Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Microplastics (MPs) are omnipresent in the environment, including the human food chain; a likely important contributor to human exposure is drinking water. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review of MP contamination of drinking water and estimate quantitative exposures. METHODS: The protocol for the systematic review employed has been published in PROSPERO (PROSPERO 2019, Registration number: CRD42019145290). MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from launch to the 3rd of June 2020, selecting studies that used procedural blank samples and a validated method for particle composition analysis. Studies were reviewed within a narrative analysis. A bespoke risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was used. RESULTS: 12 studies were included in the review: six of tap water (TW) and six of bottled water (BW). Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to high statistical heterogeneity (I2>95%). Seven studies were rated low RoB and all confirmed MP contamination of drinking water. The most common polymers identified in samples were polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP), Methodological variability was observed throughout the experimental protocols. For example, the minimum size of particles extracted and analysed, which varied from 1 to 100 μm, was seen to be critical in the data reported. The maximum reported MP contamination was 628 MPs/L for TW and 4889 MPs/L for BW, detected in European samples. Based on typical consumption data, this may be extrapolated to a maximum yearly human adult uptake of 458,000 MPs for TW and 3,569,000 MPs for BW. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review that appraises the quality of existing evidence on MP contamination of drinking water and estimates human exposures. The precautionary principle should be adopted to address concerns on possible human health effects from consumption of MPs. Future research should aim to standardise experimental protocols to aid comparison and elevate quality.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Microplastics smaller than 1.5 μm can accumulate in the body if consumed regularly and infiltrate past digestive tract tissues into vital organs.
“can accumulate in the body if consumed regularly and infiltrate past digestive tract tissues and into vital organs (Danopoulos et al., 2020)”
From Review of emerging contaminants in green stormwater infrastructure: antibiotic resistance genes, microplastics, tire wear particles, PFAS, and temperature (2024) · cites this paper as Danopoulos et al., 2020
The Discussion says that ingested microplastics smaller than 1.5 μm could cross the gut barrier and reach other organs, but presents this as a possibility, not an observed outcome of regular consumption. It does not establish that regularly consumed microplastics accumulate in the body; the organ-translocation evidence it cites concerns plastic particles from orthopaedic prosthetics. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn all reviewed studies, between 92% and 100% of bottled water samples tested positive for microplastics; the most common polymers identified in drinking water samples were PET and polypropylene.
“A recent systematic review reports that in all reviewed studies between 92% and 100% of bottled water samples tested positive for microplastics. The most common polymers identified in drinking water samples (both tap and bottled water) were PET and polypropylene [90].”
From Bottled Water: An Evidence-Based Overview of Economic Viability, Environmental Impact, and Social Equity (2023) · cites this paper as [90]
The highest daily microplastic consumption from tap drinking water ranges from 1260 particles in European adults to 40 particles in North American adults.
“with the highest daily consumption from tap drinking water ranging from 1260 particles in European adults to 40 particles in North American adults (Danopoulos et al., 2020)”
From Review of emerging contaminants in green stormwater infrastructure: antibiotic resistance genes, microplastics, tire wear particles, PFAS, and temperature (2024) · cites this paper as Danopoulos et al., 2020
Reported microplastic intake values through drinking water may underestimate the high range of intake because they do not include those without treated drinking water access.
“even these values may underestimate the high range of microplastic intake through drinking water because it does not include those without treated drinking water access (Danopoulos et al., 2020)”
From Review of emerging contaminants in green stormwater infrastructure: antibiotic resistance genes, microplastics, tire wear particles, PFAS, and temperature (2024) · cites this paper as Danopoulos et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 111 · Cited by 341
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [23]European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. EFSA Journal. 2016; 14(6): e04501 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4501 PMC11847996 40007823 · DOI · Paper page
- [75]Schwarzer G. meta: An R package for meta-analysis. version 4.9–7 ed: R News, 7(3), 40– 45.; 2019.
- [98]WHO. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, fourth edition incorporating the first addendum. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2017. 28759192
- [117]Wallace C. HACCP a food industry briefing. Second edition. ed Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015.
- Authors
- Danopoulos, E., Twiddy, M., & Rotchell, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Hull (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Danopoulos, Evangelos
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2020-07-31
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e0236838
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7394398
- OpenAlex
- W3045011717
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 111
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Hull
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
- Keywords
- microplastics, drinking water contamination, tap water, bottled water, human exposure estimation, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, particle size, risk of bias, precautionary principle
- MeSH terms
- Microplastics, Environmental Monitoring, Polyethylene Terephthalates, Polypropylenes, Public Health, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Food Chain, Drinking Water
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
