Eur. Phys. J.

Plus (2018) 133: 488

DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2018-12372-7
THE EUROPEAN
PHYSICAL JOURNAL PLUS
Regular Article

Ubiquitous exposure to microfiber pollution in the air

Ahmet Tunahan Kaya, Meral Yurtsevera , and Senem Çiftçi Bayraktar
Sakarya University, Environmental Engineering Department, Sakarya, Turkey

Received: 1 March 2018 / Revised: 28 September 2018

Published online: 30 November 2018

c Società Italiana di Fisica / Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature, 2018

Abstract. Microplastics (MPs) are among major micro-pollutants (< 5 mm) which can be found in water
sources and air in substantial quantities, and which still are not covered by standard extraction and
analysis procedures. Even though several researches have demonstrated the presence in water sources of
different MP fragments, the most common type of MP in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and
in the atmosphere are MP fibers. MP fibers (MFs) present in the atmosphere deriving from a number of
sources can settle on the ground, but they can also float due to wind and air flows, reaching the respiratory
system of humans like other pollutants. The objective of the present study is to make an evaluation of the
amount of microplastic fibers that freely float in the air due to their light weight and nano-, micro-size. To
quantify the presence of MPs in the air, their amount was evaluated after collecting them in two sites: an
intercity terminal and a university campus.

1 Introduction
Microplastics (MPs) are small particles of plastic that measure less than 5 mm. Microplastic fibers from synthetic
textile weathering and washing are increasingly being recognized as environmental pollutants [1–3]. It is well known
that the microplastic toxicity increases with decreasing size. Although microplastics are recognized as toxic pollutants
to environment [4,5], currently neither sampling, sorting, extraction, purification nor identification approaches are
standardized [6]. For this reason, although many MP studies are available in the literature, it is very difficult to
compare them. Even the mostly introductory studies carried out in recent years serve as proof of the diverse threat
microplastics may pose for water sources, environment, and life [7,8]. That is why microplastics (MPs) pollution is
starting to look like an ecotoxilogical puzzle almost beyond any solution [9]. However, recent researchers have set up
useful protocols for the quantification of MPs in different media and have contributed to a clearer comprehension of
the subject [10–12].
It is possible to find microplastic in foodstuffs, in drinks, in the air we breathe, shortly everywhere [13–17]. For
this reason, it is clear that we can be exposed to microplastics through food and inhalation. Some researchers have
investigated the microplastics in the air and have proven that a large amount of airborne MPs are composed of
fibers [18–22]. Also, MP studies in the wastewaters showed that the most common MPs in the waters from wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) are in the form of fibers [23–25].
Scientific studies are being carried out in order to determine the MPs in different environment quantitatively and
to reveal their negative effects. Particular emphasis is drawn to the fact that the potential toxic effects of MPs on
human health must be investigated in detail, in new studies [26–28].
Inhaled air is cleaned by the nasal mucus and small hairs that act like filters to remove dust and particles of 5 μm
and above, generally. But, since fibers up to 250 μm have been found in human lungs [26,30], then it should be known
that MPs in the air are a great danger. Inhaled microplastic fibers are likely to be biopersistent. They can also carry
toxic pollutants [29].
In 1998 while microplastic as a term was presumably unknown, a group of cancer researchers at the end of their
studies on 114 human lung tissue explained that bioresistant cellulosic and plastic fibers are candidate agents contribut-
ing to the risk of lung cancer [30]. Several studies have reported the inhalation of plastic fibers and particles, especially

Focus Point on “Microplastic Pollution: Assessment, Effects and Mitigation Strategies” edited by M. Avella, R. Avolio,
M. Cocca, E. Di Pace, M.E. Errico, G. Gentile.
a
e-mail: mevci@sakarya.edu.tr
Page 2 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488

Table 1. Weather conditions at different sampling periods.

Temperature Wind direction Wind speed Relative humidity

Date Conditions
(◦ C) (◦ ) (m/s) (%)
22/12/2016 2 331 2 74 After snowfall
31/01/2017 4 122 2 74 Foggy
23/02/2017 18 238 4 74 Partly cloudy
22/03/2017 14 48 5 74 Sunny
21/04/2017 11 348 1 74 Partly cloudy
17/05/2017 17 37 3 74 Sunny

Fig. 1. Air vacuum filter device.

in exposed workers, often coursing with dyspnea caused by airway and interstitial inflammatory responses [26]. Even
though nowadays the term microplastics (MPs) is heard of by ever wider audiences, their effects on lungs, the widest
respiratory system, and human health in general, as well as their association with cancer are far from being well
understood.

2 Material and methods

2.1 Preparation of the samples

The aim of this study is to determine of the amount of microplastic fibers (MFs) in the air of selected crowded areas.
For this purpose, the amount of MP in the samples taken through half an hour of vacuum suction (0.3 m3 /minute) at
the intercity terminal located on the entrance to the university campus in the Sakarya province (Turkey), as well as
of MP fallouts in the soil samples taken from the same location, were assessed. The samples were taken in the period
December 2016–May 2017.
The amounts of MP in the literature are often expressed as a concentration unit (mg MP L−1 or mg MP g−1 ), as
the MP number on a surface (items/m2 ), and as the MP number in a volume (MP L−1 ). Because of the their light
weights, it is very difficult to determine them in grams, in studies related to vacuumdrawn air. Therefore, they can be
determined as pieces (item MP L−1 ). In this study, particles were expressed in items· · ·L−1 units, too.
With a view to investigating the impact of weather conditions at the time of sampling, on the amount of MPs in
the air, the variables such as temperature, wind, humidity, etc., applicable during sampling are reported in table 1.
The air vacuum filter device used for MP sampling from the air is schematised in fig. 1. 500 μm plankton net and
50 μm clean steel filters were used in the studies. Samples taken through vacuuming were immediately sealed and
brought to the laboratory, to be examined under microscope after washing-separating procedures. They were then
classified according to the results of the examination.
The performed separating processes on the obtained air and soil samples can be listed briefly as follows:
– Hydrogen peroxide (35% H2 O2 ) treatment (wet peroxide oxidation) to remove organic impurities.
– Density separation with zinc chloride (ZnCl2 ) (density, 1.5–1.7 g cm−3 ) and MP flotation.
– Centrifuge (4000 rpm).
– Filtration by different filters (500 μm plankton net and 50 μm pore size stainless-steel filter for air samples; 20 μm
pore size Whatman black-band filter paper for soil samples).
Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488 Page 3 of 9

Fig. 2. Amounts of MPs in outdoor air for different times (in 30 minute sampling period).

2.2 Microscopic examination

The MPs found on the filters (500 μm and 50 μm) used to take the air samples with a flow rate of 0.3 m3 min−1 were
examined under the microscope. During the process, counts were taken at seven distinct areas, to provide input for
overall MP figure calculations. The soil samples from the locations where air samples were taken at the campus, on
the other hand, were processed through dissolution in water, treatment with H2 O2 , flotation with ZnCl2 and sorting,
followed by the review of the remainder on a 20 μm filter. Image acquisition and digitalization were performed (4×
magnification) with a digital camera (DP20; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) coupled to a light microscope (BX51; Olympus).

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Results

The presence of MP fibers in the air samples was examined in detail according to their colors and shapes (see fig. 2
and table 2).
The average, STD, range and median values of the total particle amount obtained from the counting with micro-
scope are given in table 2. The MPs remaining on the filters are shown as an example in fig. 3.
Analysis results of the soil samples (1 g) are presented in table 3, showing MP particle count per gram. The MPs
in triple sampling containers placed on the ground, with a view to determining the number of MPs settling through
atmospheric fallout during a sampling period of 30 minutes were also counted and noted. The containers kept outdoors
for 30 minutes were observed to have an average of 8 MPs (dark blue 2 fibers-1 fragment, black 1 fiber-1 fragment, 1
blue fiber, 2 brown fragments, and other particles) in various sizes, settling through gravitation.
The samples taken in the period December 2016–May 2017 revealed different amounts of MP fibers in each month,
not to mention a number of MP particles, while dark blue, white, transparent and brown were the most frequently
observed MP colours. The factor leading to the variation in MP volumes from one month to the next is the change in
weather. For instance, samples taken after rainfall revealed substantial falls in microplastic counts.
The samples were examined under light microscope, followed by the use of a Micro-ATR-FT-IR (Micro-Attenuated
Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared) microscope (Opus 7.5, Lumos, Bruker, Germany) to establish the polymer
types of the plastics. In the ATR-FT-IR analysis, polyamide- and polyester-type MPs were mostly determined. In this
study, ATR-FT-IR analyses were performed to determine whether the materials on the filter were plastic, while the
percentage of spectral library match or the hit quality index (HQI) values were found generally low. FT-IR spectra of
some samples are shown in fig. 4. Therefore, it is better to examine the samples under a fluorescent microscope after
staining with Nile red [10–12].
Page 4 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488

Table 2. Amounts of particles (during 30 minute air sampling periods).

Fibers Colors
Mean Range STD Median
and Fragments (and similar shades)
Dark blue 5046 4025–6843 1239 4528
White 3810 2214–6440 1383 3522
22/12/2016
Transparent 1380 906–1811 245 1409
Campus
Brown 259 0–805 446 0
Total 10495 7044–14894 2724 9057
Dark blue 5103 3623–6440 1466 5032
White 4212 2616–4830 1706 4025
31/01/2017
Transparent 1394 1208–2214 351 1610
Campus
Brown 302 403–1208 279 302
Total 11012 8654–13686 3516 11472
Dark blue 5161 6642–15296 977 5132
White 3867 5635–10667 865 3925
23/02/2017
Transparent 1768 1610–4428 348 1811
Campus
Brown 791 403–2013 263 805
Total 11587 14894–32202 1769 11673
Dark blue 10106 10063–13283 3630 8856
White 7619 8252–11271 2257 6038
22/03/2017
Transparent 3235 4428–6139 1094 3421
Campus
Brown 1394 1208–2113 605 1610
Total 22355 26768–30995 7125 19925
Dark blue 12335 4227–6642 1155 12881
23/03/2017 White 9891 2214–4428 996 10063
Intercity bus Transparent 5190 1610–2616 667 5032
terminal Brown 1739 403–1208 342 1811
Total 29155 9661–14491 1296 29385
Dark blue 5247 4025–6843 886 4931
White 3450 2415–4428 825 3623
21/04/2017
Transparent 2085 805–2616 430 2214
Campus
Brown 891 403–1811 281 805
Total 11745 8856–14894 1699 11774
Dark blue 5750 7044–16101 1051 6038
22/0/2017 White 3594 6038–11271 783 3824
Intercity bus Transparent 1869 2415–5233 714 2013
terminal Brown 1150 805–2415 541 1208
Total 12363 16705–35020 2223 11673
Dark blue 10624 10466–14089 3605 9258
White 8166 8453–11673 2259 7246
17/05/2017
Transparent 3652 4428–6843 1093 3623
Campus
Brown 1567 1610–2415 538 1610
Total 24008 28580–32605 7252 21737
Dark blue 12895 10466–14089 1211 13283
17/05/2017 White 10437 8453–11673 1087 10667
Intercity bus Transparent 5592 4428–6843 817 5434
terminal Brown 1898 1610–2415 304 2013
Total 30822 28580–32605 1337 30793
Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488 Page 5 of 9

Fig. 3. Examples of MPs collected on different filters: a) (Plankton net); b) (steel filter).

Table 3. Amounts of MPs in soil samples.

MPs in soil Sampling Date

Colours 22/12/2016 21/04/2017 17/05/2017
Dark blue 3 5 6
Blue 2 2 4
Fibers Black 1 1 1
Purple 1 0 2
White, transparent etc. 1 0 3
Brown 1 2 3
Dark blue 4 4 3
Fragments Blue 2 3 3
Black and others 1 0 2
White, transparent etc. 2 5 2
Total 18 22 29
Page 6 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488

Fig. 4. The comparison of ATR-FT-IR spectra found from a polymer library with the samples.

3.2 Discussion

The amount of MP in the atmosphere can vary substantially according to time, space, and seasonal conditions. That
is why it is difficult to specify a clear figure for MP amounts a location is expected to have; however, it is possible to
claim that atmosphere certainly contains some amount of MP, albeit in varying quantities. That is why microplastics
in the air should be taken into consideration among particular matters (PMs) (as coarse, fine, or ultra-fine particles)
which are considered major air pollutants, alongside the emissions of SOx , NOx and COx which had been under close
supervision for quite some time, and thus should be studied in depth in terms of their impact on human health.
In the microplastic studies, firstly; oxidation of organics (if any) is performed in sample (by 30%–35% hydrogen
peroxide H2 O2 , Fenton’s reagent) [31,32]. Synthetic polymers are floated by density seperation using inorganic salts
such as zinc chloride (ZnCl2 ) [33,34], sodium iodide (NaI) [35], sodium polytungstate (Na6 O39 W12 , SPT) [36,37] and
lithium metatungstate [38]. Then filtration from different filters, washing, separation, determination and classification
of MP is performed. This classification process is based on visual sorting by the naked eye or with the aid of a
microscope. In all MP studies, visual examination (using type, shape, color and degradation stage as criteria) of
Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488 Page 7 of 9

Fig. 5. Examples of natural and synthetic fibers.

the sample is an obligatory step. However, the amount of MP in the sample can be weighed if it is suitable for
gravimetric determination. Finally, chemical composition is determined. The most reliable method to identify the
chemical composition of microplastic fragments [36] is infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FT-IR, focal plane array (FPA)-
based transmission micro-FT-IR) [39,40].
Although in general FT-IR and Raman analyses are quite suitable for chemical composition analyses, there are
some limitations in the determination of very small-size MPs [41]. For this reason, the samples should be examined
under a fluorescent microscope after Nile red staining. Because, with Nile red staining, it will be more practical to
see whether the objects in nano-, micro-size are of plastic polymer origin. In this study, in order to better recognize
synthetic fibers known as an important microplastic indicator in wastewater and air, the fibers in natural and synthetic
clothes (real) were examined. The images obtained from the microscope examination are shown in fig. 5. From the
images it is understood that natural and synthetic fibers are similar to each other and can be easily confused with
each other. It is seen that visual sorting will never be enough, especially in the study of microplastic fibers in the air.
For this reason, ATR-FT-IR, Raman analyses and analysis under the fluorescence microscope (by Nile red staining)
will provide certainty in terms of results.
The analysis of MPs to assess air pollution is a rather new practice. For, anything used in the laboratory en-
vironment, from plastic materials to the synthetic clothing people wear, can lead to MP particles. Failure to pay
due attention in the experiments can lead to positive errors in the experiment results, due to such particles. Natu-
ral/synthetic particles can be found even in clean laboratories equipped with ventilation systems. There are certain
Page 8 of 9 Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488

measures to prevent any MP fallout from the air, clothes, and materials in the room, during the sampling and labo-
ratory analysis, preventing contamination. As a measure against MP contamination caused by ambient air, the tools
and equipment to be used at the laboratory should be washed and rinsed clean; all surfaces should be wiped clean with
a lint-free cloth made of natural materials. The devices to be used for the analysis should be wiped with alcohol. The
samples should be covered immediately with a suitable lid or cover, and should be kept in a clean cabin. Furthermore,
assuming that the size of the sample allows so, it can be “checked” first under a microscope. Moreover, a tape lifting
technique usually employed at forensics laboratories can also be used for controls. In the present study, blank samples
were also used during laboratory analyses, followed by the registration of applicable results to serve as a control group.

4 Conclusions
Given the small size of MPs reviewed in the study, the results do not reflect all the MPs presence in the air. The
observations carried out outdoors at different time frames revealed that MPs were present in widely varying rates and
sizes in the air, and the amount of MPs caught could vary even in very short time frames. The number of MPs in a given
setting is determined by a number of factors including but not limited to consumption habits, socioeconomic status,
traffic, urbanization. The clothing requirements varying from season to season have also an impact on the amount
of MPs in outdoor air, particularly for the case of fibers. Substantial developments in the synthetic fibers industry
and extensive use of cheap non-woven fabrics could also help explain the increase of MPs fibers in the environment.
It is also important to note that meteorological factors such as the weather, wind speed, wind direction, humidity,
temperature, and cyclones can also play a major role in determining the amount of MPs in the air.
Further studies are required for the development of standard methods regarding the analysis of MPs in the air we
breathe and in atmospheric fallout.

This study was supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) (Project No: 115Y303).

References
1. M.A. Browne, Sources and pathways of microplastics to habitats, in Marine Anthropogenic Litter, edited by M. Bergmann,
L. Gutow, M. Klages (Springer, Cham, 2015) pp. 229–244.
2. F.S. Cesa, A. Turra, J. Baruque-Ramos, Sci. Total Environ. 598, 1116 (2017).
3. E. Dümichen, A.K. Barthel, U. Braun, C.G. Bannick, K. Brand, M. Jekel, R. Senz, Water Res. 85, 451 (2015).
4. R. Lenz, K. Enders, C.A. Stedmon, D.M. Mackenzie, T.G. Nielsen, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100, 82 (2015).
5. A.I. Catarino, R. Thompson, W. Sanderson, T.B. Henry, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36, 947 (2017).
6. M. Cole, P. Lindeque, C. Halsband, T.S. Galloway, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588 (2011).
7. S.A. Carr, J. Liu, A.G. Tesoro, Water Res. 91, 174 (2016).
8. P. Villarrubia-Gómez, S.E. Cornell, J. Fabres, Mar. Policy 96, 213 (2018).
9. A. Katsnelson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 5547 (2015).
10. F. De Falco, M.P. Gullo, G. Gentile, E. Di Pace, M. Cocca, L. Gelabert, R. Mossotti, Environ. Pollut. 236, 916 (2018).
11. T. Maes, R. Jessop, N. Wellner, K. Haupt, A.G. Mayes, Sci. Rep. 7, 44501 (2017).
12. G. Erni-Cassola, M.I. Gibson, R.C. Thompson, J.A. Christie-Oleza, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 23 (2017).
13. D. Yang, H. Shi, L. Li, J. Li, K. Jabeen, P. Kolandhasamy, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13622 (2015).
14. A. Karami, A. Golieskardi, C.K. Choo, V. Larat, T.S. Galloway, B. Salamatinia, Sci. Rep. 7, 46173 (2017).
15. M. Steer, M. Cole, R.C. Thompson, P.K. Lindeque, Environ. Pollut. 226, 250 (2017).
16. G. Liebezeit, E. Liebezeit, Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 30, 2136 (2013).
17. G. Liebezeit, E. Liebezeit, Food Addit. Contam.: Part A 31, 1574 (2014).
18. R. Dris, J. Gasperi, C. Mirande, C. Mandin, M. Guerrouache, V. Langlois, B. Tassin, Environ. Pollut. 221, 453 (2017).
19. R. Dris, J. Gasperi, M. Saad, C. Mirande, B. Tassin, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 104, 290 (2016).
20. L.C. Woodall, C. Gwinnett, M. Packer, R.C. Thompson, L.F. Robinson, G.L. Paterson, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 95, 40 (2015).
21. L. Cai, J. Wang, J. Peng, Z. Tan, Z. Zhan, X. Tan, Q. Chen, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 24928 (2017).
22. S. Dehghani, F. Moore, R. Akhbarizadeh, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 20360 (2017).
23. J. Bayo, S. Olmos, J. López-Castellanos, A. Alcolea, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 11, 812 (2016).
24. F. Murphy, C. Ewins, F. Carbonnier, B. Quinn, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5800 (2016).
25. A.S. Tagg, M. Sapp, J.P. Harrison, J.J. Ojeda, Anal. Chem. 87, 6032 (2015).
26. J.C. Prata, Environ. Pollut. 234, 115 (2018).
27. S.L. Wright, F.J. Kelly, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 6634 (2017).
28. J. Gasperi, S.L. Wright, R. Dris, F. Collard, C. Mandin, M. Guerrouache, B. Tassin, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 1, 1
(2018).
29. A.A. Koelmans, A. Bakir, G.A. Burton, C.R. Janssen, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 7 (2016).
Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2018) 133: 488 Page 9 of 9

30. J.L. Pauly, S.J. Stegmeier, H.A. Allaart, R.T. Cheney, P.J. Zhang, A.G. Mayer, R.J. Streck, Cancer Epidemiol. Prev.
Biomarkers 7, 419 (1998).
31. A. Dyachenko, J. Mitchell, N. Arsem, Anal. Methods 9, 9 (2017).
32. A.S. Tagg, J.P. Harrison, Y. Ju-Nam, M. Sapp, E.L. Bradley, C.J. Sinclair, J.J. Ojeda, Chem. Commun. 53, 372 (2017).
33. R. Dris, J. Gasperi, B. Bounoua, V. Rocher, B. Tassin, Microplastics in different compartments of the urban water cycle:
From the sources to the rivers, in Fate and Impacts of Microplastics in Marine Ecosystems (Elsevier, 2017).
34. C. Lorenz, Doctoral dissertation, Universität Rostock (2014).
35. M.T. Nuelle, J.H. Dekiff, D. Remy, E. Fries, Environ. Pollut. 184, 161 (2014).
36. V. Hidalgo-Ruz, L. Gutow, R.C. Thompson, M. Thiel, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 6 (2012).
37. P.L. Corcoran, M.C. Biesinger, M. Grifi, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1 (2009).
38. J. Masura, J.E. Baker, G.D. Foster, C. Arthur, C. Herring, Laboratory methods for the analysis of microplastics in the
marine environment: recommendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments (NOAA, 2015).
39. P. Peets, I. Leito, J. Pelt, S. Vahur, Spectrochim. Acta Part A: Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 173, 175 (2017).
40. S.M. Mintenig, I. Int-Veen, M.G.J. Löder, S. Primpke, G. Gerdts, Water Res. 108, 365 (2017).
41. W.J. Shim, S.H. Hong, S.E. Eo, Anal. Methods 9, 9 (2017).