Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Detection of various microplastics in placentas, meconium, infant feces,

breastmilk and infant formula: A pilot prospective study
Shaojie Liu a,1, Jialin Guo c,1, Xinyuan Liu a,1, Ruoru Yang a, Hangwei Wang a, Yongyun Sun a,
⁎
Bo Chen a,b, Ruihua Dong a,b,
a
School of Public Health, Key Lab of Public Health Safety of the Ministry of Education, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
b
Institute of Nutrition, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
c
Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 201204, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Microplastics have been found in pla-

centas, meconium, infant feces, breastmilk
and infant formula.
• The dominant microplastics in all samples
were polyamide and polyurethane.
• The water intake and usage of scrub
cleanser or toothpaste may be important
exposure sources of microplastics for preg-
nant women.
• The breastfeeding and usage of plastic toys
may be of great concerns for microplastics
exposure in lactating infants.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Jay Gan Pregnancy and infancy are sensitive windows for environmental exposures. However, no study has investigated the
presence of microplastics (MPs) in mother-infant pairs, and the exposure sources. Therefore, we aim to assess MPs
Keywords: exposure in placenta, meconium, infant feces, breast milk and infant formula samples, and assess the potential sources
Microplastics of pregnancy and lactational exposure to MPs. A total of 18 mother-infant pairs were recruited, and placentas and
Pregnant women
meconium samples were collected. Infant feces, breast milk and infant formula samples were collected at 6 months
Fetus
Infants
of age. We also collected data on plastic use and feeding habits through two questionnaires to determine the source
of exposure. We used an Agilent 8700 laser infrared imaging spectrometer to analyze samples. Sixteen types of
MPs were identified, and polyamide (PA) and polyurethane (PU) were dominant. >74 % of the MPs found were
20–50 μm in size. The water intake and usage of scrub cleanser or toothpaste may be exposure sources of pregnant
women. The breastfeeding and usage of feeding bottles and plastic toys may be exposure sources for infants. Given
the lack of relevant studies, our results highlight the need of investigating the contribution of plastic products to the
MPs exposure during the lactational period.

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Public Health, Key Lab of Public Health Safety of the Ministry of Education, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
E-mail addresses: liushaojie@fudan.edu.cn (S. Liu), guojialin78@hotmail.com (J. Guo), 21211020101@m.fudan.edu.cn (X. Liu), 20211020125@fudan.edu.cn (R. Yang),
20211020146@fudan.edu.cn (H. Wang), 20211020217@fudan.edu.cn (Y. Sun), chenb@fudan.edu.cn (B. Chen), ruihua_dong@fudan.edu.cn (R. Dong).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158699
Received 13 July 2022; Received in revised form 4 September 2022; Accepted 7 September 2022
Available online 13 September 2022
0048-9697/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Liu et al.
1. Introduction
Microplastics (MPs) are defined as plastic particles and fibers <5 mm
(Hartmann et al., 2019). MPs either are derived from fragmentation of
larger plastic pieces or produced in these dimensions. MPs pollution raises
concern because they can distantly transport and have been widely de-
tected in the soil, air and water (Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, MPs have
been found to be present in various foods, such as tap water, bottled
water, salt, honey, seafood, and so on (Kosuth et al., 2018; Zhang et al.,
2020). To date, several studies have detected MPs in human stools
(Zhang et al., 2021a). However, few studies have assessed MPs exposure
in sensitive populations, including pregnant women and infants.
Studies in mammalian models have found nanopolystyrene particles
could translocate from the maternal lungs, across the placenta into fetal kid-
ney, heart, lung, liver, and brain in late-stage pregnancy (Grafmueller et al.,
2015; Wick et al., 2010; Fournier et al., 2020). Furthermore, using an ex vivo
placental perfusion system, nanopolystyrene particles have been observed to
be able to transpire from the maternal uterine circulation into fetal circula-
tion via the placenta (D'Errico et al., 2019). Recently, several MPs fragments
(ranging from 5 to 10 μm in size), were firstly found in 4 human placentas,
indicating that these MPs can reach placenta tissues (Ragusa et al., 2021).
Therefore, there is increasing concern about the potential risks of MPs to
embryos/fetuses during pregnancy (Aghaei et al., 2022; Jeong et al.,
2022). However, it's still unknown the potential for maternal-to-fetal translo-
cation of MPs and the deposition or accumulation in fetuses.
Besides human placenta (Ragusa et al., 2021), MPs have also been discov-
ered in meconium, and infant stool (Schwabl et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2021b), but the sources of these plastics are difficult to trace. Early life
exposures may occur via the placenta, breastfeeding and infant formula, as
well as from feeding bottles, plastic toys and so on (Song et al., 2021). For ex-
ample, studies have shown that infant formula prepared in polypropylene
(PP) bottles can release millions of MPs (Li et al., 2020). However, the relative
importance of these exposure routes has not yet been established. Recently, a
study quantified the concentrations of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and
polycarbonate (PC) MPs in three meconium and six infants collected from
New York State, and found the concentration of PET in infant feces was signif-
icantly higher than those in adults feces (Zhang et al., 2021b). Considering
the high exposure and to prevent the potential adverse effect, it is crucial to
determine the major sources of MPs to reduce the exposure.
Therefore, in this study, for the first time, MPs were determined by laser
direct infrared (LDIR)in human placenta, meconium, infant feces, breast
milk and infant formula samples from the same study population. Also, to
identify the potential exposure source of pregnant women and lactating
infants, we collected data on the plastic use and the feeding pattern during
pregnancy and in early childhood.
2. Method
2.1. Study population
In May 2021, a pilot prospective study was conducted to explore MPs
exposure in mother-infant pairs, and followed up at 6-month-old age of
the infants. The detail of the study population has been reported in our
Fig. 1. Study flowchart.
2
Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699
previous study (manuscript submitted) which intended to explore the asso-
ciation between the MPs exposure and microbiota in placentas and meco-
nium. All women recruited were healthy pregnancies and had vaginal
deliveries at the Department of Pediatric of Shanghai First Maternity and
Infant Hospital, China. The participants who were diagnosed with gastroin-
testinal disease, cancer, HIV or other severe pathologies were excluded. To-
tals of 18 mothers-infant pairs participated in this study (Table S1). Women
were asked to fill out a questionnaire to report the use of plastic containers
and the consumption of foods packaged in plastic during face-to-face inter-
views. Finally, 14 participants finished the questionnaire investigation; 18
placentas and 12 meconium were collected. To avoid contamination by
MPs, 6 samples of meconium were excluded because sample weight was
small and most of them were stained in diapers.
At the follow-up survey, 6 participants withdrew from the cohort. Twelve
mothers completed a self-administered questionnaire on feeding behavior,
including consumption of breast milk, infant formula and complementary
food, as well as the usage of feeding bottles and plastic toys. Moreover, 7
breast milk samples and 5 infant formula samples were collected. The
study flowchart was shown in Fig. 1. This study was approved by the Ethics
Committee of the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital (KS21193).
All individuals gave informed consent at enrollment.
2.2. Questionnaire survey
We designed two questionnaires (Table S3 and Table S4) to assess the
usage behavior of plastic products for mothers and feeding habits for infants
respectively. At baseline, the questionnaire included the frequency of using
plastic products and plastic-packaged foods consumption in different sce-
narios in the previous year. The follow-up questionnaire consisted of two
types of questions. The first type of questions investigated the consumption
of breast milk, infant formula, and complementary food. The second type of
questions investigated the usage of feeding bottles and plastic toys. These
questions represented the most frequent scenarios where infants were
possibly exposed to MPs in the daily life.
2.3. Samples collection (placentas, meconium, infant feces, infant formula and
breast milk)
To avoid contamination, women in labor were assisted by obstetricians
and midwives using cotton gloves and metal clippers in the delivery room.
After birth, placentas taken from foetal side were deposited onto a metal con-
tainer and immediately sectioned in portions. The top portion of meconium
was collected by spatula from the surface of diaper into glass bottles during
the first 24 h after delivery. All samples were stored in glass vials with metal
lids and placed in the −80-degree freezer. After 6 months, 18 participants
were followed up by telephone, and 12 of them agreed to remain in this
study. Before sampling, we gave the instructions by telephone. Moreover,
we asked the participants to call us again during the sampling, and we
gave the instructions again to confirm that the sampling procedures were
performed correctly. They were provided with a sampling kit (Fig. S1), in-
cluding metal spoons, glass bottles, informed consent forms and question-
naire. The samples collection was performed by the participants according
to instructions to avoid contamination with plastics or synthetic fibers.
S. Liu et al. Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699

According to defecation habit, parents were instructed to clean the infant's three procedural blank samples, filled with anhydrous ethanol (> 99.7 %,
anus and the perianal area with a wet tissue. After natural defecation, the Shanghai Titan Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China), were processed
top portion of the feces on diaper was scooped into a sterile glass bottle. and analyzed along with samples according to the same steps as controls.
Before the collection of breast milk, mothers were asked to wash hands,
rinse the nipple and wipe the breast with a cotton towel. The breast milk 2.7. Statistical methods
was then milked into a specific glass container to avoid leaking. The infant
formula was scooped by a metal spoon and put into a glass bottle. Finally, Median (interquartile range [IQR]) was used to describe continuous
feces samples, breast milk samples and infant formula samples were sent to variables with skewed distributions, and the categorical variables were sum-
us and stored at −80 °C. All samples were strictly anonymous and were marized as numbers and percentages (%). The particle size distributions for
shipped to a MPs testing third-party (Weipu, Shanghai, China). different types of MPs were visualized using pie chart. The differences in the
abundance (particles/g) between different types of samples were analyzed
2.4. Sample processing procedures by the Kruskal−Wallis H test, followed by post-hoc tests. We performed
the Mann−Whitney U test or Kruskal−Wallis H test to examine differences
The sample processing procedures and measurements have been de- in abundance (particles/g) of MPs in placenta according to plastic usage
scribed previously (manuscript submitted as mentioned in Section 2.1). behaviors and in infant feces according to feeding habits. SPSS 20.0 was
Firstly, the sample was placed in a 100 mL beaker, and concentrated nitric used for all statistical analyses. All statistical tests were two sided, and a
acid (68 %, China National Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) value of P < 0.05 was defined as statistically significant.
was added to digest macromolecular substances. The mixture was allowed
to stand for 48 h and then heated at 95 °C for at least 3 h to fully digest the 3. Results
protein. Secondly, the suspension was filtered by vacuum with a 13 μm
pore size stainless steel membrane, and then rinsed with ultrapure water 3.1. Characteristics of the participants
and absolute ethanol (> 99.7 %, Shanghai Titan Technology Co., Ltd.,
Shanghai, China). Thirdly, the obtained membrane was immersed in abso- The characteristics of study participants are summarized in Table 1 and
lute ethanol for ultrasonic treatment (40KHz) for at least 30 min. Then, the birth outcomes could be found in Table S2. The median age of study partic-
filter membrane was removed and rinsed it with absolute ethanol for ipants and the median BMI were 32.5 years old and 21.5 kg/m2, respec-
several times. The obtained filtrate was filtered by vacuum with another tively. The proportions of middle and high school in education, profession
13 μm-pore-size stainless steel membrane again. Repeated the third step and technology in occupation were 5.56 %, 27.78 %, respectively.
again. Around 30 min later, the filter membrane was removed and rinsed
with absolute ethanol for several times, and then the absolute ethanol 3.2. Microplastics in the placenta, meconium, infant feces, breast milk and infant
was concentrated to 200 μL and dripped onto a highly reflective glass. formula
The Agilent 8700 laser infrared imaging spectrometer (LDIR) was em-
ployed to detect the abundance and size of MPs in samples. Three “procedural blank” samples were run through all the steps in the
procedure. The number of detected MP particles were 6, 1, 11, respectively.
2.5. Identification and quantification of microplastics Because of the degree of match with the standard spectrum was <65 %, we
deemed that there was no absolute MPs particle in the three sample matri-
The 8700 LDIR uses a quantum cascade laser (QCL). In this semi- ces. The different types of MPs and their proportions are reported in Table 2
conductor-based laser, electrons tunnel through a series of quantum wells and Fig. 2 (details in Table S5). The presence of MPs for the placenta and
and emit light, so that the rapidly scanning optics enable rapidly automatic meconium was reported in our previous study (manuscript submitted as
wave scanning. First of all, the sample area was scanned rapidly at the mentioned in Section 2.1). As a result, sixteen types of MPs were detected
parked frequency, which varied depending on the deposition of particles in all samples, and 5 different kinds of samples had similar distribution pat-
on the slide, but being typically 500 mm2 (range 145 mm2 to 1100 mm2) terns. Polyamide (PA) and PU accounted for >65 % of the total amount of
(Scircle et al., 2020). Once the particles were located, all particle informa- MPs particles. The most prevalent MPs in placenta, meconium and infant
tion on number, size and shape was collected with Agilent Clarity, a bundled feces was PA, which accounted for 50.09 %, 60.22 %, 49.67 %, respec-
image analysis software. The obtained information was further compared tively. The predominant MPs in breast milk and infant formula was PU,
with the MPs spectrum library to identify the MPs. Due to the features accounting for 53.18 %, 49.33 %, respectively. >74 % of the MPs particles
of the machine, only the particles with diameters >20 μm were counted found in all samples were 20–50 μm in size, followed by 50–100 μm,
(particle size range, 20–500 μm). Moreover, the material was identified
when the degree of match with the standard spectrum was higher than Table 1
65 %. The above procedure can be completed within 1 s for one particle, Demographic characteristics of the participants in this study (n = 18).
and all particles on the slide could be scanned within a few hours varying Characteristics Categories N (%)
on the amounts of particles.
Age (years), median (IQR) – 32.5 (30.8, 35.0)
BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR) – 21.5 (19.9, 24.2)
2.6. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) Mode of delivery Vaginal delivery 18 (100.00)
Cesarean delivery 0 (0.00)
Reagents (such as ultrapure water, HNO3 solution, anhydrous ethanol, Education, n (%) ≤Primary school 0 (0.00)
Middle and high school 1 (5.56)
etc.) should be filtered with a 13 μm-pore-size stainless steel membrane be-
≥Junior college 17 (94.44)
fore use. Then, the reagents were detected by a laser infrared spectrometer. Occupation, n (%) Government departments and 1 (5.56)
Only if the number of detected MPs particles was ≤3 (the degree of match public institutions
with the standard spectrum was <65 %), the reagents could be considered Profession and technology 5 (27.78)
qualified. The experimental utensils were all made of glass, which were General office 6 (33.33)
Business and services 2 (11.11)
moistened and washed three times with anhydrous ethanol before use.
Other 4 (22.22)
Due to the difficulty of achieving biological tissue samples absolutely with- Smoking, n (%) Current/past smokers 0 (0.00)
out microplastics, we use soil samples to conduct recovery test (details in Never 18 (100.00)
Supporting Information). The recoveries of PP, polyethylene (PE), polysty- Drinking, n (%) Current/past drinkers 1 (5.56)
Never 17 (94.44)
rene (PS), PET, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyurethane (PU) were
96 %, 97 %, 96 %, 91 %, 87 %, and 84 %, respectively. Furthermore, Abbreviation: BMI: Body Mass Index; N (%): numbers and percentages.

3
S. Liu et al. Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699

Table 2
Comparing the abundance of different types of Microplastics in placentas/meconium/feces/breast milk/infant formula (particles/g).
Variable Placenta (n = 18) Meconium (n = 12) Feces (n = 12) Breast milk (n = 7) Infant milk (n = 5) P

PA 4.5 (2.2, 18.2) 24.9 (15.3, 59.5) 9.7 (4.0, 40.3) 3.1 (0.4, 9.7) 0.7 (0.5, 6.6) 0.002⁎⁎
PU 5.5 (3.0, 9.7) 10.7 (3.6, 18.7) 10.1 (3.6, 29.4) 9.9 (2.2, 18.3) 9.6 (5.1, 11.8) 0.636
PE 2.0 (0.9, 3.1) 1.1 (0.5, 2.2) 1.2 (0.7, 4.3) 0.3 (0.3, 0.8) 1.3 (0.5, 2.1) 0.041⁎
PET 1.1 (0.3, 1.4) 1.3 (0.8, 3.4) 3.0 (0.6, 15.4) 0.9 (0.3, 2.0) 1.7 (0.7, 3.1) 0.463
PP 0.3 (0.3, 0.7) 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) 4.5 (0.9, 7.4) 0.1 (0.1, 0.1) 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) 0.327
PVC 0.6 (0.3, 1.1) 2.2 (0.7, 2.8) 2.1 (0.4, 4.5) 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 0.7 0.036⁎
POM 0.3 (0.3, 0.6) 0.6 (0.6, 0.7) 2.5 (0.6, 4.3) 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 0.3 0.055
EVA 0.3 (0.3, 0.7) 0.9 (0.6, 2.6) 5.6 (1.0, 10.3) 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 0.3 (0.3, 0.3) 0.851
PTFE 0.6 (0.3, 0.6) 2.1 (1.3, 4.7) 1.1 (0.4, 8.2) 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 1.8 (0.6, 3.0) 0.103
CPE 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) 1.2 (0.6, 1.3) 1.0 (0.4, 10.3) 0.1 (0.1, 0.1) 1.3 (0.3, 2.4) 0.646
Polybutadiene 0.5 (0.3, 0.8) – 0.9 (0.3, 1.0) 0.3 0.5 0.462
PC 0.7 (0.3, 1.3) – – – – 0.183
PS 0.7 (0.3, 1.1) 0.4 (0.4, 0.5) 8.9 (1.0, 25.8) 0.1 (0.0, 0.1) 0.3 0.683
PMMA 0.3 (0.3, 0.3) 0.6 (0.3, 0.9) 0.7 (0.4, 2.7) 2.1 (0.9, 4.3) 2.4 (0.3, 4.6) 0.091
PLA 0.3 3.0 11.1 (4.5, 24.7) 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 0.5 (0.3, 3.6) 0.024⁎
Polysulfones 0.3 0.7 (0.6, 1.2) 3.8 (0.3, 7.4) 0.1 – 0.472
Summary 18.0 (12.2, 33.5) 51.4 (28.1, 77.8) 26.6 (14.3, 131.1) 20.2 (3.8, 37.1) 17.3 (17, 20.8) 0.051

Note: The results were shown as P50 (P25, P75). Abbreviation: P: percentile; n: simple size; PA: polyamide; PU: polyurethane; PE: polyethylene; PET: polyethylene terephthalate;
PVC: polyvinyl chloride; PTFE: polytetrafluoroethylene; POM: polyoxymethylene; PP: polypropylene; EVA: ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer; CPE: chlorinated polyethylene; PC:
polycarbonate; PS: polystyrene; PMMA: polymethylmethacrylate; PLA: polylactic acid.
⁎ P<0.05.
⁎⁎ P<0.01.

100–150 μm, and > 150 μm. Fig. S2 shows the size distribution of MPs par-
ticles in the different samples.
In the placenta, the median abundance of total MPs detected was
18.0 particles/g. The highest abundance was of PU, followed by PA,
PE, PET, PC, and their median abundance were 5.5 particles/g, 4.5 par-
ticles/g, 2.0 particles/g, 1.1 particles/g, 0.7 particles/g, respectively.
The median abundance of total MPs detected in the meconium was
54.1 particles/g, and the 5 priority plastics were PA (24.9 particles/g),
PU (10.7 particles/g), PVC (2.2 particles/g), polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) (2.1 particles/g), PET (1.3 particles/g). In feces, the median
abundance of total MPs was 26.6 particles/g, exhibiting the order of polylactic
acid (PLA) (11.1 particles/g) > PU (10.1 particles/g) > PA (9.7 particles/g)
> PS (8.9 particles/g) > ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA)
(5.6 particles/g). The median abundance of total MPs detected in breast
milk was 20.2 particles/g. The highest abundance was of PU (9.9 parti-
cles/g), followed by PA (3.1 particles/g), polymethylmethacrylate
(PMMA) (2.1 particles/g), PET (0.9 particles/g) and PE (0.3
particles/g). The median abundance of total MPs detected in infant
milk was 17.3 particles/g. The highest abundance was of PU (9.6
particles/g), followed by PMMA (2.4 particles/g), PTFE (1.8 particles/g),

Fig. 2. Relative frequency of different polymer types of Microplastics in placenta (A), meconium (B), infant feces (C), breast milk (D), infant formula (E).

4
S. Liu et al. Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699

PET (1.7 particles/g) and PE (1.3 particles/g). We found the abundance
of PA, PE, PVC, and PLA were significantly different in five matrices.
The results of post-hoc tests were shown in Table S6. The abundance
of PA (P = 0.008) in meconium was significantly higher than that in
placenta. The abundance of PE (P = 0.044) in feces was significantly
higher than that in meconium. The abundance of PA (P = 0.021),
PE (P = 0.043) in breast milk, and PA (P = 0.036), PE (P = 0.026),
PVC (P = 0.031) in infant formula were significantly lower than those
in feces. However, after Bonferroni correction, the above significant
difference eliminated.
3.3. Comparison of the presence of microplastics in placenta stratified by the
usage behavior of plastic products
Table 3 shows the presence of MPs particles in the placenta of the sub-
jects, according to the usage behavior of plastic products from mothers.

Table 3
The presence of microplastics in placenta according to usage behaviors for plastic products (n = 14).
Usage behaviors for plastic products Frequency N (%) Total PA PU PE PET PVC

Scrub cleanser or toothpaste Never/Seldom 11 (78.57) 17.9 (8.7, 33.5) 5.5 (2.2, 24.0) 5.7 (2.5, 7.5) 1.9 (0.6, 2.5) 0.6 (0.3, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Often 3 (21.43) 56.6 (43.9, 69.4) 18.2 (10.5, 29.2) 28.9 (17.2, 31.0) 11.1 (8.4, 15.7) 0.0 (0.0, 0.2) 0.0 (0.0, 0.2)
P 0.126 0.555 0.126 0.005 ⁎⁎ 0.170 0.456
Hot food held by plastic tableware Never/Seldom 10 (71.43) 32.4 (13.8, 63.5) 14.3 (2.5, 41.4) 5.0 (2.1, 12.8) 2.4 (1.7, 7.1) 0.3 (0.0, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Often 4 (28.57) 15.9 (5.1, 21.2) 3.0 (2.3, 8.4) 8.6 (7.3, 10.8) 0.6 (0.1, 2.5) 0.6 (0.1, 1.2) 0.1 (0.0, 0.8)
P 0.142 0.240 0.188 0.142 0.945 0.539
Microwave food using plastic tableware Never/Seldom 14 (100.00) 21.4 (12.6, 56.8) 7.8 (2.4, 28.1) 6.4 (3.9, 10.1) 2.1 (0.6, 3.7) 0.3 (0.0, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.0)
Often 0 (0.00) – – – – – –
P – – – – – –
Take-out food using plastic package Never/Seldom 12 (85.71) 25.8 (10.4, 57.1) 8.0 (2.3, 36.2) 5.5 (3.0, 10.2) 2.4 (1.3, 5.1) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1) 0.2 (0.0, 0.9)
Often 2 (14.29) 18.1 (13.9, 22.3) 6.8 (3.6, 10.0) 8.6 (7.5, 9.7) 0.3 (0.0, 0.6) 1.1 (0.9, 1.3) 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
P 0.659 0.923 0.440 0.088 0.264 0.659
Processed food using plastic package Never/Seldom 12 (85.71) 21.4 (10.0, 50.8) 4.5 (2.3, 22.5) 7.3 (4.5, 10.8) 2.0 (0.6, 5.1) 0.3 (0.1, 1.1) 0.3 (0.0, 0.8)
Often 2 (14.29) 58.1 (15.6, 100.6) 51.0 (10.5, 91.6) 3.4 (1.1, 5.7) 2.2 (1.9, 2.5) 0.8 (0.0, 1.5) 0.5 (0.0, 1.1)
P 0.549 0.198 0.352 0.923 0.791 0.923
Food packed by plastic wrap Never/Seldom 6 (42.86) 43.9 (11.0, 63.5) 10.9 (2.6, 41.4) 7.5 (6.8, 30.0) 3.8 (0.4, 13.4) 0.2 (0.0, 1.3) 0.2 (0.0, 1.0)
Often 8 (57.14) 19.2 (10.4, 30.7) 7.8 (1.9, 20.6) 4.5 (1.4, 8.7) 2.1 (0.7, 2.8) 0.5 (0.3, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 0.9)
P 0.573 0.662 0.059 0.573 0.414 0.950
Canned food Never/Seldom 14 (100.00) 21.4 (12.6, 56.8) 7.8 (2.4, 28.1) 6.4 (3.9, 10.1) 2.1 (0.6, 3.7) 0.3 (0.0, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.0)
Often 0 (0.00) – – – – – –
P – – – – – –
Eating seafood (fish, shellfish) Never/Seldom 7 (50.00) 20.4 (8.6, 31.2) 3.6 (2.2, 10.0) 7.2 (2.5, 9.7) 0.6 (0.0, 5.7) 0.3 (0.0, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.0)
Often 7 (50.00) 33.5 (15.6, 82.3) 24.0 (2.5, 44.5) 5.7 (4.4, 11.1) 2.2 (1.9, 3.1) 0.3 (0.3, 1.2) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
P 0.209 0.128 1.000 0.456 0.710 0.805
Water intake (mL/day) <2000 11 (78.57) 17.9 (8.7, 33.5) 3.6 (2.2, 10.5) 7.2 (2.5, 9.7) 1.9 (0.6, 2.9) 0.3 (0.0, 1.2) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
≥2000 3 (21.43) 82.3 (56.7, 91.5) 40.3 (29.6, 65.9) 5.7 (5.5, 17.3) 5.7 (3.8, 8.4) 0.3 (0.2, 0.9) 0.0 (0.0, 0.2)
P 0.038 ⁎ 0.038 ⁎ 0.659 0.170 0.769 0.456
Drinking water using plastic cup Never/Seldom 12 (85.71) 20.4 (8.7, 57.2) 8.0 (2.3, 36.2) 5.5 (3.0, 7.5) 2.1 (0.7, 3.0) 0.3 (0.1, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Often 2 (14.29) 39.5 (22.3, 56.6) 6.4 (2.8, 10.0) 21.4 (9.7, 33.1) 10.5 (0.6, 20.4) 0.4 (0.0, 0.9) 0.1 (0.0, 0.3)
P 0.549 0.791 0.088 0.659 0.659 0.440
Drinking beverages in plastic bottle Never/Seldom 8 (61.54) 17.2 (8.6, 76.0) 4.5 (1.9, 43.4) 6.4 (3.0, 7.5) 1.5 (0.1, 2.7) 0.9 (0.3, 1.4) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Often 5 (38.46) 31.2 (20.1, 45.1) 10.0 (2.6, 21.1) 9.7 (4.9, 22.1) 3.1 (1.4, 13.1) 0.3 (0.0, 0.6) 0.0 (0.0, 0.3)
P 0.622 0.943 0.354 0.127 0.065 0.171
Drinking boxed/sacked milk or yogurt Never/Seldom 4 (28.57) 44.2 (14.2, 76.0) 29.2 (5, 43.4) 6.4 (3.2, 23.6) 3.8 (0.5, 9.7) 0.8 (0.1, 1.4) 0.7 (0.1, 1.2)
Often 10 (71.43) 20.4 (11.3, 45.1) 4.5 (2.4, 13.9) 6.4 (3.6, 10.1) 2.1 (0.6, 3) 0.3 (0,1) 0.1 (0, 0.5)
P 0.454 0.454 0.839 0.733 0.539 0.142
Drinking milktea or coffee sold in store Never/Seldom 7 (50.00) 56.6 (8.7, 82.3) 10.0 (1.7, 44.5) 7.5 (4.6, 28.9) 1.9 (0.6, 11.1) 0.9 (0.3, 1.4) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Often 7 (50.00) 19.2 (11.0, 31.8) 5.5 (2.5, 18.2) 5.4 (1.1, 7.5) 2.5 (0.6, 3.1) 0.3 (0.0, 0.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.0)
P 0.209 0.805 0.209 0.805 0.053 0.805
Drinking soluble coffee/milktea Never/Seldom 14 (100.00) 19.2 (13.9, 33.5) 7.8 (2.4, 28.1) 6.4 (3.9, 10.1) 2.1 (0.6, 3.7) 0.3 (0, 1.3) 0.3 (0, 1)
Often 0 (0.00) – – – – – –
P – – – – – –
Drinking packed tea Never/Seldom 12 (85.71) 26.8 (10.0, 57.1) 7.8 (2.4, 36.2) 6.4 (4.5, 9.2) 1.9 (0.6, 5.0) 0.5 (0.1, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 0.8)
Often 2 (14.29) 16.7 (15.6, 17.9) 6.5 (2.5, 10.5) 6.1 (1.1, 11.1) 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 0.2 (0.0, 0.3) 0.5 (0.0, 1.1)
P 0.549 0.791 0.923 0.440 0.198 0.923
Drinking tap water Never/Seldom 12 (85.71) 19.2 (10.0, 50.8) 4.5 (2.3, 22.5) 6.3 (3.0, 10.2) 2.4 (0.7, 5.1) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Often 2 (14.29) 61.5 (22.3, 100.6) 50.8 (10.0, 91.6) 7.7 (5.7, 9.7) 1.2 (0.6, 1.9) 1.2 (0.9, 1.5) 0.1 (0.0, 0.3)
P 0.264 0.264 0.659 0.549 0.132 0.440
Drinking purified water Never/Seldom 8 (57.14) 26.8 (9.9, 50.8) 6.8 (2.4, 22.5) 6.4 (4.7, 9.2) 1.2 (0.1, 4.9) 0.6 (0.0, 1.4) 0.1 (0.0, 0.8)
Often 6 (42.86) 19.2 (13.8, 63.5) 8.0 (2.3, 41.4) 6.1 (1.1, 15.6) 2.7 (1.7, 5.1) 0.3 (0.2, 0.7) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
P 0.950 0.852 0.852 0.282 0.755 0.414
Drinking barreled pure water Never/Seldom 7 (50.00) 20.4 (8.6, 56.6) 2.8 (2.2, 10.0) 9.7 (2.5, 28.9) 2.9 (0.6, 11.1) 0.3 (0.0, 0.9) 0.3 (0.0, 0.3)
Often 7 (50.00) 31.2 (13.9, 57.2) 18.2 (3.6, 44.5) 5.4 (4.4, 7.5) 1.9 (1.2, 2.5) 0.6 (0.0, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
P 0.620 0.128 0.259 0.620 0.620 0.710
Drinking bottled water Never/Seldom 6 (42.86) 26.8 (15.1, 63.5) 14.3 (8.4, 41.4) 7.5 (4.3, 14.5) 2.2 (0.4, 7.1) 0.6 (0.0, 1.3) 0.6 (0.2, 1.1)
Often 8 (57.14) 19.2 (8.6, 50.8) 2.6 (1.9, 19.4) 5.2 (3.0, 10.1) 2.1 (0.7, 3.0) 0.3 (0.1, 1.2) 0.0 (0.0, 0.3)
P 0.491 0.108 0.491 0.950 0.950 0.108
Drinking hydromel Never/Seldom 11 (78.57) 22.3 (8.7, 57.2) 3.6 (2.2, 40.3) 7.5 (4.6, 11.1) 1.9 (0.6, 3.1) 0.6 (0.3, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 1.0)
Often 3 (21.43) 20.4 (18.0, 25.8) 10.5 (8.0, 14.3) 1.1 (1.0, 3.2) 2.9 (2.7, 4.3) 0.0 (0.0, 0.2) 0.3 (0.2, 0.7)
P 0.885 0.659 0.038 ⁎ 0.225 0.126 0.769

Note: Only MPs of which the detection rate was in the top five are listed. Seldom: < 2 times/week; often: ≥2 times/week. Abbreviation: N (%): numbers and percentages.
⁎ P<0.05.
⁎⁎ P<0.01.

5
S. Liu et al. Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699

The abundance of total MPs and PA in the participants who drank water
>2000 mL was significantly higher as compared to those who did not
(P = 0.038, P = 0.038). When it comes to living and eating habits related
to using plastic products, the abundance of PE in the participants who often
used scrub cleanser or toothpaste (11.1 particles/g) was significantly
higher than those who never or seldom did (1.9 particles/g, P = 0.005).
It should be noted that only scrub cleanser/toothpaste use and water intake
had a statistically significative difference for the abundance of PE, total
MPs and PA, respectively. However, some interesting trends were observed.
The abundance of MPs was also related to various types of water or beverage
intake. Participants who drank water using plastic cup or drank beverages in
plastic bottle twice or more a week had more MPs, especially PU and PE, than
the participants who never or seldom did. Notably, participants who often
drank tap water or barreled pure water (61.5 particles/g, 31.2 particles/g)
had more MPs than those who never or seldom did (19.2 particles/g, 20.4
particles/g), while those who often drank purified water (19.2 particles/g)
had less MPs than those who never or seldom did (26.8 particles/g). Similar
results were observed between the people who had different frequency of
eating processed food using plastic package and seafood.
3.4. The association between the feeding habits and microplastics in infant feces
The results are shown in Table 4. The abundance of total MPs (P =
0.032), PA (P = 0.016), PU (P = 0.032), PE (P = 0.032) in the infants
who consumed complementary food >50 g per day, was significantly
lower as compared to those who did not. In addition, there were signif-
icant differences in MPs released from plastic toys washed by different
methods. We found the way to wash plastic toys significantly in-
creased the abundance of PET (P = 0.048) and PVC (P = 0.029) in in-
fant feces. Except that, there was no statistically significative
difference for abundance of different MPs in infant feces according
to other feeding habits. However, we observed some interesting
trends. We found that the more breast milk the infants drunk, the
more MPs occurred in feces. Furthermore, the abundance of MPs in-
creased with the frequency of feeding bottle use and milk consump-
tion by feeding bottles. The abundance of MPs in feces was also
related to the exposure to toys. we found the abundance of MPs in
the infants who had habits of sucking plastic toys, was higher as com-
pared to those who did not.

Table 4
The presence of microplastics in feces according to feeding habits and usage of plastic products (n = 12).
Questions Options n N (%) Total PA PU PE PET PVC

Method of feeding Only breast milk 12 2 (16.67) 421.1 (200.0, 642.1) 174.7 (61.5, 287.8) 111.3 (30.8, 191.9) 8.1 (5.1, 11.1) 29.8 (15.4, 44.3) 9.9 (5.1, 14.8)
Breast milk and infant 6 (50.00) 26.6 (11.6, 61.0) 8.7 (3.4, 17.6) 6.5 (2.2, 17.8) 1.2 (0.8, 2.9) 0.8 (0.4, 5.4) 0.3 (0.0, 2.3)
formula/-
complementary food
Breast milk and infant 4 (33.33) 16.2 (12.9, 1099.0) 5.7 (3.7, 852.1) 9.3 (4.2, 183.6) 0.7 (0.4, 20.3) 0.4 (0.1, 20.2) 0.3 (0.1, 3.4)
formula and
complementary food
P 0.264 0.231 0.182 0.239 0.134 0.083
Feed with infant milk Yes 12 5 (41.67) 16 (12.3, 738.1) 5.0 (3.4, 570.2) 7.3 (2.8, 126.2) 0.8 (0.4, 15.1) 0.5 (0.2, 13.7) 0.4 (0.1, 2.4)
No 7 (58.33) 60.6 (25.4, 200.0) 17.1 (4.4, 61.5) 14.4 (4.1, 30.8) 1.3 (1.0, 5.1) 5.1 (0.6, 15.4) 2.1 (0.0, 5.1)
P 0.343 0.530 0.639 0.755 0.268 0.639
Feed with Yes 12 9 (75.00) 25.4 (14.0, 61.4) 6.5 (3.8, 18.1) 8.9 (3.6, 21.2) 1.0 (0.4, 2.0) 0.6 (0.2, 5.6) 0.3 (0.0, 2.5)
complementary No 3 (25.00) 200.0 (106.4, 421.1) 61.5 (32.5, 174.7) 30.8 (16.6, 111.3) 5.1 (4.3, 8.1) 15.4 (8.0, 29.8) 5.1 (2.7, 9.9)
food
P 0.482 0.482 0.600 0.064 0.145 0.100
Estimation of breast <600 mL 12 4 (33.33) 14.3 (12.1, 1098.9) 5.7 (3.9, 852.1) 5.2 (2.7, 182.6) 2.0 (0.4, 21.0) 0.6 (0.4, 20.3) 0.3 (0.1, 3.4)
milk consumption ≥600 mL 8 (66.67) 44.2 (18.7, 165.5) 15.0 (3.5, 50.9) 12.8 (5.3, 30.1) 1.2 (0.9, 4.5) 3.0 (0.1, 13.0) 1.2 (0.1, 4.6)
per day
P 0.461 1.000 0.570 1.000 0.808 0.570
Estimation of <50 g 9 4 (44.44) 61.4 (34.2, 1110.4) 18.1 (14.0, 855.2) 21.2 (10.2, 187.8) 2.0 (1.1, 20.8) 3.3 (0.1, 21.6) 1.5 (0.0, 4.1)
complementary ≥50 g 5 (55.56) 16.0 (10.1, 22.1) 4.4 (3.2, 5.7) 4.1 (2.2, 9.3) 0.5 (0.3, 0.9) 0.5 (0.2, 3.0) 0.3 (0.1, 1.2)
food consumption
per day
P 0.032⁎ 0.016⁎ 0.032⁎ 0.032⁎ 0.413 0.905
Frequency of bottle 1–4 times/d 11 7 (63.64) 25.4 (16.0, 60.6) 5.0 (3.2, 17.1) 8.9 (4.1, 14.4) 1.0 (0.3, 2.7) 0.6 (0.0, 5.1) 0.3 (0.0, 2.1)
feeding per day ≥5 times/d 4 (36.36) 106.4 (12.1, 1144.9) 34.0 (4.2, 865.8) 16.9 (2.7, 188.5) 4.3 (1.3, 21.4) 8.0 (0.6, 23.9) 2.4 (0.3, 5.0)
P 0.927 0.412 0.927 0.230 0.412 0.412
Average milk 120-150 mL 10 3 (30.00) 16.5 (14.2, 329.3) 6.5 (4.8, 147.1) 11.2 (7.2, 101.6) 0.8 (0.7, 6.0) 0.5 (0.3, 22.4) 0.4 (0.3, 7.6)
consumption by 150-180 mL 7 (70.00) 27.8 (12.7, 200.0) 5.0 (3.5, 61.5) 7.3 (2.5, 30.8) 1.3 (0.3, 5.1) 0.9 (0.3, 15.4) 0.4 (0.0, 4.5)
feeding bottle per
time
P 1.000 1.000 0.833 1.000 0.833 0.667
Estimation of milk <500 mL 10 6 (60.00) 22.1 (14.1, 206.0) 4.7 (3.2, 84.7) 9.3 (3.4, 58.7) 0.9 (0.3, 3.8) 0.6 (0.0, 14.9) 0.4 (0, 5.2.0)
consumption by ≥500 mL 4 (40.00) 106.4 (12.1, 1144.9) 34.0 (4.2, 865.8) 16.9 (2.7, 188.5) 4.3 (1.3, 21.4) 8.0 (0.6, 23.9) 2.4 (0.3, 5.0)
feeding bottle per
day
P 0.914 0.352 0.914 0.257 0.476 0.610
Use feeding bottle to Yes 11 6 (55.55) 14.3 (11.0, 515.0) 5.7 (4.2, 329.6) 5.2 (2.2, 83.3) 2.0 (0.3, 10.5) 0.8 (0.5, 18.2) 0.3 (0.2, 4.6)
reheat milk No 5 (45.45) 27.8 (20.9, 351.3) 13.0 (3.2, 152.4) 11.2 (6.5, 103.1) 1.3 (0.9, 6.9) 0.6 (0.0, 24.7) 0.4 (0.0, 8.4)
P 0.329 0.792 0.429 0.792 0.662 1.000
Suck plastic toys Yes 12 7 (58.33) 27.8 (11.9, 642.1) 6.5 (3.2, 287.8) 11.2 (3.1, 191.9) 1.0 (0.5, 11.1) 5.1 (0.5, 26.8) 2.1 (0.3, 5.1)
No 5 (41.67) 25.4 (14.3, 61.4) 13.0 (4.2, 18.1) 8.9 (4.9, 21.2) 1.3 (0.7, 3.1) 0.6 (0.2, 3.4) 0.0 (0.0, 1.7)
P 0.755 1.000 0.755 0.876 0.202 0.073
How to wash plastic Wash with cool water 7 3 (42.86) 11.9 (10.1, 14.2) 4.4 (3.8, 5.5) 3.1 (2.2, 7.2) 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
toys Soak in boiling water 2 (28.57) 743.8 (27.8, 1459.8) 568.5 (3.1, 1133.9) 122.6 (4.1, 241.1) 13.9 (1.0, 26.8) 16.0 (5.1, 26.8) 3.3 (2.1, 4.5)
Disinfect by 2 (28.57) 421.1 (200.0, 642.1) 174.7 (61.5, 287.8) 111.3 (30.8, 191.9) 8.1 (5.1, 11.1) 29.8 (15.4, 44.3) 9.9 (5.1, 14.8)
alcohol/steam/UV
P 0.067 0.524 0.267 0.067 0.048⁎ 0.029⁎

Note: Only MPs of which the detection rate was in the top five are listed. Abbreviation: N (%): numbers and percentages.
⁎ P<0.05.

6
S. Liu et al.
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, it is the first study to comprehensively investigate
MPs exposure in pregnant women, fetus, and infants. Our study provides
evidence for MPs presence in human breast milk and infant formula. More-
over, the water intake and usage of scrub cleanser or toothpaste may be
potential sources of exposure of pregnant women. Early life exposures to
MPs may occur via breastfeeding, feeding bottles and plastic toys.
We summarized similar literatures on MPs in human tissues or other
samples in Table S7. There were several studies reporting the presence of
MPs in human feces. As for the chemical composition of detected MPs,
the top three predominant MPs were PP, PET, and PS in 23 feces of
young male students (Zhang et al., 2021a). Another study found that the
top two predominant MPs were PP and PET in eight healthy adults from
Europe and Asia (Schwabl et al., 2019). These results were inconsistent
with our results, which showed that the top two predominant MPs were
PA and PU in all samples in this study. The abundance and types of MPs
varying between different studies may be due to sample sources and detec-
tion methods. Firstly, the difference in identification methods is a crucial
factor affecting the types and abundances of detected MPs (Zhang et al.,
2020). Identification methods capable of capturing MPs with wider particle
size range seemed to detect more kinds of MPs. For example, A study found
that 12 kinds of MPs identified in four of six human placentas by Raman
Micro-spectroscopy, which were differentiated between stained MPs (iden-
tified as PP) and paint/coating/dye MPs (Ragusa et al., 2021). Less diverse
kinds of MPs were found than that in our study. That may be attributed to
the reported particles size ranged from 5 to 10 μm whereas we reported
particles size ranged from 20 to 500 μm. Despite that, our study detected
more MPs compared to other studies with similar size detection limit,
which might attribute to the different sample sources.
In our result, the number of PA was as expected higher in meconium
than those in placentas. Although there have been several experimental
studies exploring the placental transfer of MPs, how MPs are transferred
to the embryo or fetus is still unknown. The high abundance of MPs identi-
fied in meconium may manifest that there were other potential intrauterine
exposure sources for fetus. Moreover, meconium accumulates continuously
in fetus from 16 weeks of gestation and is not excreted until delivery (Marie
et al., 2015). This characteristic increased possibility of the long-term accu-
mulation of MPs in meconium. Interestingly, we firstly detected the occur-
rence of MPs in infant feces, breast milk, and infant formula in the follow-up
study. It showed that MPs from exposed infants may originate from the
intake of breast milk and infant formula. Apart from this study, only one
study showed that MP contamination was found in 26 out of 34 human
breastmilk samples (Ragusa et al., 2022). No study to date has measured
MPs in breast milk and infant formula simultaneously. Therefore, this result
needs to be verified by more studies.
Several human studies have reported the possible ingestion of MPs
through food intake (Barboza et al., 2018; Karami et al., 2017), but the
association between burden of MPs in human body with food intake was
less investigated. Only one study found a moderate correlation between
packaged water and beverage intake and MPs abundance in feces (Zhang
et al., 2021a). Similarly, we found the abundance of MPs in the participants
who consumed water >2000 mL was significantly higher as compared to
those who did not. Furthermore, we found the abundance of MPs in the par-
ticipants who had habits of drinking beverages in plastic bottle, drinking
tap water and barreled pure water, was higher as compared to those who
did not. In addition, the abundance of MPs in the participants who had
habits of drinking purified water was lower as compared to those who
did not. This may be because the filter is effectively removing MPs found
in tap water. This result indicated the water intake may be an important
exposure source of MPs for pregnant women. Besides, consistent with pre-
vious studies, processed food using plastic package, and eating seafood
(fish, shellfish) and using scrub cleanser or toothpaste may increase the ex-
posure of MPs as well (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). However,
most associations we found were not statistically significant due to the
small sample size of this study. More comprehensive dietary surveys and
7
Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699
larger sample size studies should be conducted to investigate the potential
exposure sources of MPs.
One study quantitatively detected the concentrations of PET and PC
MPs in six infant and 10 adult feces (Zhang et al., 2021b). They found
infants are exposed to higher concentration of PET than adults. The high
exposure for infants may attributed to several reasons. Firstly, the MPs
can be transferred from mother to child by breastfeeding (Sripada et al.,
2022). Depending on the duration of breastfeeding, the child's body burden
reflects the mother's exposure. In this study, we found the breast milk-fed
group had relatively higher abundance of MPs compared to the mixed feed-
ing group. The abundance of MPs in the infants who consumed breast milk
>600 mL per day, was relatively higher as compared to those who did
not. In contrast, the abundance of MPs in the infants who consumed com-
plementary food >50 g per day, was significantly lower as compared to
those who did not. Thus, the exposure to MPs in lactating infants may
occur through the breast milk consumption other than complementary
food consumption. However, when we compared the MPs between breast
milk and infant milk, we didn't observe significant difference between
them. Therefore, there might be other reasons. Many mothers tend to use
the breast pump and preserved the breast milk by breast milk storage
bags, which might lead to MPs migration into breast milk.
Secondly, the extensive use of baby feeding bottles is another exposure
routes for MPs. Studies have found that the PP infant feeding bottles can re-
lease millions of MPs during the infant formula preparation (Li et al., 2020).
Similarly, we found the abundance of MPs in the infants who had been fed
with baby bottle >5 times per day and the consumption of milk by bottles
>500 mL per day was relatively higher as compared to those who did
not. However, considering breast milk and infant formula were both pre-
pared in feeding bottles, we couldn't separate them completely. Therefore,
we assumed that feeding bottle was more likely a potential exposure source
for infants. Nevertheless, contributions of breast milk and infant formula to
MPs exposure to infants urged for more studies in the future. Interestingly,
we found the abundance of MPs in the infants who had habits of sucking
plastic toys, was higher as compared to those who did not. Furthermore,
we found the way to wash plastic toys significantly increased the abun-
dance of PET and PVC in infant feces. The bottles which soaked in boiling
water or sterilized by alcohol/steam/UV increased the exposure level of
MPs in infants. Previous studies also reported different usage methods sig-
nificantly impacted the release amounts of MPs. For example, sterilization
and exposure to high-temperature water significantly increased the release
amounts of PP MPs from feeding bottles (Li et al., 2020). Considering the
infants are known to frequently mouth plastic toys, the way to wash toys
is a greater concern for MPs exposure.
In the present study, we found that both mothers and infants had rela-
tively high abundance of PA, PU, PE and PET. Similarity in exposure
pattern of MPs may reflect same sources of intake. The uses and potential
exposure sources of different types of plastics were summarized in
Table 5. The presence of MPs in both indoor and outdoor air (Dris et al.,
2017; Allen et al., 2019) has been reported. For example, PA, extensively
used in textiles, coating, adhesive, appliances, was identified in both indoor
and outdoor environment (Fang et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2020). Ingestion
of atmospheric-deposited MPs through diet might be 2–3 orders of magni-
tude greater than direct ingestion from food sources (Fang et al., 2022).
Additionally, a study reported that intake of PET through dust ingestion
is higher than that from diet (Catarino et al., 2018). Therefore, indoor air
and dust in the home environments may serve as important exposure
sources for pregnant woman and infants who spend relatively long time
indoors. In addition, several studies have shown that PA, PE, and PET
were the most common types of MPs measured in groundwater samples
and samples of reservoir water employed for drinking water (Gomiero
et al., 2021; Mintenig et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2022). PU was also abundant
in raw water and conventional drinking water treatment (Cherniak et al.,
2022). Considering our results showed the water intake, especially the
tap water was also related to the high abundance of MPs, the water intake
may be an important exposure source of MPs for pregnant women. It cannot
be ignored that plastic toys are often made of PE, PET, PVC plastics, which
S. Liu et al. Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699

Table 5 manuscript writing, RD, and BC critically revised the manuscript. All au-
Uses and sources of the different types of plastics. thors read and approved the final manuscript.
Chemical Use Source

PA Textiles, coating, adhesive, Air and atmospheric fallout (Fang et al., Funding source
appliances 2022; Wright et al., 2020), water (Samandra
et al., 2022; Gomiero et al., 2021; Mintenig This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of
et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2022), food (Jin
China (Grant number: 82003412).
et al., 2021; Naji et al., 2018)
PU Construction, textiles, Water (Cherniak et al., 2022), food (Jin
appliances et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2018) Data availability
PE Food packaging, daily Air and atmospheric fallout (Fang et al.,
necessities, toys, water pipes 2022; Klein and Fischer, 2019), water
(Samandra et al., 2022; Gomiero et al.,
Data will be made available on request.
2021; Mintenig et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2022),
food (Jin et al., 2021; Naji et al., 2018)
Declaration of competing interest
PET Food packaging, face mask, Air and atmospheric fallout (Fang et al.,
container of cosmetics and 2022; Catarino et al., 2018), water
medicine, toys (Samandra et al., 2022; Gomiero et al., The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter-
2021), food (Jin et al., 2021; Naji et al., ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the
2018) work reported in this paper.
PVC Construction, textiles, Water (Gomiero et al., 2021; Cherniak
appliances, toys, water pipes et al., 2022), food (Jin et al., 2021; Kim
et al., 2018) Appendix A. Supplementary data
PP Textiles, food packaging, face Air and atmospheric fallout (Fang et al.,
mask, water pipes, tableware, 2022; Dris et al., 2017), water (Samandra Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
feeding bottles et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022), food (Jin
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158699.
et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2018)
PTFE Coating, medical material Water (Cherniak et al., 2022), food (Jin
et al., 2021; Digka et al., 2018) References
PMMA Daily necessities, construction Water (Samandra et al., 2022)
PC Construction, food packaging, Water (Cherniak et al., 2022)
appliances Aghaei, Z., et al., 2022. Maternal exposure to polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics causes fetal
PS Food packaging, toys, Air and atmospheric fallout (Fang et al., growth restriction in mice. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 9 (5), 426–430.
disposable tableware 2022; Allen et al., 2019), water (Samandra Allen, S., et al., 2019. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote
mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12 (5), 339–344.
et al., 2022), food (Jin et al., 2021; Digka
Barboza, L.G.A., et al., 2018. Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security,
et al., 2018)
food safety and human health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 336–348.
Notes: PA: polyamide; PU: polyurethane; PE: polyethylene; PET: polyethylene tere- Catarino, A.I., et al., 2018. Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP
ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during
phthalate; PVC: polyvinyl chloride; PP: polypropylene; PTFE: polytetrafluoroethylene;
a meal. Environ. Pollut. 237, 675–684.
PMMA: polymethylmethacrylate; PC: polycarbonate; PS: polystyrene. Cherniak, S.L., et al., 2022. Conventional and biological treatment for the removal of
microplastics from drinking water. Chemosphere 288 (Pt 2), 132587.
D'Errico, J.N., Fournier, S.B., Stapleton, P.A., 2019. Ex vivo perfusion of the rodent placenta.
J. Vis. Exp. 147.
consistent with our results that infant sucking toys tended to have more Digka, N., et al., 2018. Microplastics in mussels and fish from the Northern Ionian Sea. Mar.
MPs in their feces. However, the present study has some limitations. Firstly, Pollut. Bull. 135, 30–40.
Dris, R., et al., 2017. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and
we didn't get the basic information of infants at follow-up. Secondly, the outdoor environments. Environ. Pollut. 221, 453–458.
sample size in this study was relatively small, so that it is hard to further Fang, M., et al., 2022. Microplastic ingestion from atmospheric deposition during dining/
extrapolate the potential factors influencing MPs exposure. Thirdly, the drinking activities. J. Hazard. Mater. 432, 128674.
Fournier, S.B., et al., 2020. Nanopolystyrene translocation and fetal deposition after acute
possibility of contamination of the samples with diapers, dust and air fall-
lung exposure during late-stage pregnancy. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 17 (1), 55.
out cannot be excluded. Lastly, MPs may be lost during sample preparation Gomiero, A., et al., 2021. Application of GCMS-pyrolysis to estimate the levels of microplastics
due to the extraction conditions (nitric acid and heating to high tempera- in a drinking water supply system. J. Hazard. Mater. 416, 125708.
Grafmueller, S., et al., 2015. Bidirectional transfer study of polystyrene nanoparticles across
tures) (Qiu et al., 2016).
the placental barrier in an ex vivo human placental perfusion model. Environ. Health
Perspect. 123 (12), 1280–1286.
Hartmann, N.B., et al., 2019. Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a
5. Conclusion definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53
(3), 1039–1047.
In conclusion, we detected various kinds of MPs in placentas, meco- Jeong, B., et al., 2022. Maternal exposure to polystyrene nanoplastics causes brain abnormal-
ities in progeny. J. Hazard. Mater. 426, 127815.
nium, infant feces, breast milk, and infant formula samples. The top two Jin, M., et al., 2021. Microplastics contamination in food and beverages: direct exposure to
predominant MPs exposure were PA and PU. Additionally, the water intake humans. J. Food Sci. 86 (7), 2816–2837.
and usage of scrub cleanser or toothpaste may be potential sources of expo- Karami, A., et al., 2017. The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different coun-
tries. Sci. Rep. 7, 46173.
sure of pregnant women. The breastmilk consumption and usage of feeding Kim, J.S., et al., 2018. Global pattern of microplastics (MPs) in commercial food-grade salts:
bottles and plastic toy may be potential sources of exposure in lactating in- sea salt as an indicator of seawater MP pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (21),
fants. This study calls for future research to collect data on more compre- 12819–12828.
Klein, M., Fischer, E.K., 2019. Microplastic abundance in atmospheric deposition within the
hensive plastic use, especially the usage and wash methods of the plastic metropolitan area of Hamburg, Germany. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 96–103.
products during pregnancy and in early childhood. Kosuth, M., Mason, S.A., Wattenberg, E.V., 2018. Anthropogenic contamination of tap water,
beer, and sea salt. PLoS One 13 (4), e0194970.
Li, D., et al., 2020. Microplastic release from the degradation of polypropylene feeding bottles
Author contributions statement during infant formula preparation. Nat.Food 1 (11), 746–754.
Marie, C., Vendittelli, F., Sauvant-Rochat, M.P., 2015. Obstetrical outcomes and biomarkers to
assess exposure to phthalates: a review. Environ. Int. 83, 116–136.
We would like to thank all the participants for their participation and Mintenig, S.M., et al., 2019. Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from
kind assistance. SL, JG, XL and RD contributed to the conception and ground water sources. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 631–635.
study design; JG, XL, RY, HW, YS and BC contributed to the acquisition of Naji, A., Nuri, M., Vethaak, A.D., 2018. Microplastics contamination in molluscs from the
northern part of the Persian Gulf. Environ. Pollut. 235, 113–120.
data; SL, XL and RD performed data analysis; XL, RD, and BC contributed Qiu, Q., et al., 2016. Extraction, enumeration and identification methods for monitoring
to the interpretation of the data; SL, JG, XL and BC contributed to microplastics in the environment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 176, 102–109.

8
S. Liu et al.
Ragusa, A., et al., 2021. Plasticenta: first evidence of microplastics in human placenta.
Environ. Int. 146, 106274.
Ragusa, A., et al., 2022. Raman microspectroscopy detection and characterisation of
microplastics in human breastmilk. Polymers 14 (13) (Basel).
Samandra, S., et al., 2022. Assessing exposure of the Australian population to microplastics
through bottled water consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 837, 155329.
Schwabl, P., et al., 2019. Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a prospective case
series. Ann. Intern. Med. 171 (7), 453–457.
Scircle, A., et al., 2020. Occurrence of microplastic pollution at oyster reefs and other
coastal sites in the Mississippi sound, USA: impacts of freshwater inflows from
flooding. Toxics 8 (2).
Shi, J., et al., 2022. Groundwater antibiotics and microplastics in a drinking-water source
area, northern China: occurrence, spatial distribution, risk assessment, and correlation.
Environ. Res. 210, 112855.
Song, K., et al., 2021. Microparticles and microplastics released from daily use of plastic feed-
ing and water bottles and plastic injectors: potential risks to infants and children in China.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 28 (42), 59813–59820.
Science of the Total Environment 854 (2023) 158699
Sripada, K., et al., 2022. A children's health perspective on nano- and microplastics. Environ.
Health Perspect. 130 (1), 15001.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Janssen, C.R., 2014. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human con-
sumption. Environ. Pollut. 193, 65–70.
Wang, X., et al., 2020. Atmospheric microplastic over the South China Sea and East Indian
Ocean: abundance, distribution and source. J. Hazard. Mater. 389, 121846.
Wick, P., et al., 2010. Barrier capacity of human placenta for nanosized materials. Environ.
Health Perspect. 118 (3), 432–436.
Wright, S.L., et al., 2020. Atmospheric microplastic deposition in an urban environment and
an evaluation of transport. Environ. Int. 136, 105411.
Zhang, Q., et al., 2020. A review of microplastics in table salt, drinking water, and air: direct
human exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (7), 3740–3751.
Zhang, N., et al., 2021. You are what you eat: microplastics in the feces of young men living in
Beijing. Sci. Total Environ. 767, 144345.
Zhang, J., et al., 2021. Occurrence of polyethylene terephthalate and polycarbonate
microplastics in infant and adult feces. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 8 (11), 989–994.