2019; Senathirajah et al., 2021).
1
Prawn (Fenneropenaeus indicus)
China
10
PA, PE, PES, PP
40 ± 70
Shrimp (Parapenaeopsis hardwickii)
India
330
PA, PE, PP, PET
250
Cupped oyster (Magallana bilineata)
Australia
1
Clam (Siliqua patula)
Oyster (Crassostrea gigas, Siliqua patula)
Oyster
USA
180
810
PS, PE, PET, acrylic, rayon, poly(ethylene:diene:
propylene)
PE, PP
PET, PA, acrylic
160 ± 20
350 ± 40
150–830
Clam (Corbicula fluminea)
UK
142
141
>120
Among all the species of mussels, Mytilus edulis was chosen since it is
the most widely consumed in Europe together with Mytilus gallopro­
vincialis (Anacleto et al., 2016) and would provide the worst-case sce­
nario for the dietary intake of MP. Canned fish could have also been
considered in the meal plan (Akhbarizadeh et al., 2020a) but the con­
centrations were lower.
In order to calculate the EDI, the following formula was used:
∑
∑
∑
( [MP]food⋅Weigh food)+(( [MP]bev⋅Vbev ) + ( [MP]w⋅Vw)
EDI =
bw
(3)
(Daniel et al., 2020)
(Wu et al., 2020)
(Patterson et al., 2019)
(Jahan et al., 2019)
(Baechler et al., 2020)
(McCoy et al., 2020)
PP, PE, polyallomer
554,010
Mussel (Perna viridis)
Vietnam
8
Food
5
290
PP, PE, PET, PS, PA, PVA
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
FT-IR
(NS)2
FT-IR-ATR
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
FT-IR
(NS)2
(Phuong et al., 2018)
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Location
Table 7 (continued )
Sample size
(n)
MP
concentration
(MP kg¡1
edible part)
Polymer type
Identification method
(minimum MP size
analyzed)
Reference
G. Zuri et al.
10
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Table 8
Concentration of MP in different drinks, including bottled water, milk, soft and energy drinks, beer, and wine.
Country
Drink
Sample size
(n)
Average MP
concentration
(min–max)
(particles L-1)
Polymer type
Identification
method
(min MP size
analyzed)
Reference
Germany
Tap water
9
0
–
(Weber et al., 2021)
Denmark
Tap water
17
PET, PP, PS, ABS
Thailand
Tap water
6
Spain
Tap water
7
Germany
Tap water
2
0.005
(0–0.02)1
0.62
(0.24–1)
1.60
(0–3.60)
40 (6–74)
China
Tap water
38
440 (0–1247)
PMMA, PB3, PBT4, nylon, PVC
Raman
(>10 μm)
μ-FT-IR
(>100 μm)
μ-Raman
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(>20 μm)
μ-Raman
(>5 μm)
μ-Raman(NS)
Saudi Arabia
Glass bottle
Single-use PET
bottle
Glass bottle
Single-use PET
bottle
Beverage carton
Single-use PET
bottle
Glass bottle
Reusable PET
bottle
Single-use PET
bottle
Reusable PET
bottle
Glass bottle
Tap water
Single-use bottled
water
Reusable PET
bottle
Glass bottle
Milk
2
24
1.8
2.1 ± 5.0 (0–26)
PE, PS, PET
PE, PS, PET
μ-FT-IR
(>25 μm)
(Almaiman et al., 2021)
6
253
1.41
325
PP, PS, PE, Nylon, PET
μ-FT-IR
(>100 μm)
(Mason et al., 2018)
3
22
11 ± 8
14 ± 14
PET, PA, PES, PE, PP
μ-Raman
(>5 μm)
(Schymanski et al., 2018)
6
22
50 ± 52
118 ± 88
10
2649 ± 2857
PP, PE, PET
(Oßmann et al., 2018)
12
4889 ± 5432
PP, PE, PET
μ-Raman
(≥1 μm)
10
79
309
6292 ± 10521
213
364
PP, PE, PET, PS-PB6 copolymer
–
–
–
34
1802
24
23
PSU8
μ-Raman
(Kutralam-Muniasamy
et al., 2020)
(Diaz-Basantes et al.,
2020)
(Prata et al., 2020)
Several Countries5
Germany
Germany
Weighted average
water7
Mexico
Ecuador
Italy
Mexico
PP, PE, PET, PS, PVC
Polyester, PP, PE, PS, PA, ABS
PE, PET
Milk
Beer
White wines
10
14
26
Energy and soft
drink
Beer
Cold tea
26
2634
6.5 ± 2.3
(3 ± 2 – 11.0 ± 3.5)
40.3 (16–53)
51.2 (10.7–156)9
36,611
(2563–5857)
0–7
27
4
0–28
1–6
PET, PP
PE
PA, PEA, Acrylonitrile-butadienestyrene copolymer
PA, PEA10, PET
PA, PEA
2
(NS)2
μ-FT-IR
(NS)2
μ-Raman
(NS)2
μ-Raman
(NS)2
(Feld et al., 2021)
(Chanpiwat and
Damrongsiri, 2021)
(Dalmau-Soler et al.,
2021)
(Pittroff et al., 2021)
(Tong et al., 2020)
(Shruti et al., 2020)
1
The value has been calculated from the data reported in the supplementary material of the article.
NS = Not specified.
3
PB = Polybutene.
4
PBT = Polybutylene terephthalate.
5
Indonesia, India, Mexico, US, Brazil, Lebanon, China, UK, Italy.
6
PS-PB = Polystyrene-Polybutylene.
7
Calculated based on the data reported in the Table.
8
PSU = Polysulfone.
9
These values have been calculated based on the raw data and expressed as MP/L since they were given for 750 mL sample.
10
PEA = Polyesteramide.
2
6. Total daily intake
Table 9
Estimated daily intake for adults considering the fish-based meal plan proposed
and the lowest, average and highest MP concentration reported in literature.
Type of diet
Fish based
diet
Meal plan þ water
Finally, to assess human exposure to MP considering the inhalation
and ingestion routes the TDI was estimated. The TDI considers all the
parameters estimated in the previous paragraphs: DI, ID, and EDI and is
calculated by Eq. (4):
EDI
MP/kg bw per day
Min
Average
Max
Meal plan + Tap water
Meal plan + single-use bottled water
13.5
13.5
26.8
31.2
76.9
117
Meal plan + reusable PET bottled
water
Meal plan + glass bottled water
16.9
72.2
181
13.6
96
221
TDI = ID + DI + EDI
(4)
Table 10 summarizes the results obtained with our calculations for
ID DI, and EDI and which are applied to Eq. (4) to calculate the mini­
mum, average and maximum TDI of MP in MP/kg bw per day.
EDI data for infants are not reported due to the lack of information
11
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Table 10
Overview of all the minimum, average and maximum DI, ID, EDI in MP/kg bw per day for adults, infants, and newborns used to estimate the TDI.
Parameter
Age group
Adult
MP/kg bw per day
ID
DI
EDI
TDI
Infants
MP/kg bw per day
Newborn
MP/kg bw per day
Min
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
Min
Average
Max
0.04
NA1
13.6
13.6
114
0.21
96
210
195
0.52
221
417
0.07
NA1
NC2
0.07
190
3.4
NC2
193
326
12.3
NC2
338
0.14
NA1
NA1
0.14
362
NA1
963
458
622
NA1
4983
1120
1
NA = Not Applicable since the minimum DIR has not been estimated for adults and infants and no DIR at all was estimated for newborns by Velazquez-Gómez et al.
(2019).
2
NC = Not calculated due to the lack of information on MP concentration on infants food formulas.
3
These concentrations refer to the MP ingested with breastmilk (Ragusa et al., 2022).
regarding the concentration of MP in infant formulas which prevents
from calculating the EDI for this age-group. The TDI calculated using Eq.
(3) ranges from 13.6 to 417 MP/kg bw per day for adults and from 0.14
to 1120 MP/kg bw per day for newborns. Compared to adults, newborns
might be exposed to more than double the concentration of MP/kg bw
per day, which might be of concern considering that newborns are the
most vulnerable population in the world (World Health Organization,
2020).
being replaced by enzymatic treatments (Schrank et al., 2022). How­
ever, there is no standardized way of pretreating samples. In addition,
among the data generated, based on the analytical technique used to
identify MP, the size of particles which can be identified varies signifi­
cantly affecting the concentration of MP detected. In fact, with Raman it
is possible to identify MP having size ≥ 2 μm, while with μ-FTIR the size
lower limit is ≥ 10–20 μm and therefore the number of MP identified is
higher in studies where Raman is used (Xu et al., 2019). Although μ-FTIR
as identification technique leads to an underestimation of the amount of
MP in a given sample, it has the advantage of being a less expensive
analytical technique compared to Raman and therefore is also more
widely used. Ideally, in the future, there will be standardized procedures
for the sampling, sample (pre)-treatment, and analysis which will enable
to build a comprehensive database for all different matrices including
the concentration, MP dimensions and the type of polymer to better
assess human exposure and potential risks to this new type of
contaminants.
7. Dermal contact
Dermal contact is considered a less prevalent route of exposure to MP
than inhalation and ingestion and occurs while wearing clothes or when
applying personal PCCP to the skin. Microbeads of different polymers
and sizes are added to PCCP as part of their formulation to elicit a
specific function, including: viscosity regulators, emulsifiers, glitters,
skin conditioning, and exfoliants among others (UNEP, 2015). Although
the stratum corneum, representing the skin outermost layer, provides a
defensive barrier against potentially harmful substances in a healthy
status (Schneider et al., 2009), it has been assumed that nanoplastics
might cross the dermal barrier (Revel et al., 2018) and that contact of
epithelial cells to micro- and nanoplastics can lead to oxidative stress
(Schirinzi et al., 2017). Adverse effects triggered by dermal contact have
not been assessed, therefore further research is needed. Sample bio­
security, ethical constraints and method limitations seem to be the
reason why the intake of MP through this pathway has not been inves­
tigated and documented (Wu et al., 2022).
9. Conclusions
Humans are exposed to MP through different pathways including
inhalation of air both indoors and outdoors, ingestion of dust, as well as
food and beverages. Although the research is at an infant stage, pro­
gresses are being made in quantifying MP in different matrices making it
possible to estimate the TDI by considering DI, ID, and EDI, while no
data regarding dermal exposure is available. Inhalation certainly rep­
resents the major contribution to the TDI, especially indoors where the
concentration of MP is higher compared to outdoor environments.
Conversely, DI seems to be negligible compared to the other pathways of
exposure. The TDI is heavily affected by dietary choices, especially when
it comes to the selection of drinking tap or bottled water. Taking all the
routes of exposure into account, a newborn might be exposed to twice as
much the concentration of MP compared to that of adults on daily basis
and further research is needed to clarify whether this extent of exposure
to MP might elicit adverse health effects.
8. MP analysis: Gaps and implications
In spite of the increasing interest on studying MP and the willingness
to provide data useful to conduct a risk assessment to elucidate health
hazard for humans, there are still gaps to be filled in the whole pro­
cedure of identifying and quantifying MP in air/dust/food. In fact,
although QA/QC guidelines have been suggested especially regarding
the sample handling (Schymanski et al., 2021), there is no univocal way
of classifying, analyzing and identifying MP and therefore, the results
are not always comparable, making only a small number of articles
eligible for human exposure assessment through different routes. As an
example, as we discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, only results obtained
through active sampling of air provide results that can be used to assess
the intake of MP through inhalation since concentrations are given in
MP m− 3. Moreover, although the number of studies on water is
increasing, there is still a knowledge gap concerning MP in food, espe­
cially meat, vegetables, and fruits limiting the dietary exposure assess­
ment through different types of diet. This could be related to the
difficulties in handling the sample which must undergo a pretreatment
to eliminate the organic matter present in the matrix which interferes
with MP analysis. Various sample treatments are being proposed, and
strong acid and bases clean-up which might damage the polymers are
Funding
This work was supported by “la Caixa” Foundation [ID 100010434;
code LCF/BQ/DI21/11860062]. We also acknowledge financial support
from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities
(Excelencia Severo Ochoa, Project CEX2018-000794-S and Project
PID2019-105732
GB-C21
from
MCIN/AEI/https://10.13039/
501100011033).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Giuseppina Zuri: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
Writing – review & editing. Angeliki Karanasiou: Investigation, Su­
pervision, Funding acquisition. Silvia Lacorte: Conceptualization,
12
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Resources, Writing – review &
editing, Funding acquisition.
Dalmau-Soler, J., Ballesteros-Cano, R., Boleda, M.R., Paraira, M., Ferrer, N., Lacorte, S.,
2021. Microplastics from headwaters to tap water: occurrence and removal in a
drinking water treatment plant in Barcelona Metropolitan area (Catalonia, NE
Spain). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 59462–59472. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-021-13220-1.
Daniel, D.B., Ashraf, P.M., Thomas, S.N., 2020. Abundance, characteristics and seasonal
variation of microplastics in Indian white shrimps (Fenneropenaeus indicus) from
coastal waters off Cochin, Kerala. India. Science of The Total Environment 737,
139839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139839.
Derricksson, B.H., Tortora, G.J., 2017. Principles of anatomy & physiology, 15th ed.
Wiley, Danvers MA.
Diaz-Basantes, M.F., Conesa, J.A., Fullana, A., 2020. Microplastics in Honey, Beer, Milk
and Refreshments in Ecuador as Emerging Contaminants. Sustainability 12, 5514.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145514.
Dobaradaran, S., Schmidt, T.C., Nabipour, I., Khajeahmadi, N., Tajbakhsh, S., Saeedi, R.,
Javad Mohammadi, M., Keshtkar, M., Khorsand, M., Faraji Ghasemi, F., 2018.
Characterization of plastic debris and association of metals with microplastics in
coastline sediment along the Persian Gulf. Waste Manag. 78, 649–658. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.06.037.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V., Tassin, B.,
2017. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and
outdoor environments. Environ. Pollut. 221, 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.12.013.
European Commission, 2020. Majority commuted less than 30 minutes in 2019 [WWW
Document]. EUROSTAT. URL https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eur
ostat-news/-/ddn-20201021-2 (accessed 3.11.23).
Fadare, O.O., Okoffo, E.D., 2020. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic
fibers in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 737, 140279.
Feld, L., Silva, V.H.d., Murphy, F., Hartmann, N.B., Strand, J., 2021. A study of
microplastic particles in danish tap water. Water (Switzerland) 13 (15), 2097.
Frias, J.P.G.L., Nash, R., 2019. Microplastics: Finding a consensus on the definition. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 138, 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.022.
Gedik, K., Eryaşar, A.R., 2020. Microplastic pollution profile of Mediterranean mussels
(Mytilus galloprovincialis) collected along the Turkish coasts. Chemosphere 260,
127570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127570.
Gewert, B., Plassmann, M.M., MacLeod, M., 2015. Pathways for degradation of plastic
polymers floating in the marine environment. Environ Sci Process Impacts 17,
1513–1521. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EM00207A.
Gomiero, A., Strafella, P., Øysæd, K.B., Fabi, G., 2019. First occurrence and composition
assessment of microplastics in native mussels collected from coastal and offshore
areas of the northern and central Adriatic Sea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26,
24407–24416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05693-y.
González-Pleiter, M., Edo, C., Aguilera, Á., Viúdez-Moreiras, D., Pulido-Reyes, G.,
González-Toril, E., Osuna, S., de Diego-Castilla, G., Leganés, F., Fernández-Piñas, F.,
Rosal, R., 2021. Occurrence and transport of microplastics sampled within and above
the planetary boundary layer. Sci. Total Environ. 761, 143213 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143213.
Grigoratos, T., Martini, G., 2014. Non-exhaust traffic related emissions – Brake and tyre
wear PM. JRC Publications Repository. 10.2790/2200.
Grigoratos, T., Martini, G., 2015. Brake wear particle emissions: a review. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 22, 2491–2504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3696-8.
Hajiouni, S., Mohammadi, A., Ramavandi, B., Arfaeinia, H., De-la-Torre, G.E., TekleRöttering, A., Dobaradaran, S., 2022. Occurrence of microplastics and phthalate
esters in urban runoff: A focus on the Persian Gulf coastline. Sci. Total Environ. 806,
150559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150559.
Hartmann, N.B., Hüffer, T., Thompson, R.C., Hassellöv, M., Verschoor, A., Daugaard, A.
E., Rist, S., Karlsson, T., Brennholt, N., Cole, M., Herrling, M.P., Hess, M.C., Ivleva, N.
P., Lusher, A.L., Wagner, M., 2019. Are We Speaking the Same Language?
Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 53, 1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05297.
Hernandez, L.M., Xu, E.G., Larsson, H.C.E., Tahara, R., Maisuria, V.B., Tufenkji, N., 2019.
Plastic Teabags Release Billions of Microparticles and Nanoparticles into Tea.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 53, 12300–12310. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02540.
Huang, Y., He, T., Yan, M., Yang, L., Gong, H., Wang, W., Qing, X., Wang, J., 2021.
Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a subtropical urban
environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 416, 126168 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.126168.
Iñiguez, M.E., Conesa, J.A., Fullana, A., 2017. Microplastics in Spanish Table Salt. Sci.
Rep. 7, 8620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09128-x.
Jahan, S., Strezov, V., Weldekidan, H., Kumar, R., Kan, T., Sarkodie, S.A., He, J.,
Dastjerdi, B., Wilson, S.P., 2019. Interrelationship of microplastic pollution in
sediments and oysters in a seaport environment of the eastern coast of Australia. Sci.
Total Environ. 695, 133924 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133924.
Karami, A., Golieskardi, A., Keong Choo, C., Larat, V., Galloway, T.S., Salamatinia, B.,
2017. The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different countries. Sci.
Rep. 7, 46173. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46173.
Kashfi, F.S., Ramavandi, B., Arfaeinia, H., Mohammadi, A., Saeedi, R., De-la-Torre, G.E.,
Dobaradaran, S., 2022. Occurrence and exposure assessment of microplastics in
indoor dusts of buildings with different applications in Bushehr and Shiraz cities,
Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 829, 154651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.154651.
Kim, J.-S., Lee, H.-J., Kim, S.-K., Kim, H.-J., 2018. Global Pattern of Microplastics (MPs)
in Commercial Food-Grade Salts: Sea Salt as an Indicator of Seawater MP Pollution.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 52, 12819–12828. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04180.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108150.
References
Akhbarizadeh, R., Moore, F., Keshavarzi, B., 2018. Investigating a probable relationship
between microplastics and potentially toxic elements in fish muscles from northeast
of Persian Gulf. Environ. Pollut. 232, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2017.09.028.
Akhbarizadeh, R., Dobaradaran, S., Nabipour, I., Tajbakhsh, S., Darabi, A.H., Spitz, J.,
2020a. Abundance, composition, and potential intake of microplastics in canned
fish. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111633 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111633.
Akhbarizadeh, R., Dobaradaran, S., Schmidt, T.C., Nabipour, I., Spitz, J., 2020b.
Worldwide bottled water occurrence of emerging contaminants: A review of the
recent scientific literature. J. Hazard. Mater. 392, 122271 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2020.122271.
Akhbarizadeh, R., Dobaradaran, S., Amouei Torkmahalleh, M., Saeedi, R., Aibaghi, R.,
Faraji Ghasemi, F., 2021a. Suspended fine particulate matter (PM2.5), microplastics
(MPs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in air: Their possible
relationships and health implications. Environ. Res. 192, 110339 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envres.2020.110339.
Akhbarizadeh, R., Dobaradaran, S., Nabipour, I., Tangestani, M., Abedi, D., Javanfekr, F.,
Jeddi, F., Zendehboodi, A., 2021b. Abandoned Covid-19 personal protective
equipment along the Bushehr shores, the Persian Gulf: An emerging source of
secondary microplastics in coastlines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 168, 112386 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112386.
Allen, S., Allen, D., Phoenix, V.R., Le Roux, G., Durántez Jiménez, P., Simonneau, A.,
Binet, S., Galop, D., 2019. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a
remote mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41561-019-0335-5.
Almaiman, L., Aljomah, A., Bineid, M., Aljeldah, F.M., Aldawsari, F., Liebmann, B.,
Lomako, I., Sexlinger, K., Alarfaj, R., 2021. The occurrence and dietary intake related
to the presence of microplastics in drinking water in Saudi Arabia. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 193, 390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09132-9.
Anacleto, P., Maulvault, A.L., Barbosa, V., Nunes, M.L., Marques, A., 2016. Shellfish:
Characteristics of Crustaceans and Mollusks, in: Encyclopedia of Food and Health.
Elsevier, pp. 764–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00623-1.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., 2009. Proceedings of the International Research
Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris.
Baechler, B.R., Granek, E.F., Hunter, M.V., Conn, K.E., 2020. Microplastic concentrations
in two Oregon bivalve species: Spatial, temporal, and species variability. Limnol.
Oceanogr. Lett. 5, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10124.
Brandon, J., Goldstein, M., Ohman, M.D., 2016. Long-term aging and degradation of
microplastic particles: Comparing in situ oceanic and experimental weathering
patterns. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 110, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.06.048.
Bråte, I.L.N., Hurley, R., Iversen, K., Beyer, J., Thomas, K.V., Steindal, C.C., Green, N.W.,
Olsen, M., Lusher, A., 2018. Mytilus spp. as sentinels for monitoring microplastic
pollution in Norwegian coastal waters: A qualitative and quantitative study. Environ.
Pollut. 243, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.077.
Cabrejos-Cardeña, U., De-la-Torre, G.E., Dobaradaran, S., Rangabhashiyam, S., 2023. An
ecotoxicological perspective of microplastics released by face masks. J. Hazard.
Mater. 443, 130273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130273.
Cai, L., Wang, J., Peng, J., Tan, Z., Zhan, Z., Tan, X., Chen, Q., 2017. Characteristic of
microplastics in the atmospheric fallout from Dongguan city, China: preliminary
research and first evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 24928–24935. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-017-0116-x.
Chanpiwat, P., Damrongsiri, S., 2021. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in
freshwater and treated tap water in Bangkok. Thailand. Environ Monit Assess 193.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09012-2.
Cox, K.D., Covernton, G.A., Davies, H.L., Dower, J.F., Juanes, F., Dudas, S.E., 2019.
Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Tech. 53, 7068–7074. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517.
13
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Klein, M., Fischer, E.K., 2019. Microplastic abundance in atmospheric deposition within
the Metropolitan area of Hamburg, Germany. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 96–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.405.
Knobloch, E., Ruffell, H., Aves, A., Pantos, O., Gaw, S., Revell, L.E., 2021. Comparison of
Deposition Sampling Methods to Collect Airborne Microplastics in Christchurch,
New Zealand. Water Air Soil Pollut 232, 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-02105080-9.
Koelmans, A.A., Redondo-Hasselerharm, P.E., Nor, N.H.M., de Ruijter, V.N., Mintenig, S.
M., Kooi, M., 2022. Risk assessment of microplastic particles. Nat. Rev. Mater. 7 (2),
138–152. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00411-y.
Kole, P.J., Löhr, A.J., van Belleghem, F., Ragas, A., 2017. Wear and Tear of Tyres: A
Stealthy Source of Microplastics in the Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 14, 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101265.
Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., Pérez-Guevara, F., Elizalde-Martínez, I., Shruti, V.C., 2020.
Branded milks – Are they immune from microplastics contamination? Sci. Total
Environ. 714, 136823 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136823.
Landi, D., Vitali, S., Germani, M., 2016. Environmental Analysis of Different End of Life
Scenarios of Tires Textile Fibers. Procedia CIRP 48, 508–513. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.141.
Lee, H., Kunz, A., Shim, W.J., Walther, B.A., 2019. Microplastic contamination of table
salts from Taiwan, including a global review. Sci. Rep. 9, 10145. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-019-46417-z.
Li, H.-X., Ma, L.-S., Lin, L., Ni, Z.-X., Xu, X.-R., Shi, H.-H., Yan, Y., Zheng, G.-M.,
Rittschof, D., 2018. Microplastics in oysters Saccostrea cucullata along the Pearl
River Estuary, China. Environ. Pollut. 236, 619–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.01.083.
Liao, Z., Ji, X., Ma, Y., Lv, B., Huang, W., Zhu, X., Fang, M., Wang, Q., Wang, X.,
Dahlgren, R., Shang, X., 2021. Airborne microplastics in indoor and outdoor
environments of a coastal city in Eastern China. J. Hazard. Mater. 417, 126007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126007.
Lindh, W.Q., Pooler, M., Tamparo, C.D., Dahl, B.M., 2009. Delmar’s Comprehensive
Medical Assisting: Administrative and Clinical Competencies, 4th ed.
Lindwall, C., 2020. Single-Use Plastics 101 [WWW Document]. Natural Resources
Defense Council. URL https://www.nrdc.org/stories/single-use-plastics-101
(accessed 4.22.23).
Liu, C., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, L., Deng, J., Gao, Y., Yu, L., Zhang, J., Sun, H., 2019a.
Widespread distribution of PET and PC microplastics in dust in urban China and
their estimated human exposure. Environ. Int. 128, 116–124. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.024.
Liu, K., Wang, X., Fang, T., Xu, P., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2019b. Source and potential risk
assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. Sci. Total Environ.
675, 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110.
Liu, K., Wang, X., Wei, N., Song, Z., Li, D., 2019c. Accurate quantification and transport
estimation of suspended atmospheric microplastics in megacities: Implications for
human health. Environ. Int. 132, 105127.
Ma, J., Chen, F., Xu, H., Jiang, H., Liu, J., Li, P., Chen, C.C., Pan, K.e., 2021. Face masks
as a source of nanoplastics and microplastics in the environment: Quantification,
characterization, and potential for bioaccumulation. Environ. Pollut. 288, 117748.
Mason, S.A., Welch, V.G., Neratko, J., 2018. Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled
Water. Front. Chem. 6 https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00407.
McCoy, K.A., Hodgson, D.J., Clark, P.F., Morritt, D., 2020. The effects of wet wipe
pollution on the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the River
Thames, London. Environ. Pollut. 264, 114577 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.114577.
Medical Dictionary, 2009. Estimated Daily Intake [WWW Document]. Farlex and
Partners. URL https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/estimated+daily+
intake (accessed 3.22.23).
Mohammadi, A., Dobaradaran, S., Schmidt, T.C., Malakootian, M., Spitz, J., 2022a.
Emerging contaminants migration from pipes used in drinking water distribution
systems: a review of the scientific literature. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29,
75134–75160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23085-7.
Mohammadi, A., Malakootian, M., Dobaradaran, S., Hashemi, M., Jaafarzadeh, N.,
2022b. Occurrence, seasonal distribution, and ecological risk assessment of
microplastics and phthalate esters in leachates of a landfill site located near the
marine environment: Bushehr port, Iran as a case. Sci. Total Environ. 842, 156838
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156838.
Morgana, S., Casentini, B., Amalfitano, S., 2021. Uncovering the release of micro/
nanoplastics from disposable face masks at times of COVID-19. J. Hazard. Mater.
419, 126507.
Motoyama, E.K., Finder, J.D., 2011. Respiratory Physiology in Infants and Children, in:
Smith’s Anesthesia for Infants and Children: Expert Consult Premium Edition Enhanced Online Features and Print. Elsevier, pp. 22–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-323-06612-9.00003-1.
Munyaneza, J., Jia, Q., Qaraah, F.A., Hossain, M.F., Wu, C., Zhen, H., Xiu, G., 2022.
A review of atmospheric microplastics pollution: In-depth sighting of sources,
analytical methods, physiognomies, transport and risks. Sci. Total Environ. 822,
153339.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2022. Foods &
Drinks for 6 to 24 Month Olds [WWW Document]. URL https://www.cdc.gov/nutri
tion/infantandtoddlernutrition/foods-and-drinks/index.html (accessed 2.3.23).
National Health System, N., 2019. Formula milk: common questions [WWW Document].
URL www.nhs.uk (accessed 13.1.23).
Nematollahi, M.J., Zarei, F., Keshavarzi, B., Zarei, M., Moore, F., Busquets, R., Kelly, F.J.,
2022. Microplastic occurrence in settled indoor dust in schools. Sci. Total Environ.
807, 150984 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150984.
Oßmann, B.E., Sarau, G., Holtmannspötter, H., Pischetsrieder, M., Christiansen, S.H.,
Dicke, W., 2018. Small-sized microplastics and pigmented particles in bottled
mineral water. Water Res. 141, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.05.027.
Patterson, J., Jeyasanta, K.I., Sathish, N., Booth, A.M., Edward, J.K.P., 2019. Profiling
microplastics in the Indian edible oyster, Magallana bilineata collected from the
Tuticorin coast, Gulf of Mannar, Southeastern India. Sci. Total Environ. 691,
727–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.063.
Phuong, N.N., Poirier, L., Pham, Q.T., Lagarde, F., Zalouk-Vergnoux, A., 2018. Factors
influencing the microplastic contamination of bivalves from the French Atlantic
coast: Location, season and/or mode of life? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 129, 664–674.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.054.
Pittroff, M., Müller, Y.K., Witzig, C.S., Scheurer, M., Storck, F.R., Zumbülte, N., 2021.
Microplastic analysis in drinking water based on fractionated filtration sampling and
Raman microspectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 59439–59451. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-021-12467-y.
Plastic Europe, 2022. Plastics - The facts 2022 [WWW Document]. URL https://
plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PE-PLASTICS-THE-FACTS_V7Tue_19-10-1.pdf (accessed 5.1.23).
Prata, J.C., Paço, A., Reis, V., da Costa, J.P., Fernandes, A.J.S., da Costa, F.M., Duarte, A.
C., Rocha-Santos, T., 2020. Identification of microplastics in white wines capped
with polyethylene stoppers using micro-Raman spectroscopy. Food Chem. 331,
127323 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127323.
Qu, X., Su, L., Li, H., Liang, M., Shi, H., 2018. Assessing the relationship between the
abundance and properties of microplastics in water and in mussels. Sci. Total
Environ. 621, 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.284.
Ragusa, A., Notarstefano, V., Svelato, A., Belloni, A., Gioacchini, G., Blondeel, C.,
Zucchelli, E., De Luca, C., D’Avino, S., Gulotta, A., Carnevali, O., Giorgini, E., 2022.
Raman Microspectroscopy Detection and Characterisation of Microplastics in Human
Breastmilk. Polymers (Basel) 14, 2700. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14132700.
Ranjan, V.P., Joseph, A., Goel, S., 2021. Microplastics and other harmful substances
released from disposable paper cups into hot water. J. Hazard. Mater. 404, 124118
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124118.
Revel, M., Châtel, A., Mouneyrac, C., 2018. Micro(nano)plastics: A threat to human
health? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 1, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coesh.2017.10.003.
Roblin, B., Ryan, M., Vreugdenhil, A., Aherne, J., 2020. Ambient Atmospheric Deposition
of Anthropogenic Microfibers and Microplastics on the Western Periphery of Europe
(Ireland). Environ. Sci. Tech. 54, 11100–11108. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.0c04000.
Salthammer, T., 2022. Microplastics and their Additives in the Indoor Environment.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (32) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202205713.
Sathish, M.N., Jeyasanta, I., Patterson, J., 2020. Microplastics in Salt of Tuticorin,
Southeast Coast of India. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 79, 111–121. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00244-020-00731-0.
Schirinzi, G.F., Pérez-Pomeda, I., Sanchís, J., Rossini, C., Farré, M., Barceló, D., 2017.
Cytotoxic effects of commonly used nanomaterials and microplastics on cerebral and
epithelial human cells. Environ. Res. 159, 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2017.08.043.
Schneider, M., Stracke, F., Hansen, S., Schaefer, U.F., 2009. Nanoparticles and their
interactions with the dermal barrier. Dermatoendocrinol 1, 197–206. https://doi.
org/10.4161/derm.1.4.9501.
Schrank, I., Möller, J.N., Imhof, H.K., Hauenstein, O., Zielke, F., Agarwal, S., Löder, M.G.
J., Greiner, A., Laforsch, C., 2022. Microplastic sample purification methods Assessing detrimental effects of purification procedures on specific plastic types. Sci.
Total Environ. 833, 154824 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154824.
Schymanski, D., Goldbeck, C., Humpf, H.-U., Fürst, P., 2018. Analysis of microplastics in
water by micro-Raman spectroscopy: Release of plastic particles from different
packaging into mineral water. Water Res. 129, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2017.11.011.
Schymanski, D., Oßmann, B.E., Benismail, N., Boukerma, K., Dallmann, G., von der
Esch, E., Fischer, D., Fischer, F., Gilliland, D., Glas, K., Hofmann, T., Käppler, A.,
Lacorte, S., Marco, J., Rakwe, M.EL., Weisser, J., Witzig, C., Zumbülte, N., Ivleva, N.
P., 2021. Analysis of microplastics in drinking water and other clean water samples
with micro-Raman and micro-infrared spectroscopy: minimum requirements and
best practice guidelines. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 413 (24), 5969–5994. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00216-021-03498-y.
Senathirajah, K., Attwood, S., Bhagwat, G., Carbery, M., Wilson, S., Palanisami, T., 2021.
Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested – A pivotal first step towards human
health risk assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 404, 124004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.124004.
Shruti, V.C., Pérez-Guevara, F., Elizalde-Martínez, I., Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., 2020.
First study of its kind on the microplastic contamination of soft drinks, cold tea and
energy drinks - Future research and environmental considerations. Sci. Total
Environ. 726, 138580 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138580.
Sundt, P., Syversen, F., Skogesal, O., Schulze, P.-E., 2016. Primary microplasticpollution: Measures and reduction potentials in Norway.
Szewc, K., Graca, B., Dołęga, A., 2021. Atmospheric deposition of microplastics in the
coastal zone: Characteristics and relationship with meteorological factors. Sci. Total
Environ. 761, 143272 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143272.
Takdastan, A., Niari, M.H., Babaei, A., Dobaradaran, S., Jorfi, S., Ahmadi, M., 2021.
Occurrence and distribution of microplastic particles and the concentration of Di 2ethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP) in microplastics and wastewater in the wastewater
treatment plant. J. Environ. Manage. 280, 111851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2020.111851.
14
G. Zuri et al.
Environment International 179 (2023) 108150
Wright, S.L., Ulke, J., Font, A., Chan, K.L.A., Kelly, F.J., 2020. Atmospheric microplastic
deposition in an urban environment and an evaluation of transport. Environ. Int.
136, 105411.
Wu, P., Lin, S., Cao, G., Wu, J., Jin, H., Wang, C., Wong, M.H., Yang, Z., Cai, Z., 2022.
Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity of microplastics in the
human body and health implications. J. Hazard. Mater. 437, 129361 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129361.
Wu, F., Wang, Y., Leung, J.Y.S., Huang, W., Zeng, J., Tang, Y., Chen, J., Shi, A., Yu, X.,
Xu, X., Zhang, H., Cao, L., 2020. Accumulation of microplastics in typical
commercial aquatic species: A case study at a productive aquaculture site in China.
Sci. Total Environ. 708, 135432 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135432.
Xu, J.-L., Thomas, K.V., Luo, Z., Gowen, A.A., 2019. FTIR and Raman imaging for
microplastics analysis: State of the art, challenges and prospects. TrAC Trends Anal.
Chem. 119, 115629 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2019.115629.
Yang, D., Shi, H., Li, L., Li, J., Jabeen, K., Kolandhasamy, P., 2015. Microplastic Pollution
in Table Salts from China. Environ. Sci. Tech. 49, 13622–13627. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.5b03163.
Yao, Y., Glamoclija, M., Murphy, A., Gao, Y., 2022. Characterization of microplastics in
indoor and ambient air in northern New Jersey. Environ. Res. 207, 112142.
Yukioka, S., Tanaka, S., Nabetani, Y., Suzuki, Y., Ushijima, T., Fujii, S., Takada, H., Van
Tran, Q., Singh, S., 2020. Occurrence and characteristics of microplastics in surface
road dust in Kusatsu (Japan), Da Nang (Vietnam), and Kathmandu (Nepal). Environ.
Pollut. 256, 113447 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113447.
Zhang, J., Wang, L., Kannan, K., 2020a. Microplastics in house dust from 12 countries
and associated human exposure. Environ. Int. 134, 105314 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2019.105314.
Zhang, Q., Zhao, Y., Du, F., Cai, H., Wang, G., Shi, H., 2020b. Microplastic Fallout in
Different Indoor Environments. Environ. Sci. Tech. 54, 6530–6539. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.0c00087.
Zhu, X., Huang, W., Fang, M., Liao, Z., Wang, Y., Xu, L., Mu, Q., Shi, C., Lu, C., Deng, H.,
Dahlgren, R., Shang, X., 2021. Airborne Microplastic Concentrations in Five
Megacities of Northern and Southeast China. Environ. Sci. Technol. acs.est.1c03618.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03618.
Zhu, J., Zhang, X., Liao, K., Wu, P., Jin, H., 2022. Microplastics in dust from different
indoor environments. Sci. Total Environ. 833, 155256 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.155256.
Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G.,
McGonigle, D., Russell, A.E., 2004. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science 304
(5672), 838.
Tong, H., Jiang, Q., Hu, X., Zhong, X., 2020. Occurrence and identification of
microplastics in tap water from China. Chemosphere 252, 126493.
Torres-Agullo, A., Karanasiou, A., Moreno, T., Lacorte, S., 2022. Airborne microplastic
particle concentrations and characterization in indoor urban microenvironments.
Environ. Pollut. 308, 119707 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119707.
Truong, T.-N.-S., Strady, E., Kieu-Le, T.-C., Tran, Q.-V., Le, T.-M.-T., Thuong, Q.-T., 2021.
Microplastic in atmospheric fallouts of a developing Southeast Asian megacity under
tropical climate. Chemosphere 272, 129874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2021.129874.
UNEP, 2015. Plastic in Cosmetics. [WWW Document] URL Plastic_in_cosmetics_Are_we_
polluting_the_environment_through_our_personal_care_-2015Plas.pdf (unep.org)
(accessed 6.1.23).
US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 1992. Guidelines for exposure assessment.
Washington, DC.
Velázquez-Gómez, M., Hurtado-Fernández, E., Lacorte, S., 2019. Differential occurrence,
profiles and uptake of dust contaminants in the Barcelona urban area. Sci. Total
Environ. 648, 1354–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.058.
Vianello, A., Jensen, R.L., Liu, L., Vollertsen, J., 2019. Simulating human exposure to
indoor airborne microplastics using a Breathing Thermal Manikin. Sci. Rep. 9, 8670.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45054-w.
Wang, X., Li, C., Liu, K., Zhu, L., Song, Z., Li, D., 2020. Atmospheric microplastic over the
South China Sea and East Indian Ocean: abundance, distribution and source.
J. Hazard. Mater. 389, 121846 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121846.
Wang, C., Zhao, J., Xing, B., 2021. Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of
microplastics. J. Hazard. Mater. 407, 124357.
Webb, S., Ruffell, H., Marsden, I., Pantos, O., Gaw, S., 2019. Microplastics in the New
Zealand green lipped mussel Perna canaliculus. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110641
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110641.
Weber, F., Kerpen, J., Wolff, S., Langer, R., Eschweiler, V., 2021. Investigation of
microplastics contamination in drinking water of a German city. Sci. Total Environ.
755, 143421.
White, J.R., 2006. Polymer ageing: physics, chemistry or engineering? Time to reflect.
C. R. Chim. 9, 1396–1408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2006.07.008.
World Health Organization, 2020. Human resource strategies to improve newborn care
in health facilities in low-and middle-income countries. Geneva.
15