Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled Water

Sherri A Mason, Victoria G Welch, Joseph Neratko, Sherri A Mason, Victoria G Welch, Joseph Neratko

Abstract

Eleven globally sourced brands of bottled water, purchased in 19 locations in nine different countries, were tested for microplastic contamination using Nile Red tagging. Of the 259 total bottles processed, 93% showed some sign of microplastic contamination. After accounting for possible background (lab) contamination, an average of 10.4 microplastic particles >100 um in size per liter of bottled water processed were found. Fragments were the most common morphology (66%) followed by fibers. Half of these particles were confirmed to be polymeric in nature using FTIR spectroscopy with polypropylene being the most common polymer type (54%), which matches a common plastic used for the manufacture of bottle caps. A small fraction of particles (4%) showed the presence of industrial lubricants. While spectroscopic analysis of particles smaller than 100 um was not possible, the adsorption of the Nile Red dye indicates that these particles are most probably plastic. Including these smaller particles (6.5-100 um), an average of 325 microplastic particles per liter of bottled water was found. Microplastic contamination range of 0 to over 10,000 microplastic particles per liter with 95% of particles being between 6.5 and 100 um in size. Data suggests the contamination is at least partially coming from the packaging and/or the bottling process itself. Given the prevalence of the consumption of bottled water across the globe, the results of this study support the need for further studies on the impacts of micro- and nano- plastics on human health.

Keywords: FTIR; Nile Red; consumables; drinking water; human health; microplastic; plastic pollution.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Microplastic density averaged across individual bottles and lots by brand. Blue bars are densities for “NR + FTIR confirmed particles” (>100 um); Orange bars are for “NR tagged particles” (6.5–100 um). Error bars are one standard deviation. Percentages are for the contribution to the total for “NR tagged particles” (6.5–100 um); Contribution of larger particles can be inferred.
Figure 2
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.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Morphologies of microplastics >100 um found within bottled water.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of counts using the “Galaxy Count” software relative to the known number of microplastic particles within four test solutions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of microplastic counts by the “Galaxy Count” software for particles

References

    1. Baldwin A. K., Corsi S. R., Mason S. A. (2016). Plastic debris in 29 great lakes tributaries: relations to watershed attributes and hydrology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10377–10385. 10.1021/acs.est.6b02917
    1. Brennecke D., Ferreira E. C., Costa T. M., Appel D., da Gama B. A., Lenz M. (2015). Ingested microplastics are translocated to organs of the tropical fiddler crab Uca rapax. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96, 491–495. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.001
    1. Carpenter E. J., Smith K. L. (1972). Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 175, 1240–1241. 10.1126/science.175.4027.1240
    1. Eriksen M., Lebreton L. C., Carson H. S., Thiel M., Moore C. J., Borerro J. C., et al. . (2014). Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 9:e111913. 10.1371/journal.pone.0111913
    1. Eriksen M., Mason S., Wilson S., Box C., Zellers A., Edwards W., et al. . (2013). Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77, 177–187. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
    1. Erni-Cassola G., Gibson M. I., Thompson R. C., Christie-Oleza J. (2017). Lost, but found with Nile Red: a novel method to detect ad quantify small microplastics (20 um−1 mm) in environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 13641–13648. 10.1021/acs.est.7b04512
    1. Hidalgo-Ruz V., Gutow L., Thompson R. C., Thiel M. (2012). Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075. 10.1021/es2031505
    1. Horton A. A., Walton A., Spurgeon D. J., Lahive E., Svendsen C. (2017). Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 127–141. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190
    1. Iñiguez M. E., Conesa J. A., Fullana A. (2017). Microplastics in Spanish Table Salt. Sci. Rep. 7, 8620–8627. 10.1038/s41598-017-09128-x
    1. Karami A., Golieskardi A., Choo C. K., Larat V. T., Galloway T., Salamatinia B. (2017). The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different countries. Sci. Rep. 7, 46173–46184. 10.1038/srep46173
    1. Kosuth M., Mason S. A., Wattenberg E. V. (2018). Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE 13:e0194970. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194970
    1. Liebezeit G., Liebezeit E. (2014). Synthetic particles as contaminants in German beers. Food Addit. Contam. 31, 1574–1578. 10.1080/19440049.2014.945099
    1. Lusher A. L., Hollman P. C. H., Mendoza-Hill J. J. (2017). Microplastics in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Status of Knowledge on Their Occurrence and Implications for Aquatic Organisms and Food Safety. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 615. Royal Society of Chemistry, Rome.
    1. Maes T., Jessop R., Wellner N., Haupt K., Mayes A. G. (2017). A rapid-screening approach to detect and quantify microplastics based on fluorescent tagging with Nile Red. Sci. Rep. 7, 44501–44511. 10.1038/srep44501
    1. Moore C. J., Moore S. L., Leecaster M. K., Weisberg S. B. (2001). A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42, 1297–1300. 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00114-X
    1. PlasticsEurope (2015). Plastics – The Facts 2015: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
    1. Renner G., Schmidt T. C., Schram J. (2018). Analytical methodologies for monitoring micro(nano)plastics: which are fit for purpose? Environ. Sci. Health, 1, 55–61. 10.1016/j.coesh.2017.11.001
    1. Rochman C. M., Tahir A., Williams S. L., Baxa D. V., Lam R., Miller J. T., et al. . (2015). Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci. Rep. 5, 14340–14350. 10.1038/srep14340
    1. Schymanski D., Goldbeck C., Humpf H. U., Fürst P. (2018). Analysis of microplastics by micro-Raman spectroscopy: release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. Water Res. 129, 154–162. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.011
    1. Sharma S., Chatterjee S. (2017). Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: a short review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 21530–21547. 10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8
    1. Tanaka K., Takada H. (2016). Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters. Sci. Rep. 6, 34351–34359. 10.1038/srep34351
    1. UNEP (2016). Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
    1. Van Cauwenberghe L., Janssen C. R. (2014). Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environ. Pollut. 193, 65–70. 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010
    1. Yang D., Shi H., Li L., Jabeen K., Kolandhasamy P. (2015). Microplastic pollution in Table Salt from China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13622–13627. 10.1021/acs.est.5b03163
    1. Yonkos L. T., Friedel E. A., Perez-Reyes A. C., Ghosal S., Arthur C. A. (2014). Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 14195–14202. 10.1021/es5036317

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa