Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Global Drinking Water Is It Peer Reviewed

Introduction

Plastic is defined as any synthetic or semi-constructed polymer with thermo-plastic or thermo-set properties, which may be synthesized from hydrocarbon or biomass raw materials (UNEP, 2016). Plastics product has seen an exponential growth since its archway on the consumer stage, ascent from a 1000000 tons in 1945 to over 300 million tons in 2014 (PlasticsEurope, 2015). Some of the features of plastic that make information technology and then attractive from a manufacturing standpoint are of business when it comes to its environmental impact. It is very light-weight allowing it to exist easily transported over long distances, and it is durable being resistant to breakage and biodegradation. Its durability is inherently connected to its chemical construction. Existence composed largely, if not entirely, of hydrocarbon chains, the lack of double bonds or other functional groups provides an inherent stability to its molecules, and its synthetic nature means that the vast majority of microorganisms haven't evolved to employ plastic as a food source. Thus, while plastic will break into smaller and smaller particles via photo-oxidative mechanisms, the key molecular structures of the fabric alter very trivial throughout that process. Plastics go microplastics become nanoplastics, only they are all plastics, just of increasingly smaller size, allowing them to be more easily ingested and perchance fifty-fifty cantankerous the gastrointestinal tract to be transported throughout a living organism (Brennecke et al., 2015; Sharma and Chatterjee, 2017).

With the rise in plastics manufacture, there has been an associated rise in plastic pollution of the external environment. The first reports appointment back to the early 1970's (Carpenter and Smith, 1972) and most famously within the world'due south oceans (e.one thousand., Moore et al., 2001; Eriksen et al., 2014), but more than recently plastic pollution has been found within freshwater lakes, inland seas, rivers, wetlands and organisms from plankton to whales (and about every species in between; Eriksen et al., 2013; Baldwin et al., 2016; Horton et al., 2017; Lusher et al., 2017).

Equally its ubiquity in the external environment has been increasing, this has lead more researchers to investigate various consumables for the presence of plastic. The first such study focused on bivalves intended for human consumption (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). More than contempo studies take focused on fish (such as anchovies), equally well equally mussels (Rochman et al., 2015; Tanaka and Takada, 2016; Lusher et al., 2017). Two studies have noted the presence of microplastics within beer (Liebezeit and Liebezeit, 2014; Kosuth et al., 2018). Starting with a 2015 study of Chinese Sea Salt brands, several additional studies have established the presence of microplastics within these man consumables also (Yang et al., 2015; Iñiguez et al., 2017; Karami et al., 2017; Kosuth et al., 2018). The showtime-ever investigation of plastic pollution within globally sourced tap h2o (a total 159 samples from seven geographical regions spanning 5 continents) was published but earlier this twelvemonth (Kosuth et al., 2018).

Equally research into the occurrence of plastic pollution has increased, sampling and analysis methods are continually evolving as well. Within the aqueous environment, volume-reduced (using neuston nets) or bulk sampling followed by density separation, filtration/sieving and visual identification accept been the well-nigh commonly employed methods (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012). Given the time-consuming nature of these methods of sample processing, every bit well equally the potential for misidentification using visual cues alone, ane focus area for plastics pollution research (particularly at the micro- and nano- calibration) is development of methods for high-throughput with increased polymeric confirmation. Several contempo studies have supported the use of Nile Red (NR) equally an accurate stain for the rapid detection and quantification of microplastics given its selectivity adsorption and fluorescent properties. Maes et al. (2017) specifically tested the preferential adsorption of NR for polymeric materials relative to common organic (algae, seaweeds, wood and feathers) and inorganic (shells) environmental contaminants. Similar Maes et al. (2017) and Erni-Cassola et al. (2017) validated the use of this stain with analysis using FTIR to verify the polymeric content of fluorescing particles. Both of these studies concluded from their efforts that NR can be used for the rapid detection of microplastics without the need for additional spectroscopic analysis (thereby reducing the fourth dimension needed to analyze an environmental sample). These studies advise that the adsorption of NR lonely is sufficient to identify a particle as polymeric in nature. A conclusion further supported by the inclusion of this method within the recent review of analytical methodologies for microplastic monitoring by Renner et al. (2018).

Here nosotros present a study utilizing Nile Cerise for the detection of microplastic within 11 globally- sourced brands of bottled water. In total 259 bottles of water from eleven brands were processed across 27 different lots (an identification number assigned by a manufacturer to a particular production unit) purchased from xix locations in nine countries. For x brands nosotros tested 2–three lots each, while for one make only one lot was tested. Inside each lot, we generally tested ten bottles (canteen volume 500–600 mL each) from the instance. However, for i lot, several bottles from the case were seized past customs allowing only ix bottles to be tested, while for 2 other lots the volume of water per bottle was significantly greater (0.750–2 L) and thus simply four (2 50 bottles) or six bottles (750 mL bottles) were processed. 1 of the bottled water lots was packaged in glass (Gerolsteiner, 750 mL, 6 glass bottles processed); all other samples were packaged in plastic. All bottles had plastic bottle caps.

Materials and Methods

Sample Collection

Sample lots were procured with an eye to geographic multifariousness (five continents are represented), size of the national packaged drinking water market (Communist china, USA, Brazil, Bharat, Republic of indonesia, United mexican states), and loftier per captia consumption of packaged drinking water (Lebanon, Mexico, Thailand, U.s.a.; Table 1). Leading international brands in this study included Aquafina, Dasani, Evian, Nestle Pure Life, and San Pellegrino. Leading national brands included Aqua (Indonesia), Bisleri (India), Epura (United mexican states), Gerolsteiner (Frg), Minalba (Brazil), and Wahaha (Mainland china).

Table 1. Selected market assessment data utilized to decide the countries of origin and brands tested within this study.

Every bit many bottled h2o brands are simply filtered municipal tap water, sample lots were purchased from a number of locations to increase the likelihood of diverse bottling sources. For instance, cases of the Mexican brand Epura were purchased from Tijuana in Baja California state, Reynosa on the Texas edge (1,200 miles e of Tijuana), and Mexico City (1,400 miles s of Tijuana). This pattern is repeated with the other brands.

Sample Processing

The bottles within most (9 out of 11 brands) lots came in containers of 500–600 mL per bottle, while two of the brands contained 0.75–two L per bottle. For those samples with 500–600 mL per bottle, 10 bottles were randomly chosen from the lot, while for the 750 mL samples, six bottles were called, and for the 2 L sample, 4 bottles were randomly chosen, and placed under a laminar flow fume hood. While under the fume hood, each bottle was opened and injected with a specific volume of Nile Red solution (prepared in acetone to 1 mg mL−1) to yield a working concentration of 10 ug mL−ane (Maes et al., 2017) and re-capped. Nile Ruddy adsorbs to the surface of plastics, but not most naturally occurring materials, and fluoresces under specific wavelengths of light (Erni-Cassola et al., 2017). Bottles were allowed to incubate with the injected dye for at least 30 min. The bottled water was so vacuum filtered through a drinking glass fiber filter (Whatman grade 934-AH, 55 mm bore, 1.5 um pore).

Filters were examined under an optical microscope (Leica EZ4HD, viii–40 × zoom, integrated 3 Mpixel camera) using a blue crime light (Crime-Lite two, 445–510 nm, Foster & Freeman) to arm-twist fluorescence, which was visualized through orange filter viewing googles (Foster & Freeman, 529 nm). All particles larger than ~100 um (which are big plenty to be visible to the naked center and manipulated with tweezers) were photographed, enumerated and typed with respect to morphology (Fragment, Fiber, Pellet, Film, or Foam). Additionally the showtime 3–5 particles were analyzed via FTIR (PerkinElmer Spectrum Two ATR; 450 cm−1 to 4,000 cm−1, 64 scans, 4 cm−i resolution; ATR correction) to ostend polymeric identity (Spectrum 10 software suite).

Afterward removal of all particles >100 um, the filter with fluorescing particles was photographed (8 × zoom) through an orange camera filter (Foster & Freeman, 62 mm diameter, 529 nm) in four separate quadrants. To ensure no overlap of the quadrant photographs identification marks were made on the filters prior to turning the filter 90 degrees to take the subsequent photo. In fact, given the zoom gene of the microscope, quadrant photos did not obtain full (100%) coverage of the filter. Each photographed quadrant was analyzed using a software program entitled "Galaxy Count" developed by a former astrophysicist for this specific purpose and briefly described here. Given the fluorescing particles relative to the non-fluorescing background, "Galaxy Count" is able to enumerate the number of particles (as bright spots) in order to quantifying the number of smaller microplastics. To do this, the operator of the software sets a threshold value which is used to convert the quadrant images to black (background filter) and white (fluorescing particles). The software and so digitally counts the number of white spots ("stars") against the dark background ("the dark heaven"). At the eight × magnification in which the quadrant photos were taken, 1 pixel was equal to vi.5 um. Thus, while the filter pore size was 1.v um, the smallest size particle visualized through the employ of the combination of photography and software was 6.5 um. In that location could certainly be particles smaller than 6.5 um, simply the method employed here would not be able to assess their presence. Due to the programmatic setting of the threshold value, all digital counts were conducted by two unlike researchers working independently of 1 some other to account for possible variability.

Microplastic counts for particles >100 um (referred to as "NR + FTIR confirmed particles") are reported for each canteen. These particles are the ones that were further analyzed past FTIR and thus the types of polymers are also reported. Smaller microplastic particles (6.5–100 um; referred to every bit "NR tagged particles"), counted using the "Galaxy Count" software, are similarly reported for each bottle by summing over the four quadrants (each quadrant being reported every bit the boilerplate of the two researchers).

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

As the "Milky way Count" software was created specifically for this project in order to verify its accurateness four solutions were created using DI h2o containing 0, 20, fifty or 100 polyethylene microspheres (Cospheric, PE micropheres, D = i.25 g mL−1, 75–xc um diameter). These solutions were created by one researcher, simply processed "blind" by another researcher in a mode identical to the samples themselves (NR injection, incubation, filtering, quadrant photographing and analysis by the "Galaxy Count" software). Additionally the assay of all filter quadrants by the "Milky way Count" software for all samples were conducted "blindly" by 2 separate researchers. These 2 counts were compared to one another for accuracy, in improver to being averaged for reported numbers.

In club to foreclose/reduce potential contamination throughout the sample processing from external sources, such as airborne fibers, piece of work occurred in a laminar airflow cabinet (Mott manufacturing, Phoenix Controls, serviced annually in September) and the workspace was wiped down every calendar week. All glassware was covered with a watch glass when not in use and done thoroughly between trials. Filters were inspected under a microscope prior to utilise, and a cotton wool lab coat and sterling nitrile powder free exam gloves were worn throughout the experimental procedure.

To account for possible lab contagion that could be coming from atmospheric deposition, the chemicals used, the glassware or other aspects of the testing environment, lab blanks containing deionized water (used to wash all glassware) or acetone (used to prepare the Nile Cerise solution) were processed in a style identical to the samples themselves. Particle densities inside samples were reduced based upon the average densities across all lab blanks.

Results

Overview

A full of 259 individual bottles from across xi unlike brands and 27 different lots were analyzed for microplastic particulate, subdivided into two size fractions: then-called "NR + FTIR confirmed particles," which are >100 um, and "NR tagged particles," which are vi.five–100 um. As quadrant photos did not provide full (100%) coverage of the filter, it is likely that "NR tagged particles" are underestimated. Since individual bottles contained varied water volumes, from 500 mL to 2 L, accented counts for each canteen and size fraction were divided by sample volume to calculate (raw) densities of microplastic per liter (microplastic particles/L or MPP/50).

Thirteen lab blanks using laboratory deionized h2o or acetone were processed using methods identical to those for the bottled water samples. For "NR + FTIR particles" (>100 um) the boilerplate density was found to exist 4.xv MPP/L, with a range of 0–14 MPP/L, while within the smaller "NR tagged particles" (6.5–100 um) the boilerplate density was 23.v MPP/L, with a range of 7–47 MPP/L. Reported microplastic densities for the bottled water samples are calculated (by size fraction) from raw densities less the average from laboratory blanks (Table 1). If raw densities had less than or equal quantities relative to the laboratory blanks, their values were set to zero. Given that quadrant photos did not obtain total (100%) coverage of the filter and that raw densities were reduced by lab blanks, reported densities are expected to be reasonable but conservative accounting of microplastic contamination. Total densities were calculated by summing across the size fractions (Table 2).

Table 2. Microplastic particle densities by bottle and size fraction for each brand and lot number.

Seventeen bottles out of the 259 bottles analyzed (~seven%) showed no microplastic contagion in excess of possible laboratory influence indicating that 93% of the bottled water tested showed some sign of microplastic contamination. The densities of microplastic contamination are quite variable ranging from the 17 bottles with no contamination to i bottle that showed an excess of ten,000 microplastic particles per liter (Tabular array 2). The variabilities seen in the individual bottles, even amidst the same lot and brand, is similar to what is seen in sampling open up bodies of h2o (Yonkos et al., 2014). Patterns in such sampling can exist rather stochastic due to the big number of factors that can affect the occurrence of plastic particles (peculiarly at the microscale), similar particle-fluid dynamics, as well every bit variabilities within the manufacturing process itself, leading to the big variabilities seen within the samples. This erraticism highlights the need for large sample sizes, such as that employed hither, in order to average across the variabilities to produce a realistic depiction.

Table 3 provides the mean (by size fraction and total), as well every bit the minimum and maximum, microplastic densities (in MPP/L) for each lot averaged across all the bottles tested. When averaging across the individual bottles, all 27 lots tested showed some quantity of microplastic contamination (Table two). Within brands there is significant variability betwixt different lots, which could exist owing to a number of factors, such as water source, different bottling facilities, or the conditions and/or length of time involved in aircraft from bottling facilities to purchase location. The 17 private bottles that showed no microplastic contamination in excess of possible laboratory background (Table 1) originated from vii lots (~25%) of the 27 tested. Thus, microplastic contamination was institute within all bottles in 75% of the lots analyzed.

Table iii. Microplastic densities (MPP/Fifty), by size fractions and total, averaged beyond all bottles inside the same lot.

When averaged across all lots and all brands, 325 MPP/L were institute within the bottled water tested [cleaved down as an average of x.iv MPP/50 occurring inside the larger size range (>100 um) and an average 315 MPP/L within the smaller size range (half-dozen.5–100 um)]. While all bottled water lots tested showed some sign of microplastic contamination (Table 2), there was significant variation amidst the brands (Figure 1). Averaging across lots by make, Nestle Pure Life and Gerolsteiner showed the highest average densities at 930 and 807 MPP/L, respectively, while San Pellegrino and Minalba showed the lowest microplastic contamination with 30.0 and 63.1 MPP/L, respectively (Figure 1). Error bars in Figure 1 stand for one standard deviation and are quite large given the large variability among the individual bottles for each lot (Table 2), also as the variation among lots of the same brand (Table 3).

Figure 1. Microplastic density averaged across private bottles and lots by brand. Blue bars are densities for "NR + FTIR confirmed particles" (>100 um); Orangish confined are for "NR tagged particles" (half-dozen.v–100 um). Fault bars are i standard deviation. Percentages are for the contribution to the total for "NR tagged particles" (6.5–100 um); Contribution of larger particles tin can be inferred.

Of all the lots tested, only one was packaged in glass rather than plastic: Gerolsteiner (NV No. AC-51-07269). While these samples revealed microplastic contamination, they did so at lower level every bit compared to the other lots (Tables 2, three). Further, the same brand of h2o but packaged in plastic instead of glass was also tested (Gerolsteiner, 07.142018 2). While both of these packaged waters accept the same water source, there was considerably less microplastic contamination within the water bottled in glass every bit compared to that packaged in plastic (204 vs. 1,410 MPP/L, respectively). This indicates that some of the microplastic contamination is probable coming from the water source, but a larger contribution might exist originating from the packaging itself.

NR + FTIR Confirmed Particles (>100 um)

In total nearly 2,000 microplastic particles >100 um were extracted from all of the filters, with about 1,000 (~50%) being further analyzed by FTIR. Obtained FTIR spectra (afterward applied ATR correction) were compared to libraries of known spectra using the included PerkinElmer Spectrum 10 software suite in lodge to ostend and identify the polymeric content of the particles. All particles analyzed were either best matched to a polymer, plastic additive or known plastic binder providing boosted supporting evidence that Nile Red selectively adsorbed to microplastic particles within the bottled h2o. With this spectroscopic confirmation, it can exist concluded that on average each bottle of water contains at to the lowest degree ten.iv MPP/L (Table iii). While this analysis confirmed the polymeric nature of these particles, a friction match of 70% or greater was required in order to assign polymer identity. In total over 400 particles (20% of all extracted plastic particles >100 um and 40% of those analyzed past FTIR) met this threshold for identity confirmation and but those results are presented hither

Polypropylene was found to be the most mutual polymeric cloth (54%) with Nylon existence the second near abundant (16%; Figure 2). Polypropylene is a polymer often used to brand plastic canteen caps, forth with polyethylene, which corresponded to 10% of the particles analyzed. Interestingly, 4% of retrieved particles were establish to accept signatures of industrial lubricants coating the polymer (not shown).

Figure 2. Polymeric content of microplastic particles >100 um found within bottled water. PP, polypropylene; PS, polystyrene; PE, polyethylene; PEST, polyester + polyethylene terephthalate; Others includes Azlon, polyacrylates and copolymers.

As is common exercise in plastic pollution research, all microplastics >100 um were visually characterized according to their morphology: Fragment, Fiber, Pellet, Picture show, or Foam. Fragments were found to exist the most mutual blazon of particle (66%), followed by fibers (13%) and films (12%; Effigy 3). The 13% of particles described as fibers (Effigy 3) compares well with the 17% of particles that were confirmed by FTIR to be composed of fiberous polymers, most notably Nylon (Figure 2).

Effigy 3. Morphologies of microplastics >100 um found within bottled h2o.

NR Tagged Particles (6.5–100 um)

In lodge to verify the effectiveness of the "Milky way Count" software to count microplastics smaller than ~100 um, the software was tested using solutions with known quantities (0,twenty, l or 100) of microspheres (diameters 75–ninety um) processed in a style identical to all samples and lab blanks. The "Galaxy Count" of fluorescing particles on the filter quadrant photos agreed very well with the bodily count of particles included inside the solutions (Figure four). The excellent agreement with these test solutions supports the use of this tool for quantifying the numbers of smaller particles within the bottled waters analyzed, while the y-intercept of the least-squares fit farther supports that the written report is likely undercounting particles, especially within this smallest size range.

Figure 4. Comparison of counts using the "Galaxy Count" software relative to the known number of microplastic particles inside 4 examination solutions.

All counts using the "Milky way Count" software were conducted independently by two different researchers owing to possible variabilities in software settings. As shown in Effigy 5, the agreement in counts between the 2 researchers is excellent providing additional support to the effectiveness and validity in using the software to count the smaller particles inside the bottled h2o.

Figure 5. Comparing of microplastic counts by the "Galaxy Count" software for particles <100 um inside all 259 bottles tested by two researchers working independently of one another.

Given the limitations of the lab, particles <100 um (the so-chosen "NR tagged particles") were not able to be confirmed as polymeric through spectroscopic analyses (FTIR and/or Raman spectroscopy). Withal, in testing of diverse stains and dyes that could be employed for microplastic detection and analysis within environmental samples with a greater potential for misidentification and false positives (i.due east., sediments and open up-h2o ecology samples) both Maes et al. (2017) and Erni-Cassola et al. (2017) concluded that Nile Red (NR) was very selective, specially within the fourth dimension scales of incubation employed, and could be used for the rapid detection of microplastics without the need for additional spectroscopic analysis. To exist sure that is why this stain was employed for this study. Additionally FTIR assay was done on fluorescing particles >100 um and every particle analyzed was confirmed to be polymeric. Fifty-fifty further, NR is well-established to selectively adsorb to hydrophobic ("water-fearing") materials and, equally such, will non adsorb to the only contents reasonably expected to be within bottled h2o, water and/or its mineral components. In addition, Schymanski et al. (2018) reported Raman confirmed densities of particles within a similar size range and fifty-fifty smaller (5–500 um) in bottles of German bottled mineral water. Thus, at a minimum while particles <100 um were not spectroscopically confirmed to be microplastics, particles are rationally expected to exist plastic or of some other anthropogenic origin.

Word

Part of the impetus for this study was as a follow-up to a tap water report released (in part) in September 2017 (Kosuth et al., 2018). The methods used in this study differed slightly in comparing to this earlier study, most notably in the use of a different stain. Rose Bengal was used in the earlier study, while Nile Blood-red was used hither. The two dyes have opposite affinities. While plastics adsorb Nile Red (allowing their easy detection via fluorescence), they practice non adsorb Rose Bengal. The affinity of plastics to adsorb Nile Red allows smaller particles to be detected as compared to the Rose Bengal method, as noted by a recent study by Erni-Cassola et al. (2017). Thus, only our data on particles >100 um is comparable to the information in this previous tap h2o study.

We found roughly twice as many plastic particles (>100 um) inside bottled water as compared to tap water on average (10.iv vs. 5.45 particles/L). While fibers made of 97% of the microplastics within the tap water study, they only composed 13% of the particles inside bottled h2o. Instead fragments were the well-nigh common particle morphology (65%) inside bottled water. These results indicate that the main source of the microplastic particulate is different. Given the fragment morphology combined with the fact that 4% of the particles were establish to have signatures of industrial lubricants, the information seems to suggest that at least some of the plastic contagion may be coming from the industrial procedure of bottling the water itself. Every bit polypropylene was the nearly common polymer found, the fragments could also be breaking off the cap, even inbound the water through the simple act of opening the bottle.

More than recently Schymanski et al. (2018) published their written report on microplastic contamination of packaged mineral water. They tested a wider diversity of packaging media from returnable and single-use plastic bottles to cartons to drinking glass, while this study near exclusively focused on single-utilise plastic bottles (having only ane lot packaged in glass as an alternative). They did test fewer bottles overall as compared to this study. In order to compare these 2 studies, then, just their data for unmarried-utilise, plastic drink bottles is utilized. Within those confines, they tested a full of eleven bottles in comparison to our 259. While they practice not specify how many different brands, for one make they tested two dissimilar lots (purchased 6 weeks apart), but merely tested i lot for the others.

The average microplastic density across all brands, lot numbers and bottles analyzed (325 MPP/50) is significantly higher in this written report as compared to that reported past Schymanski et al. (2018) (14 MPP/L). This difference could exist attributable to a number of factors. First, as they report they only counted particles for which they could fully confirm the polymeric nature using Raman spectroscopy. We used the adsorption of Nile Red as our frontline confirmation of microplastic identity, using FTIR on particles simply to provide more information equally to the specific polymer. Equally the authors annotation, while Raman can analyze smaller particles than FTIR, the laser intensity tin crusade the particle to decompose before an acceptable spectra tin can be obtained. Schymanski et al. (2018) did not include these particles in their counts leading to a reduction in their calculated densities. Further, as our information shows there can be substantial variability between brands and between lots. Our significantly larger sample gear up provides a greater accounting of that variability.

Some other departure betwixt our studies is distribution of polymer types. Schymanski et al. (2018) constitute PEST (the combination of polyester and polyethylene terephthalate) to be the ascendant polymeric material of their particulate contaminants, while that aforementioned categorization only accounted for vi% of our analyzed particles. Hither polypropylene was found to be the dominant plastic (54%), which only accounted for one% of their particles. However, our ii studies are not fully comparable with regard to this analysis. Schymanski et al. (2018) analyzed and adamant polymeric identity for all particles counted, while nosotros only did and so for particles >100 um. Information technology is quite possible that the smaller particles we were unable to analyze were mainly composed of the polymers within the PEST category, which would very much change our percentages. Nonetheless, we both practice reason from our data that the packaging of the water itself is a likely source of contamination, though for us it appears to be the caps, while for Schymanski et al. (2018) it appeared to be the canteen.

Despite the differences betwixt our studies some similarities do be. We both found polyethylene accounting for ~ten% of the polymeric contaminants. Additionally, we both constitute smaller particles provided a larger contribution to the full number of particles as compared to the larger particles (>100 um). Across all samples, 95% of our particles were <100 um, while Schymanski et al. (2018) establish they accounted for 98% of their counts. Even farther, taken together, these two studies practice support the very basic point that in that location are microplastics inside bottled water and at to the lowest degree some of this contamination may arise from the industrial procedure of bottling the water, as well as from the packing textile itself.

Conclusions

Twenty-seven unlike lots of bottled water from 11 different brands purchased in 19 locations across nine different countries were analyzed for microplastic contamination using a Nile Red stain, which adsorbs to polymeric fabric and fluoresces under specific wavelengths of incident lite. The use of the fluorescent dye immune for smaller particles to be detected as compared to a similar report of tap h2o using a Rose Bengal stain, though the analytical methods employed for their enumeration restricted the lower size limit to 6.5 mm.

Of the 259 full bottles analyzed, 93% showed signs of microplastics. In that location was pregnant variation even amid bottles of the aforementioned make and lot, which is consistent with environmental sampling and likely resulting from the complexities of microplastic sources, the manufacturing process and particle-fluid dynamics, amongst others. Every bit bottle volume varied beyond brands, absolute particle counts were divided by bottle book in club to produce microplastic particle densities that were comparable beyond all brands, lots and bottles. These densities were reduced past lab blanks in social club to account for any possible contamination. Given our employ of lab blanks, the inability to photograph the total filter, the lower limit of i pixel existence equivalent to 6.5 mm, and control runs of the software employed to digitally count particles <100 mm, the numbers reported here are very conservative and likely undercounting, specially with regard to smaller microplastics (<100 mm), which were found to be more prominent (on average 95%) as compared to particles >100 mm (on average 5%).

Infrared analysis of particles >100 mm in size confirmed microplastic identity and found polypropylene to be the nigh common (54%) polymeric material (at least with regard to these larger microplastics), consistent with a common plastic employed to industry canteen caps. Smaller particles (half dozen.5–100 mm) could not exist analyzed for polymer identification given the analytical limits of the lab. While these smaller particles could not be spectroscopically confirmed every bit plastic, Nile Red adsorbs to hydrophobic ("water-fearing") materials, which are not reasonably expected to exist naturally found within bottled water. Our FTIR analysis of larger (>100 um particles) fluorescing particles, all of which were confirmed to be polymeric, provides additional support of the selective bounden of NR to microplastic particles within the samples. Even farther, Schymanski et al. (2018) did spectroscopically confirm (via Raman) particles within this smaller size range in German bottled h2o as being polymeric in nature provide boosted back up for their presence. Given this and post-obit the conclusions of prior studies (Erni-Cassola et al., 2017; e.g., Maes et al., 2017) the adsorption of Nile Ruby alone was used to confer microplastic identity to these smaller particles. As the specific polymer content could not be determined, they could very well evidence a different compositional design as compared to the larger particles analyzed. This could explain the difference in our polymeric compositional assay relative to a very contempo and similar analysis of bottled mineral waters by Schymanski et al. (2018), which found PEST (polyester+polyethylene terephthalate) to be the most common polymeric fabric, consequent with a mutual plastic employed to manufacture the bottle itself. Either way both studies indicate that at least part of the microplastic contagion is arising from the packaging material and/or the bottling process itself.

Beyond the polymeric identity of the microplastics, the morphology of the particles besides provides an indication every bit to a different source of contamination relative to an earlier study on globally sourced tap water. In this prior written report 83% of the 159 samples were evidence to contain anthropogenic debris and 98% of those particles were microfibers. In comparison, this study found microplastic contamination inside 93% of the individual bottles (and in all of the brands and lots tested) with simply xiii% of the particles being categorized equally microfibers. The vast majority (65%) of the microplastics were identified equally fragments indicating a unlike source of the contamination relative to the tap water. Even farther, the bottled water contained on average nearly twice as much microplastic contamination (inside the same size range, i.e., >100 um) as compared to tap water (x.4 vs. five.45 particles/L). While the impacts of microplastic contamination on homo health are still unknown, these results strongly support a reduction in the bottling of water and in the consumption of bottled h2o, particularly inside locations in which clean, safe tap h2o exists.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to whatever qualified researcher.

Author Contributions

SM designed the study, supervised the work, ensured quality control and wrote the manuscript. VW was the lead laboratory research assistant and conducted all aspects of the laboratory analysis. JN assisted in and conducted laboratory analyses.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the inquiry was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed equally a potential disharmonize of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Orb Media who conducted the market analysis to make up one's mind the top selling bottled water brands within each region and facilitated the purchase and delivery of all samples to our lab.

References

Baldwin, A. Grand., Corsi, South. R., and Stonemason, S. A. (2016). Plastic debris in 29 keen lakes tributaries: relations to watershed attributes and hydrology. Environ. Sci. Technol. l, 10377–10385. doi: x.1021/acs.est.6b02917

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brennecke, D., Ferreira, E. C., Costa, T. M., Appel, D., da Gama, B. A., and Lenz, Thou. (2015). Ingested microplastics are translocated to organs of the tropical fiddler crab Uca rapax. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96, 491–495. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, Thousand., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., et al. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One ix:e111913. doi: ten.1371/periodical.pone.0111913

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Eriksen, M., Mason, South., Wilson, Due south., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., et al. (2013). Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Slap-up Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 77, 177–187. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Erni-Cassola, G., Gibson, M. I., Thompson, R. C., and Christie-Oleza, J. (2017). Lost, merely found with Nile Ruby: a novel method to notice advert quantify small microplastics (xx um−1 mm) in environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 13641–13648. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04512

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, 50., Thompson, R. C., and Thiel, Yard. (2012). Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075. doi: ten.1021/es2031505

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., and Svendsen, C. (2017). Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the noesis gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Karami, A., Golieskardi, A., Choo, C. 1000., Larat, V. T., Galloway, T., and Salamatinia, B. (2017). The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different countries. Sci. Rep. 7, 46173–46184. doi: ten.1038/srep46173

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lusher, A. L., Hollman, P. C. H., and Mendoza-Colina, J. J. (2017). Microplastics in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Status of Noesis on Their Occurrence and Implications for Aquatic Organisms and Food Prophylactic. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 615. Regal Society of Chemical science, Rome.

Maes, T., Jessop, R., Wellner, Northward., Haupt, Thou., and Mayes, A. 1000. (2017). A rapid-screening arroyo to detect and quantify microplastics based on fluorescent tagging with Nile Ruby. Sci. Rep. 7, 44501–44511. doi: 10.1038/srep44501

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moore, C. J., Moore, South. L., Leecaster, Chiliad. One thousand., and Weisberg, S. B. (2001). A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific Central Roll. Mar. Pollut. Balderdash. 42, 1297–1300. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00114-X

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

PlasticsEurope (2015). Plastics – The Facts 2015: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste product Information. Kingdom of belgium: PlasticsEurope.

Renner, G., Schmidt, T. C., and Schram, J. (2018). Analytical methodologies for monitoring micro(nano)plastics: which are fit for purpose? Environ. Sci. Health, 1, 55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2017.11.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rochman, C. M., Tahir, A., Williams, S. L., Baxa, D. V., Lam, R., Miller, J. T., et al. (2015). Anthropogenic droppings in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for man consumption. Sci. Rep. v, 14340–14350. doi: 10.1038/srep14340

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schymanski, D., Goldbeck, C., Humpf, H. U., and Fürst, P. (2018). Analysis of microplastics by micro-Raman spectroscopy: release of plastic particles from dissimilar packaging into mineral water. Water Res. 129, 154–162. doi: ten.1016/j.watres.2017.xi.011

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, Southward., and Chatterjee, S. (2017). Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and homo health: a short review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 21530–21547. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tanaka, K., and Takada, H. (2016). Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban littoral waters. Sci. Rep. 6, 34351–34359. doi: 10.1038/srep34351

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

UNEP (2016). Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. Nairobi: United nations Surround Programme.

Yang, D., Shi, H., Li, L., Jabeen, Thou., and Kolandhasamy, P. (2015). Microplastic pollution in Table Salt from China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13622–13627. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03163

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Yonkos, L. T., Friedel, E. A., Perez-Reyes, A. C., Ghosal, S., and Arthur, C. A. (2014). Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay, U.s.a.. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 14195–14202. doi: x.1021/es5036317

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

pattersonnage1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2018.00407/full

Share this post