Mansoor Ahmad Bhat · Air Quality Atmosphere & Health 2024 · cross-sectional environmental sampling study · n=7 households

A comprehensive characterization of indoor ambient microplastics in households during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cited 33 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Level 4 by design analogy (cross-sectional environmental sampling study in 7 households; non-clinical).

OpenAlex W4393442346 · doi:10.1007/s11869-024-01559-6 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Active air sampling was conducted in seven households in the city center of Eskişehir, Turkey, during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify and characterize indoor airborne microplastics (MPs). The researchers used visual identification, polymeric composition analysis, and scanning electron microscopy energy-dispersive X-ray (SEM-EDX) elemental analysis to evaluate particle size, shape, color, polymer type, and elemental composition, and calculated estimated daily human inhalation rates.

What was found

A total of 123 MPs across 22 different polymer compositions were identified, ranging in size from 2.5 to 327.36 μm and spanning multiple shapes (fibers, fragments, films, lines, foam, pellets) and colors (white, red, orange, green, yellow). Indoor airborne concentrations ranged between 12.03 and 18.51 MPs/m³, yielding an estimated daily inhalation rate of 156 to 240 MPs per resident. Dominant polymers were polyamide 6, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, ethylene propylene, polystyrene, and high-density polyethylene. Elemental analysis detected carbon, oxygen, fluorine, magnesium, silicon, chlorine, nitrogen, and aluminum.

Why it matters

Most indoor microplastic research has focused on larger millimeter-scale particles; this study provides quantitative data on micrometer-scale airborne microplastics that individuals actively inhale during high indoor occupancy periods.

Limits

The study evaluated only seven households within a single city, limiting generalizability. Inhalation exposure figures are mathematical estimates rather than direct internal biological measurements, and the study did not measure clinical or health outcomes. Specific indoor ventilation rates and occupant activity differences were not systematically controlled.

Cited by