Supplementary Information

A critical review of extraction and identification methods of

microplastics in wastewater and drinking water

Dounia Elkhatib, Vinka Oyanedel-Craver

Table of contents

1. SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGIES USED IN ASSESSING MPS IN WWTPS ....................................................................................................................... 2

2. SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGIES USED IN ASSESSING MPS IN DRINKING WATER ...................................................................................................... 11
3. NUMBER OF WWTPS ASSESSED FOR MP CONTAMINATION IN MULTIPLE STUDIES AND SUMMARIZED BY COUNTRIES AND CONTINENTS .................... 14
4. MP CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED AS NUMBER OF MP PARTICLES PER VOLUME IN THE FINAL EFFLUENT FOR DIFFERENT PARTICLES SIZES IN
WWTP STUDIES. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
5. MP CONCENTRATIONS (NUMBER OF PARTICLES PER CUBIC METER) REPORTED IN THE STUDIES IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTICLES SIZE ........... 17
6. RANKING FRAME SCORES AND EXPLANATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
7. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) DIGESTION METHOD: ........................................ 21
8. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

1
 1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs
Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies
Location Description Sampling method
Los Angeles 10 WWTPs: 8 Tertiary 1- Calibrated effluent flows (11.4-
plants (681 million 22.7 l/min) were filtered through a
liters per day (MLD)) stack of sieves assembled from
and 2 secondary plants coarse to fine
(0.3 MLD and 1.06 2- Surface filtering assembly
billion liters per day) designed for skimming the water
surface at the final outfall
location. Surface-skimmed
volumes were estimated using
skimmer length,weir outfall,
length and discharged volumes.
3- High solid residues (40-100
mL) from secondary effluent
4-Grab samples from skimmings’,
scum in aeration tanks, sewage
sludge, gravity filter backwash,
and biosolids
River Clyde, Secondary WWTP: Four stages of the treatment
Glasgow 261 MLD of treated process were sampled: Influent
wastewater with a after screening, grit and grease
population equivalent effluent, primary effluent, and the
of 650 000. final effluent.
Size Sample processing
range (Extraction)
20 to 1- Residues retained on the sieves
400 μm were transferred into a 15mL
graduated plastic centrifuge tube.
After centrifuging the tube at 4000
RPM for 20 min, the volume of the
residues was determined.
2- High solid residues were
combined in a beaker with DI water,
then stirred vigorously using a
magnetic stir plate to form a
homogeneous slurry.
3- Representative 5 mL samples
were pipetted directly from the
stirred slurry then placed into a
gridded petri dish for screening and
counting.
4- Grab samples from skimmings,
scum in aeration tanks, sewage
sludge, gravity filter backwash, and
biosolids were digested with a
diluted solution of bleach (Clorox,
8.25% sodium hypochlorite).
65 μm Debris on the sieves were washed
into clean glass bottles using DI
water.
2
Quantification Results Reference
and identification
All filtered residues *Total of 373 particles of 1
from tertiary effluents various color, shapes and
were analyzed under sizes were identified in
microscope. 423,000 L of effluent at
The disinfected samples one WWTP
were examined *Overall total daily
immediately under discharge count of
microscope in a fume 930,000 microplastic
hood. particles
*In biosolids, an average
of 5 particles in 5 g of the
sample was found
*Overall total of
1,090,000,000 MPPs
were being removed daily
with the biosolids, along
with 7,780,000 particles
in grit from the grit
chambers and 930,000
particles in the final
effluent discharged.
The filter was observed *Total of 430 plastic 2
under a dissection items across all the
microscope. samples examined: liquid
fraction (n = 303), solid
fraction (n = 79), and 24
h SC duplicate (n = 48)
samples. Of the 430 items
identified as plastic, 8
were >5 mm.
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)

30 L samples collected in steel
buckets were passed through steel
sieves. Samples of grit and grease
were taken from the grit and
grease removal stage. Solid
samples were taken from sludge
centrifuge treatment
Northern 17 WWTPs: varying Effluents were sampled just prior
Samples were vacuum filtered
through Whatman No. 1 qualitative
circles, 90 mm filter paper, with a
pore size of 11 μm.
125 to 1-Sieve contents were transferred
FTIR identification was *Influent contained on
also used. Only sub- average 15.70 (±5.20)
samples were examined MP/L
*Final treated effluent
had 0.25 (±0.04) MP/L
(98% removal)
Samples were filtered * Total result: 0.017 3

California (8), size, populations to being discharged from either a 355 μm into separate sample containers and using the 0.125 mm “microbeads” (as
Eastern (3), served and filtration sampling port or from an effluent immediately preserved in 70% sieve and all remaining fragments and pellets) per
western (1) types. Treated influent flume using an extraction pump, isopropyl alcohol for later laboratory particulates were liter
and Central (2) flow ranging from 2.35 and filtered through a set of Tyler processing and analysis transferred to glass * Total of 1,490,683
New York, to 382 MLD sieves at a flow rate of 12-18 L 2- Labile organic matter within each Petri dishes for visual “microbeads” (as
Northern Ohio per minute for a period of 2-24 h sieve sample was digested using analysis. fragments and pellets) per
(1), Eastern 30% hydrogen peroxide in the facility per day
Wisconsin (2) presence of an iron (II) catalyst.
Detroit and 2 WWTPs: the first Grab samples were collected in 20 to 1-Samples were filtered into a sieve Sieved fractions were *Total Influent particles 4

Northfield one treats 660 MLD plastic containers. Sample 475 μm stack in the laboratory poured into a petri dish varied between the 3
and has a secondary volumes varied for different 2- Particles were backwashed with a and observed through a facilities from 90 to 130
treatment; and the sampling events: raw wastewater small amount of DI into a clean stereo- microscope. MP/L
other treats an average [1–2 L], preliminary effluent [1–6 plastic bin. Identified MP were * Removal fraction from
daily flow of 1.7MLD L], primary effluent [10–20 L], removed from the the influent is: 133.0 ±
and includes an secondary effluent [10–20 L], and sample individually 35.6 M/ L with the
AnMBR system final effluent [34–38 L] using tweezers, counted preliminary and primary
per shape category treatment steps removing
the largest amount.
* Secondary treatment
removed 12.9 MP/L.
Illinois Upstream and Microplastics were collected from 333 μm 1-Sieves content were stored in glass Microplastic was *Microplastic particles 5

downstream of WWTP surface water with neuston nets beakers in a drying oven at 75°C
effluent sites at 9 rivers (0.52 × 0.36 m), then rinsed and 2-Organic material was degraded
run through stacked sieves through wet peroxide oxidation
(0.05 mol/L Fe(II) and 30%
hydrogen peroxide) at 75°C
3-Sodium chloride was added for
density separation.
filtered (Whatman glass varied between the
fiber filters, 0.7 μm facilities, they ranged
nominal pore size) then between 0.48 to 5.92
counted under a MP/m3 for upstream, and
dissecting microscope, 0.8 to 11.22MP/m3 for
and classified by type downstream

3
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
Paris, France WWTP treats 240 Raw wastewater after
MLD and has biofilters pretreatment, settled wastewater
in the secondary and treated water were collected
treatment using an automatic sampler and
24-h averaged samples were
analysed (0.05 L)
San Francisco 8 WWTPs: Influent Samples were collected from final
flow ranging between treated effluents bypassing the
2.3 to 310 MLD; with flow through stacked Tyler sieves
secondary and tertiary for 2 hours during each facility's
treatments. peak flow.
New Jersey 10 municipal WWTPs Samples were collected upstream
discharge into the and downstream of the effluents
Raritan River, five of on the Raritan River, NJ with with
which are major (>4.5 plankton nets (0.2 m diameter,
(MLD). 0.51 m long) in duplicate for 1
hour. The volume of sample
collected was calculated by taking
the product of river surface
velocity, cross sectional area of
the submerged portion of the net
opening, and sample collection
time
Oakland, WWTP serves 680,000 The effluent is collected over a
California people and provides period of 24 hours with a flow rate
secondary treatment of 1gal/min over a stack of sieves;
for about 227 MLD of and a limited number of samples
wastewater were collected as 2 hour
composites at peak flow.
100 - Samples were filtered on glass fibre Filters were observed *Influent:260,000 to 6
5000 μm GF/A Whatman filters (Sigma– with a Leica MZ12 320,000 particles/m3
Aldrich, 1.6 mm) stereomicroscope *Primary effluent: 50,000
coupled with software to 120,000 particles/ m3
for image analysis *Final effluent: 14,000 to
(Histolab) 50,000 particles/m3
*Most of the particles are
fibers
125 to Samples were processed via a wet Using a dissection Results ranging between 7
355 μm peroxide oxidation (WPO); then microscope, plastic 0.022 to 0.19 plastic
samples were filtered through a particles were removed, particles per liter
stacked sieve set (0.355 mm and enumerated, and
0.125 mm) and rinsed using categorized
deionized (DI) water into petri
dishes.
153 - The contents of each net were rinsed Particles were Results varied between 8
2000 μm with DI water into a stack of sieves, visualized under a the WWTPs and the
then transferred to a beaker and reflected microscope upstream and
dried overnight at 90C. The organic (Stereo Zoom downstream. The
content was oxidized by hydrogen Microscope, Olympus, concentrations range
peroxide catalyzed by iron (II)., Japan). For the 500-mm between 8 and 110
followed by density separation using size category, plastics particles/m3
sodium chloride were counted directly.
Only random parts of
the petri dish were
counted per sample.
Particles were also
classified by size and
color and shape
125 - Contents of sieves are transferred by The membrane filter is Maximum concentration 9
5000 μm DI water to glass jars and stored at < examined under a of 0.09
4C. Organic matter were oxidized by dissecting microparticles/gallon
WPO catalyzed by iron (II). 3 to 6 stereomicroscope Concentration of 0.64
digestions were necessary to remove (Olympus SZ61 microparticles per gallon
most cellulose and other organic stereomicro- scope, a for a single 2-hour
material interferences. The extract is 45-objective combined sampling event at peak
filtered on a 0.8 mm membrane filter with a SC100 digital flow.
camera and Olympus Particles were
Stream 2.1 Imaging categorized by shape
Software). Raman
spectroscope and FTIR
were also used to
confirm the nature of
some particles
4
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
Ljubljana, Lab-scale sequencing * 3 glass cylindrical reactors with 60-1000 * Microbeads in the effluent were FT-IR *On average 52% of 10

Slovenia batch biological a total volume 5 L were fed with μm washed several times with diluted spectrophotometer microbeads are captured
WWTP synthetic sewage Sulphuric acid to remove activated (Perkin Elmer). in activated sludge
* 0.5 g/L of microbeads were sludge flocks Morphology of *Smaller particles (up to
introduced into each reactor at microbeads was 60 to 70 μm) are captured
each cycle observed by a field within activated sludge
emission scanning while bigger particles
electron microscope were detected in the
(SEM) Supra 35VP effluent.
*Applying the results in
Ljubljana: 112,500,000
particles may daily be
released into the
receiving river, resulting
in a microbeads
concentration of 21
particles/m3

Finland Largest WWTP in Samples were collected from the 20 to Samples were filtered and stored in Samples were visually The average MP 11

Finland and the Nordic plant influent, after pre-treatment, 300 μm clean Petri dishes. examined using a concentrations were for
Countries, treating an after the activated sludge (AS) stereomicroscope the:
average of 270 MLD process, plant effluent, excess (Fiberoptic- Heim LQ *influent: 636 MP/l
of wastewaters for 800 sludge, reject water and dried 1100, magnification *after pretreatment: 14
000 inhabitants sludge. 50).The chemical MP/L
Sampling was done by pumping composition of particles *After AS: 1 MP/L
water from the wastewater stream from effluents samples *Effluent: 3.2 MP/L
onto stack of sieves with an were analyzed with
electric pump. imaging Fourier
Samples from the influent, excess Transform infrared
sludge and reject water were spectrometer (FTIR)
collected in a metallic beaker.
Lysekil, This WWTP is adapted Samples were taken from influent, 300 μm Samples were poured into a filter Individual particles The average 12

Swedish west- for a population effluent and sludge using a water holder of stainless steel fitted with a were picked out for concentrations found are:
coast equivalent (pe) of 45 cylinder sampler lowered in the filter cut out from plankton net analyses with Fourier *Influent: 15100 MP/m3
000 water. transform infrared *Effluent: 8.25 MP/m3
spectroscopy (FTIR). * Sludge: 720 MP/kg

5
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
Netherlands Model to predict MP 3 scenarios based on emission 50 μm Predicted concentrations are Different product Total estimated 13

release from sewage models were used to assess compared with reported actual categories were concentrations of primary
effluents microplastic emission concentrations in STP effluents compared based on the microplastics from
model output, to assess consumer products in 3
the main sources and scenarios are 0.2 μg/L,
magnitude of 2.7 μg/L, and 66μg/L in
microplastic emission STP effluent.
to the surface water in
The Netherlands. And a
comparison of the
calculated effluent
concentrations to
relevant available
monitoring data was
done.

Ireland 7 WWTPs with Samples were taken from sewage 45 to Pellets of sludge were placed in Particles were Abundances ranged from 14

population equivalents sludge, having undergone
(PEs) ranging from treatment including Thermal
6500 to 2.4 million drying, Anaerobic digestion or
Lime Stabilization
250 μm water for 1 week to induce categorized by size, but 4196 to 15 385 particles
softening, transferred to a water bath only 10% of MP per kg (dry weight)
(30 °C) for 24 h, and placed in an specimens from each
“end-over- end” shaker for 12 h. The filter paper were
samples were then washed through a identified by FTIR.
series of sieves (250 to 45 μm). MP
particles were extracted using an
elutriation column, then ZnCl2
solution was added to the samples;
then filtered onto glass fiber filters
(GF/C: Whatman, 1.2 μm)

Netherlands 7 WWTPs with various Samples were taken from influent, 10 - Sodium chloride (NaCl) was added Filters were examined Average particle 15

influents and systems sludge and treated effluent in glass
(not mentioned) jars (2 L for each sample) and
stored in the dark until analysis
5000 μm to the samples. The top layers of
samples were then filtrated over 0.7
μm glass filters (Whatman GF/F)
using light microscopy concentrations are:
to count particles and Influents: 68–910MP/L;
record shape. Fourier effluents: 51–81 MP/L;
transform infrared and sewage sludge: 510–
(FTIR) analysis was 760/ kg wet weight (ww)
performed on a
subsample of particles.

6
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
Sydney, 3 WWTPs utilizing Sampling device consists of 4
Australia primary, secondary and removable stainless steel mesh
tertiary treatment screens, fixed to a base to provide
processes support during sampling. The
stacked units were placed inside a
cover made from PVC, with the
sampled water flowing through
the device. Samples were taken
from primary, secondary, tertiary
effluent.
Helsinki, 4 WWTPs utilizing Water samples were pumped into
Finland different advanced a custom filtering device with an
final-stage treatment electric pump. The sampling was
technologies (discfilter, stopped before the filters were
rapid sand filtration clogged with organic matter.
and dissolved air Additional sampling was carried
flotation) and a out with automated 24-h
membrane bioreactor composite samplers.
treating primary
effluent
NSW, 2 WWTPs with tertiary Samples were collected using
Australia level sewage treatment glass bottles (750 mL) with metal
caps from effluent.
Derby, UK. Severn Trent Water 10 liters of sample wastewater
treatment facility was collected from the surface
(top 5 cm) of the activated aerobic
biological stage using a telescopic
sampling pole then transported
back to the lab. The sample was
kept aerobic by maintaining a
constant air flow
25 to The contents on the mesh were
500 μm rinsed into a glass beaker.The water
content were concentrated to 100
mL by drying in an oven at 90 C. A
30% (H2O2) solution was used to
digest the organic matter. NaCl
solution was added for density
separation. Samples were filtered on
25 μm mesh. A staining method was
applied using Rose-Bengal solution
20- 300 After the sampling, the filters were
μm collected to petri dishes and stored in
room temperature.
NA Effluent was filtered and
microplastic counted as before but
without additional saline water and
standardized to give the amount of
microlastic per liter of effluent.
150- 250 Samples were centrifuged at 2038g
μm for 2 min. 30% H2O2 was added to
the samples. The samples were
filtered through 47 mm Isopore
polycarbonate membrane filters with
a pore size of 0.2 μm
7
The dried mesh screens An average of 0.28, 0.48 16
were visually analysed and 1.54 microplastics
using a dissecting per litre of final effluent
microscope and the was found in tertiary,
pink stained particles secondary and primary
suspected to be natural treated effluent,
particles were removed respectively
from the samples.FT-IR
measurements of the
dried microplastics
were recorded
All samples were The MBR removed 17
visually examined 99.9% of MPs during the
using a stereo treatment (from 6.9 to
microscope. Chemical 0.005 MP/L), rapid sand
composition of the pre- filter 97% (from 0.7 to
selected particles were 0.02 MP/L), dissolved air
analyzed with imaging flotation 95% (from 2.0
FTIR spectroscopy to 0.1 MP/L) and
discfilter 40-98.5% (from
0.5-2.0 to 0.03-0.3 MP/L)
FTIR An average of 1 MP/L 18
Samples were analyzed Identification rate 19
using a PerkinElmer percentage of 98% (the
FT-IR spectroscope. objective was to prove a
For reasons of ease and digestion solution)
speed (to avoid
scanning redundant
areas), each filter scan
was split into 5 regions.
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
Karlsruhe Neureut wastewater Two wastewater samples (25 L 12 to The samples were filtered using 1 The filters were 81 mg/m3 of PP and 257 20

treatment plant and 57 L) were taken from the 1000 μm mm and 12 μm sieves. ZnCl2 carefully removed from mg/m3 of PE were
WWTP solution was added to the samples the filter for TGA-DSC detected
for density separation for 12 h. The measurements.
particles floating to the surface were
separated by a fractionating column.
The extract was filtered using
cellulose-acetate filters (0.1 μm).

North-west of 12 WWTPs different Samples were taken from the 10 um Enzymatic-oxidative purification FTIR: To screen all In effluents: MP was 21

Germany capacities, wastewater effluent, at the overflow of
derivation and clarifying tanks or at the intake of
composition maturation ponds.
A custom-made mobile pumping
device was used: a flexible PVC
hose connected to a membrane
pump, a filter housing containing
stainless steel cartridge filter and a
flowmeter.
Sampling was located 10 cm
below the water surface.
A sample volume of 1 m3 was
planned yet sampling had to be
stopped in case of a significant
reduction of flow rate.
stainless approach:1- Digestion method using
steel sodium dodecyl sulphate (5%
cartridge w/vol). 2- Samples were incubated at
filter 70C for 24 h.
3- protease was added and samples
were incubated at 50C for 48 h.
Then lipase and cellulase were
added.
4- Samples were incubated at 40C
for96 h and at 50C for 6 d,
respectively.
5- Finally, cartridge filters were
removed from housings and rinsed
with Milli-Q and ethanol (30%).
filters in a reasonable found with quantities
amount of time, it was ranging from 0 to 5x101
decided to analyze 25% MP/ m3>500um and
of each filter 1x101to 9x103 MP/
m3<500mm. Polyethylene
was the most frequent
polymer type in both size
classes. Synthetic fibers
ranged from 9x101 to
1x103 MP/m3 and were
predominantly made of
polyester.

8
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
Adana city, Two WWTPs (Seyhan Daily water samples of 5 L were
Turkey and Yüreğir) supply 1 taken daily using a vacuum
million and 500,000 system model sampler.
people, respectively The 24-h composite samples of
both influent and secondary
effluent were collected between
18 and 23 of August 2017.
The influent water was sampled
just after the rough filter unit and
the effluent water was sampled
just prior to being discharged
(secondary effluent).
Germany Rüsselsheim/Raunheim Seven grab samples were
Sewerage and Water collected using a stainless-steel
Board (serving 98,500 centrifugal pump and filtered
inhabitants, effluent through a 10 μm stainless steel
rate: approx. cartridge filter.
10,000 m3/d).
55 μm 1-The samples were transferred to The petri dish was *Influent contained 1 22
the lab and filtered through a sieve examined using a μ- million– 6.5 million
with a mesh size of 55 μm. Raman spectroscopy particles per day
2- Material remained on the sieve and microplastic *Effluent contained
was transferred to 100-mL glass classification was 220,000–1.5 million
beakers using ultra-pure water. performed. particles per day.
3-Wet peroxide oxidation was used The spectrum of the *The removal rate of
for the digestion of the organic particles was taken, and MPs was found to be
materials in the sample. their type, size and between 73 and 79%.
4- NaI solution with a density of 1.8 shape were noted *In total, seven different
g mL−1 was added to the sample for types of polymers were
density separation detected. The most
5-Sample was then transferred to a abundant polymer type
15-mL centrifuge tube and was polyester.
centrifuged for 5 min at 3500 rpm.
6-Supernatant was filtered through a
sieve with a mesh size of 55 μm and
rinsed with ultra-pure water, and the
material left on the sieve was taken
to a petri dish for microscopic and
spectroscopic examination.
10 μm MPs were recovered by chemical Sample analysis was * Effluent in wet weather: 23
and physical sample purification. performed by Raman 5900 MPs/m3 were
The samples were first subjected to micro-spectroscopy identified.
oxidative treatment with H2O2 and using a Si filter. *Effluent in dry weather
NaClO to remove natural organic Particles with a days: 3000 MPs/m3.
matter. Then density separation was diameter larger *Most of the MPPs
used to remove inorganic materials than 10 μm were detected were in the size
in ZnCl2 using a centrifuge. Special analyzed. range of 30 μm
centrifuge tubes were produced for to 100 μm.
this purpose. *Fibers ranged between
100 μm and 1000 μm in
length.
*Most of the fibers were
PET and the MPs
particles consisted mainly
of PET, PP, PE and PS.
9
 Table S1. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in WWTPs studies (Continued)
South Three conventional Influent and effluent samples were 60 to Samples in Petri dishes were dried MPs were visually MP removal efficiency of 24

Carolina, US activated sludge collected from each WWTP over 418 μm for 24 hours at 65C while lightly counted on glass Petri 97.6±1.2%. The other two
WWTPs in the the course of a year as 3.6 L, 24-h covered. Samples were then treated dishes on the gridded smaller facilities had
Charleston Harbor flow-weighted composite samples with hydrogen peroxide reacting for cellulose filter using a average removal effi-
watershed: 2 serving in glass jars with Teflon-lined 30 min at 65C to remove organic dissecting stereo- ciencies of 85.2±6.0%
the city of Mount lids. material. microscope (Leica, and 85.5±9.1%
Pleasant and 1 serving Next, HCl was added to dried Stereozoom S9D).
the City of Charleston samples, and reacted over 30 min at Morphology (fiber or
65C to dissolve inorganics and non- particle) and color were
plastic materials. noted
Samples were reconstituted in DI Micro-FTIR (Bruker
water and vacuum filtered through Hyperion with
three stainless steel mesh in three germanium attenuated
size fractions: >418μm,178 to total reflectance (ATR)
418μm, and 60 to 178 μm. crystal) was also
attempted on select
fibers and particles
retained on filters
following digestion

10
 2. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in drinking water
Table S2. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in drinking water studies
Location Description Sampling method
Germany Drinking water Water samples (volume range 700
distributed in plastic mle1500 ml) from 12 different
bottles, glass bottles returnable and 10 single-use
and beverage cartons plastic bottles, 3 beverage cartons
and 9 glass bottles were obtained
from grocery stores in Germany
Germany Different beverages Three 0.33 L bottles of a Pilsener
(beer and mineral type beer and a sample (3 L) of
water) were used bottled mineral water were
analyzed
9 different 259 individual bottles The bottles within most lots came
countries from 27 different lots in containers of 500-600 mL per
across 11 brands bottle, while 2 of the brands
contained 0.75-2L 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, 6
bottles were chosen, and for the
2L sample, 4 bottles were
randomly chosen, and placed
under a laminar flow fume hood.
Size Sample processing Quantification Results Reference
range (Extraction) and
identification
> 1 μm The entire water volume of every μ-Raman The average microplastics content 25
mineral water bottle or beverage spectroscope was 118 ± 88 particles/l in
carton was filtered through a pre- returnable, but only 14 ± 14
counted filter under vacuum and then particles/l in single-use plastic
the container was rinsed with bottles.
additional 50 ml of Milli-Q water. The microplastics content in the
Gold coated polycarbonate filters beverage cartons was only 11 ± 8
were used then stored in a capped particles/l
thin petri dish until analysis The glass bottled waters (range 0-
253 particles/l, mean 50 ± 52
particles/l).
> 1 μm Samples were filtered on a cellulose Raman * Only 1 synthetic fiber (PET) was 26
nitrate membrane filter (pore size 1⁄4 microspectroscopy found in one of the water samples
0.45 mm). The filter was then placed * 10 to 19 fibers per filter (0.33 L
in a Petri dish, dried and stored in a bottle) in the sample filters as well
sealed vessel to prevent as in the blank filters
contamination.
> 6.5 μm The bottles were injected with a * FTIR spectroscopic * Average of 10.4 microplastic 27
specific volume of Nile Red solution analysis (for particles particles (>100 μm) per liter of
for or at least 30 minutes. The bottled >100μm) bottled water
water was then vacuum filtered * Nile Red tagging * Average of 325 microplastic
through a glass fiber filter (Whatman alone for particles particles per liter (<100 μm)
grade 934-AH, 55mm diameter, 1.5 (6.5–100 μm)
um pore)
11
 Table S2. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in drinking water studies (Continued)
14 countries: Tap water samples Samples were collected by > 2.5 μm *Samples were vacuum filtrated Filters were visually *Tap water: The range was 0 to 61 28

India, Cuba, collected around the running the tap water source for 1 through a 55 mm diameter Whatman analyzed using a particles/L, with an overall mean of
Ecuador, world. Three of the US minute prior to filling a 500mL cellulose filter with a pore size of 2.5 dissection 5.45 particles
England, samples were obtained HDPE bottle. Bottles were filled μm microscope. *Beer: The range was 0 to 14.3
France, as bottled water. and emptied twice before being *2 ml of t Rose Bengal stain, at a Non- stained Particles particles/ L with an average number
Germany, filled a third time and capped. The concentration of 200 mg/L, was were agitated with a of 4.05 particles/L
Indonesia, volumes of the samples varied in applied to each filter with an stainless steel micro
Ireland, a range from 457 to 603 ml, with eyedropper. spatula to test their
Italy, a mean of 551ml durability. Each piece
Lebanon, that was able to
Slovakia, endure this test
Switzerland, without breaking apart
Uganda,US was identified as
anthropogenic debris

Bottled 32 bottled water 32 Samples are purchased from >0.4um 1-Depending on the content of Particles were *single use PET bottles displayed 29

water from samples of three 21 different brands in Bavarian calcium and magnesium ions in the analysed on the filter the lowest amount with 2649 ± 2857
Bavarian different packaging stores. sample, (EDTA) solution was added surface with micro- microplastic.
food stores types: single and Twelve samples were packaged in and the sample was left to stay for Raman spectroscopy *reusable PET bottles contained on
reusable bottles made reusable PET bottles, ten samples 15 min. Particles consisting of using an XploRa Plus average 4889 ± 5432 microplastics/l.
of PET and glass in single use bottles made of PET calcium or magnesium carbonate are system, operated by *from glass bottles 3074 ± 2531
bottles. and ten samples in glass bottles dissolved. LabSpec 6 software microplastic
including one single use and nine 2- Three ml of (SDS) solution were (Horiba Scientific).
reusable glass bottles added per liter sample. Five spots of 1 mm2
4- Samples were mixed and an were examined for
aliquot of 250 ml volume was filtered each sample, leading
via vacuum through an aluminum to an analysed sample
coated polycarbonate membrane filter area of 4.4%
(pore size 0.4 μm; filtration unit:
msscientific, KG13B/500, filtration
area ∼113 mm2). The funnel of the
filtration unit was rinsed with Ethanol
to destroy foam and then with
ultrapure water. To avoid
contamination, filters were stored in
closed glass petri dishes.

12
 Table S2. Summary of the methodologies used in assessing MPs in drinking water studies (Continued)
Different Raw water at the Between 300 and 1000 L of raw >3 μm The whole filter surfaces were Microplastic 30

DWTPs in DWTP inlet and outlet water (groundwater) and 1200 to analysed by FTIR. Data were concentrations varied
Nethen, were sampled. 2500 L of drinking water were analysed using the software OPUS between 0 and 7
Holdorf, Groundwater extracted sampled. Water is filtered through 7.2. particles/m3, while 14
Grossenknet from 3 wells at least 3 μm stainless steel cartridge samples contained no
en, 30 m deep and referred filters. microplastics.
Sandelermoe to as ‘raw water’ is In the lab, water was removed In total, MP
ns and sampled. This water is from the filter units by using concentration of 0.7
Thuelsfelde. transported to fifteen filtered (0.2 μm) compressed air. particles per cubic
drinking water Filters were cleaned with meter water was
treatment plants hydrochloric acid to determined.
(DWTP). Water is dissolve calcium carbonate and
stored in tanks or iron precipitates for 24hrs, then
directly went into the rinsed with Milli-Q and ethanol.
distribution system. The residues were collected on
All pipes are made of 3 μm stainless steel filters (47 mm
high-density in diameter) then transferred into
polyethylene (HDPE), glass bottles with addition of
polyvinylchloride hydrogen peroxide, then
(PVC) or cast iron. incubated at 40C for 24 hrs.
Samples were filtered on
0.2 μm aluminium oxide filter
then dried in half closed glass
petri dishes for subsequent
analysis.

Three - Raw water was sampled from the >5 μm Wet peroxide oxidation was Samples were WTP1: Average: 1473 ± 34 MP/l for 31

drinking wat inlet and treated water at the conducted to remove organic material analyzed to determine Raw Water; and Treated water:
er treatment outlet of DWTP. 54 L samples in from the water samples. Samples the number, size and 443 ± 10 MP/l
plants total: 27 L of raw water and 27 L were then passed through a series morphology of
located in of treated water. of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) contained particles by
urban areas were used to determine the membrane filters of 5 μm and using SEM (scanning
of the Czech number, size and morphology of subsequently 0.2 μm pore Al2O3 electron microscopy)
Republic contained particles by using SEM filters (Whatman) using glass analysis. Additionally,
(scanning electron microscopy) vacuum filtration device. The filters extra 1 L samples
analysis. Additionally, extra 1 L were them dried in an oven (30 °C, were taken
samples were taken for qualitative 30 min) and stored in capped glass for qualitative
analysis (Fourier transform petri dishes placed in a desiccator for analysis (Fourier
infrared spectroscopy – FTIR; subsequent qualitative analysis . transform infrared
Raman spectroscopy; elemental spectroscopy –
microanalysis) FTIR; Raman
spectroscopy;
elemental
microanalysis).

13
 3. Number of WWTPs assessed for MP contamination in multiple studies and summarized by countries and continents

Table S3. Summary of the number of WWTPs studied for MP analysis by countries and continents

Location Number of WWTPs

Continents Countries by countries
Los Angeles, USA 10
Northern California 2
New York (NY), USA 6
Northern Ohio, USA 1
Eastern Wisconsin, USA 2
North America
Detroit, USA 2
(N=51)
Illinois, USA 9
San Francisco, USA 8
New Jersey, USA 10
South Carolina, USA 3
Oakland, California, USA 1
River Clyde, Glasgow 1
Paris, France 1
Finland 1
Ljubljana,Slovenia 1
Lysekil, Sweden 1
Europe Netherlands 1
(N=32) Ireland 7
Netherlands 7
Derby, United Kingdom 7
Helsinki, Finland 4
Adana, Turkey 2
Karlsruhe, Germany 1
Australia Sydney, Australia 3
(N=5) NSW, Australia 2

14
 4. MP concentrations expressed as number of MP particles per volume in the final effluent for different particles sizes in
WWTP studies.

Table S4. Compilation of Microplastic concentrations (Number of particles/m3) in the effluent reported by different studies.
N=number of studies; NA= Not available or reported.

Concentration Sizes Range (µm) Total MP Concentration

Ref
Range (MP/m3) 20-65 100-300 300-500 >500 (MP/m3)
1
ü ü ü NA 8.8 x 10-1
21
NA NA NA ü 5.0 x 101
5
NA NA ü ü 5.92
5
NA NA ü ü 1.12 x 101
3
NA ü ü NA 1.7 x 101
8
NA ü NA NA 4.8 x 101
7
NA ü ü NA 1.06 x 102
4
ü ü ü NA 5.0 x 102
9
NA ü ü NA 9.15 x 10
Low range
(0.8 -500) 10
NA ü ü ü 2.1 x 10
N= 19 32
NA NA ü NA 8.0 x 101
11
ü ü NA NA 5.0 x 101
11
ü ü NA NA 2.0 x 101
2
NA ü ü ü 2.5 x 102
16
ü ü ü NA 2.80 x 102
16
ü ü ü NA 4.80 x 102
17
ü ü NA NA 1.65 x 102
17
ü ü NA NA 1.00 x 102
17
ü ü NA NA 1.00 x 102

15
Table S4. Compilation of Microplastic concentrations (Number of particles/m3) in the effluent reported by different studies.
N=number of studies; NA= Not available or reported (Continued)
23
ü ü ü ü 3.50 x 103
16
ü ü ü NA 1.54 x 103
22
NA ü ü ü 6.99 x 103
Medium range
(1,000-6,000
21 ü ü ü NA 9.00 x 103
MP/m3) 18
NA NA NA NA 1.00 x 103
N=8
11
ü ü NA NA 2.46 x 103
4
ü ü ü NA 5.90 x 103
4
ü ü ü NA 2.60 x 103
6
NA ü ü ü 3.50 x 104
High range
(35,000-81,000 24
NA ü ü ü 1.90 x 104
MP/m3)
N=3 15
ü ü ü ü 8.10 x 104

16
 5. MP concentrations (number of particles per cubic meter) reported in the studies in consideration of the particles size

Table S5 Compilation of MP concentrations results in bottled and tap water. N= number of studies; DWTP = Drinking Water
Treatment Plant; PP=Polypropylene, PES=Polyester, PET=Polyethylene Terephthalate, PS=Polystyrene, PAM=Polyacrylamide

Concentration (MP/m3) Particles

Sample Type Study Size (μm) polymer
Average (MP/ m3) Range (MP/ m3) composition
6.5 – 100 3.15 x 105 3.0 x 104 to 9.3 x 105
33
PP, PES
>100 1.04 x 104 2.0 x 102 to 2.18 x 104
Single use plastic
25, 26
bottled water 1 - 500 1.4 x 104 0 to 2.8 x 104 PET, PE, PP
(N=4)
< 10 2.65 x 106 0 to 5.51 x 106 PET, PE, PP,
34
PS
>10 0 NA
Reusable plastic 25
<5 1.18 x 105 3.0 x 104 to 2.06 x 105 PET
bottled water
34
(N=2) >5 2.26 x 105 0 to 5.33 x 105 PET
Glass 25
<5 5.0 x 104
0 to 1.02 x 10 5
PES, PE, PA
bottled water 34
(N=2) >5 1.41 x 106 0 to 3.99 x 106 PET, PE, PS
Tap water 28 < 5,000 4.5 x 103 0 to 6.1 x 104 NA
(N=1)
1- 10 2.07 x 106 1.89 x 106 to 6.71 x 106
31 PET, PP, PAM
DWTP influent >10 2.30 x 105 2.11 x 105 to 7.46 x 105
water
(N=2) 50 - 150 2.50 0 to 7 PES, PVC,
30
1 - 50 NA NA PA, PE

31
1- 50 4.6 x 105 2.57 x 105 to 6.43 x 105
DWTP effluent PET, PP, PAM
>50 9.0 x 103 5.0 x 103 to 1.3 x 104
water
(N=2) 30
1- 50 NA NA PES, PVC,
>50 4.0 x 10-1 0 to 1 PA, PE

17
 6. Ranking frame scores and explanations

Table SI 6 provides the scores assigned for each study in five categories: sample collection, sample processing, quality control
(QA/QC), identification technique, and reporting studies results (MP concentrations and composition).

Table S7 provides a general explanation of the scores based on each criterion. For each criterion a value of 3 means that
information listed in Table S7 is fully present, a value of 2 means some information is reported and a value of 1 means that
information is not present. The final score is calculated by adding scores for individual criteria with a maximum of 15 points. For a
study to be considered sufficiently reliable, it should preferably have a score of 12 or above meaning four out of five categories
received a perfect value.

Table S6. Ranking of studies assessing MP in wastewater treatment plants

Reference Sample QA/QC Sample Identification Reporting Final
collection processing technique results Score
1
- Carr 3 1 1 1 3 9
2
- Murphy 3 2 1 2 3 11
3
- Mason 2 2 3 1 2 10
4
-Michielssen 3 2 1 1 3 10
5
- Mckormik 2 2 3 1 2 10
6
- Dris 2 2 1 1 3 9
7
- Sutton 2 2 3 1 2 10
8
- Estahbanati 2 2 3 1 1 9
9
Dyanchko 2 2 3 3 2 12
11
Talvitie 3 2 1 3 2 11
12
Magnusson 2 1 1 3 2 9
15
- Leslie 3 1 1 3 3 11
16
- ziajaharomi 2 2 3 3 1 11
17
- Talvitie 3 2 1 3 2 11
18
- Browne 1 2 1 1 1 6

18
 19
- Tagg 1 2 2 3 1 9
20
- Majewski 2 2 2 2 1 9
21
Mintening 2 2 3 3 3 13
22
Gundogdu 2 2 3 3 2 12
23
Wolff 2 3 3 3 2 13
24
Conley 3 3 2 3 3 13

Table S7. General explanation of scores based on each of the five criteria

Criteria description
Information about the sampling method used should be provided. This includes a clear explanation of the method used to
extract the samples, and information about the gear and tools used during sampling including their type of material (e.g.
Sample
plastic, glass, metal).
collection
The samples volumes, location, time, and number should also be reported.
Samples should be processed preferably by density separation and digestion to purify wastewater by removing organic
Sample compounds through oxidation.
processing
Samples should also be separated by size through sieving to facilitate the reporting of results.
Several measures for control should be used during the processing of the samples, e.g., the choice of plastic-free
laboratory tools, the use of cotton lab coats, processing samples in a laminar flow chamber, and cleaning precautions for
Quality
tools and the lab bench.
control
(QA/QC)
The use of a moist filter exposed to the air during the processing of the samples to account for airborne contamination, a
blank sample using DI water, spiking a sample with a known polymer and using triplicate samples.
Identification Polymer identification of particles should be provided. This can be done using spectroscopy methods (e.g. Raman or
techniques FTIR). All particles should be analyzed ideally, however, a reasonable extrapolation is accepted.

Visual inspection, using microscope, is also recommended to classify the particles by color, shape, and sizes.

19
 Reporting of results should include MP concentration, preferably expressed by number of particles per unit of volume,
including the error percentage.
Results
The reporting should also include, if possible, the particles sizes, shapes and color.

20
 7. Detailed description of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) digestion method:

The method consists of drying the samples in the oven at 90oC for 24 hours, then digesting the organic matters by adding wet peroxide
solution (WPO) that contains hydrogen peroxide and aqueous Fe(II) solution while heating the samples at 75oC. The last step is the
density separation using NaCl solution (density= 1.2g/cm3) to increase the density of the sample. In this step, the MPs will float on the
surface due their lower density values, and the remaining particles will settle down. Although NaCl is the most popular solution for
MP density separation and is recommended for use by NOAA, it has been shown that some MP polymers (PET, PVC) with higher
densities can be removed with the settled particles. On the contrary, ZnCl2 brine solution (density = 1.7g/cm3) was found to be a good
candidate for MP density separation but a more expensive solution 35, 36. In only one study, the ZnCl2 solution has been used in the
wastewater based MPs 14, 37.
The solution is then filtered through a sieve with a mesh size of 300 µm 38. However, in the wastewater-based MPs studies, the
solution is filtered through different mesh sizes varying from 0.7 to 11 µm using filter papers, or 25 to 125 µm mesh size.

21
 8. References

1. Carr, S. A.; Liu, J.; Tesoro, A. G., Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Research
2016, 91, 174-182.
2. Murphy, F.; Ewins, C.; Carbonnier, F.; Quinn, B., Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) as a Source of Microplastics in the
Aquatic Environment. Environmental science &amp; technology 2016, 50 (11), 5800.
3. Mason, S. A.; Garneau, D.; Sutton, R.; Chu, Y.; Ehmann, K.; Barnes, J.; Fink, P.; Papazissimos, D.; Rogers, D. L., Microplastic
pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environmental Pollution 2016, 218, 1045-1054.
4. Michielssen, M. R.; Michielssen, E. R.; Ni, J.; Duhaime, M. B., Fate of microplastics and other small anthropogenic litter (SAL)
in wastewater treatment plants depends on unit processes employed. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2016, 2 (6), 1064-1073.
5. McCormick, A. R.; Hoellein, T. J.; London, M. G.; Hittie, J.; Scott, J. W.; Kelly, J. J., Microplastic in surface waters of urban
rivers: concentration, sources, and associated bacterial assemblages. Ecosphere 2016, 7 (11), n/a-n/a.
6. Dris, R.; Gasperi, J.; Rocher, V.; Saad, M.; Renault, N.; Tassin, B., Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study
in Greater Paris. Environmental Chemistry 2015, 12 (5), 592.
7. Sutton, R.; Mason, S. A.; Stanek, S. K.; Willis-Norton, E.; Wren, I. F.; Box, C., Microplastic contamination in the San Francisco
Bay, California, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2016, 109 (1), 230-235.
8. Estahbanati, S.; Fahrenfeld, N. L., Influence of wastewater treatment plant discharges on microplastic concentrations in
surface water. Chemosphere 2016, 162, 277-284.
9. Dyachenko, A.; Mitchell, J.; Arsem, N., Extraction and identification of microplastic particles from secondary wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. Anal. Methods 2017, 9 (9), 1412-1418.
10. Kalčíková, G.; Alič, B.; Skalar, T.; Bundschuh, M.; Gotvajn, A. Ž., Wastewater treatment plant effluents as source of cosmetic
polyethylene microbeads to freshwater. Chemosphere 2017, 188, 25-31.
11. Talvitie, J.; Mikola, A.; Koistinen, A.; Setälä, O., Solutions to microplastic pollution – Removal of microplastics from
wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water Research 2017, 123, 401-407.
12. Magnusson, K. N. n., Fredrik Screening of microplastic particles in and down-stream a wastewater treatment plant;
Environmental Research Institute: 2014.
13. Van Wezel, A.; Caris, I.; Kools, S. A. E., Release of primary microplastics from consumer products to wastewater in the
Netherlands. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2016, 35 (7), 1627-1631.
14. Mahon, A. M.; O'Connell, B.; Healy, M. G.; O'Connor, I.; Officer, R.; Nash, R.; Morrison, L., Microplastics in Sewage Sludge:
Effects of Treatment. Environmental science & technology 2017, 51 (2), 810.

22
15. Leslie, H. A.; Brandsma, S. H.; van Velzen, M. J. M.; Vethaak, A. D., Microplastics en route: Field measurements in the Dutch
river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environment International 2017.
16. Ziajahromi, S.; Neale, P. A.; Rintoul, L.; Leusch, F. D. L., Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for microplastics:
Development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water Research 2017, 112, 93-99.
17. Talvitie, J.; Mikola, A.; Setälä, O.; Heinonen, M.; Koistinen, A., How well is microlitter purified from wastewater? – A detailed
study on the stepwise removal of microlitter in a tertiary level wastewater treatment plant. Water Research 2017, 109, 164-172.
18. Browne, M.; Crump, P.; Niven, S.; Teuten, E.; Tonkin, A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R., Accumulation of Microplastic on
Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science &amp; Technology 2011, 45 (21), 9175.
19. Tagg, A. S.; Harrison, J. P.; Ju-Nam, Y.; Sapp, M.; Bradley, E. L.; Sinclair, C. J.; Ojeda, J. J., Fenton's reagent for the rapid and
efficient isolation of microplastics from wastewater. Chem. Commun. 2016, 53 (2), 372-375.
20. Majewsky, M.; Bitter, H.; Eiche, E.; Horn, H., Determination of microplastic polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) in
environmental samples using thermal analysis (TGA-DSC). Science of the Total Environment 2016, 568, 507-511.
21. Mintenig, S. M.; Int-Veen, I.; Löder, M. G. J.; Primpke, S.; Gerdts, G., Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste
water treatment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging. Water Research 2017, 108, 365-372.
22. Gündoğdu, S.; Çevik, C.; Güzel, E.; Kilercioğlu, S., Microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment plants in Turkey: a
comparison of the influent and secondary effluent concentrations. Environmental monitoring and assessment 2018, 190 (11), 626.
23. Wolff, S.; Kerpen, J.; Prediger, J.; Barkmann, L.; Müller, L., Determination of the microplastics emission in the effluent of a
municipal waste water treatment plant using Raman microspectroscopy. Water research X 2019, 2, 100014.
24. Conley, K.; Clum, A.; Deepe, J.; Lane, H.; Beckingham, B., Wastewater treatment plants as a source of microplastics to an
urban estuary: Removal efficiencies and loading per capita over one year. Water research X 2019, 3, 100030.
25. Schymanski, D.; Goldbeck, C.; Humpf, H.-U.; Fürst, P., Analysis of microplastics in water by micro-Raman spectroscopy:
Release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. Water Research 2018, 129, 154-162.
26. Wiesheu, A. C.; Anger, P. M.; Baumann, T.; Niessner, R.; Ivleva, N. P., Raman microspectroscopic analysis of fibers in
beverages. Anal. Methods 2016, 8 (28), 5722-5725.
27. Mason, S. A. W., Victoria; Neratko, Joseph SYNTHETIC POLYMER CONTAMINATION IN BOTTLED WATER; State University of
New York at Fredonia, Department of Geology & Environmental Sciences: 2018.
28. Kosuth, M.; Mason, S. A.; Wattenberg, E. V., Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PloS one 2018, 13
(4), e0194970.
29. Oßmann, B.; Sarau, G.; Schmitt, S.; Holtmannspötter, H.; Christiansen, S.; Dicke, W., Development of an optimal filter
substrate for the identification of small microplastic particles in food by micro-Raman spectroscopy. Analytical and Bioanalytical
Chemistry 2017, 409 (16), 4099-4109.

23
30. Mintenig, S. M.; Löder, M. G. J.; Primpke, S.; Gerdts, G., Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from
ground water sources. Science of the Total Environment 2019, 648, 631-635.
31. Pivokonsky, M.; Cermakova, L.; Novotna, K.; Peer, P.; Cajthaml, T.; Janda, V., Occurrence of microplastics in raw and
treated drinking water. Science of the Total Environment 2018, 643, 1644-1651.
32. Magnusson, K.; Norén, F. Screening of microplastic particles in and down-stream a wastewater treatment plant;
Environmental Research Institute: 2014.
33. Mason, S. A.; Welch, V.; Neratko, J. SYNTHETIC POLYMER CONTAMINATION IN BOTTLED WATER; State University of New
York at Fredonia, Department of Geology & Environmental Sciences: 2018.
34. Oßmann, B. E.; Sarau, G.; Holtmannspötter, H.; Pischetsrieder, M.; Christiansen, S. H.; Dicke, W., Small-sized microplastics
and pigmented particles in bottled mineral water. Water Research 2018, 141, 307-316.
35. Quinn, B.; Murphy, F.; Ewins, C., Validation of density separation for the rapid recovery of microplastics from sediment. Anal.
Methods 2017, 9 (9), 1491-1498.
36. Coppock, R. L.; Cole, M.; Lindeque, P. K.; Queirós, A. M.; Galloway, T. S., A small-scale, portable method for extracting
microplastics from marine sediments. Environmental Pollution 2017, 230 (C), 829-837.
37. Hanvey, J. S.; Lewis, P. J.; Lavers, J. L.; Crosbie, N. D.; Pozo, K.; Clarke, B. O., A review of analytical techniques for
quantifying microplastics in sediments. Anal. Methods 2017, 9 (9), 1369-1383.
38. Masura, J.; Baker, J.; Foster, G.; Arthur, C. Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: recommendstions for
quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments; NOAA Technical Memorandum: 2015.

24