Sample result
This illustrative profile is a U.S. adult drinking 1.5 L of single-use bottled water daily, using three disposable cups a week and spending 20 hours a day indoors. It is not your estimate.
Your estimate
460,000 particles per yearIndicative range 370,000–2.2 million particles per year
An estimate based on published studies and the answers you provided. It is not a medical or safety score.
P5 · 370,000P50 · 460,000P95 · 2.2 million
What this number cannot tell you
- It is not your total exposure. It covers only what has been measured and only what this questionnaire asked about.
- It is not an absorbed dose, a retained dose, or a body burden. Nothing here models what happens after a particle is swallowed or breathed in.
- It is not a safety threshold, a risk score, or a health rating. There is no agreed dose–response relationship for mixed environmental microplastics, so there is nothing to compare your number against.
- A larger number does not mean you are unwell, and a smaller one does not mean you are safe.
Where your estimate comes from
Shares are of the modelled ingestion total only — they cover the categories in this model, not everything you eat.
- 1Hot drinks in disposable cups170,00039%
- 2Fruit and vegetables170,00038%
- 3Processed or breaded proteins39,0009%
All 9 modelled categories
- Hot drinks in disposable cups170,000 · 39%
- Fruit and vegetables170,000 · 38%
- Processed or breaded proteins39,000 · 9%
- Fresh meat, eggs and plant proteins27,000 · 6%
- Water from single-use plastic bottles13,000 · 3%
- Fish and other seafood8,300 · 2%
- Cheese6,000 · 1%
- Whole shellfish3,500 · <1%
- Milk and yoghurt1,200 · <1%
What changed your estimate most
Taken by re-running the whole simulation with each answer removed, rather than by ranking the subtotals.
Hot drinks in disposable cups
Removing this answer changes the estimate by about 180,000 particles a year — 39% of the total.
Fruit and vegetables
Removing this answer changes the estimate by about 170,000 particles a year — 37% of the total.
Potential food-contact release
Reported separately and never added to the intake figure above. These studies measured what a plastic released into a food simulant; how much of that is swallowed has not been measured.
990,000 particles a year of potential releaseIndicative range 990,000–990,000
Meals in takeaway containers
990,000
990,000–990,000 · proxy from another region · low confidence
Where this comes from (C073 · S065)
- Study
- Hu et al. — Microplastic release from takeout food containers (2023) · 10.1080/19440049.2022.2157894
- Study type
- Primary release study
- Geography
- China — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Multiple polymer containers
- Method
- Raman imaging
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 0.8–38 µm
- Reported value
- Mean / representative: 19,000 particles/L
- Workbook status
- Optional event / route module — Lab contact scenario.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 19000 (mean / representative). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured what the plastic released, not how much of it was swallowed. The subtotal is reported as potential release and is never added to the intake total.
- Assumed conversions
- 0.5 L of food per takeaway container — S065 reports particles per litre of contents for a laboratory contact scenario. Half a litre is a typical single-meal container.
- Study's own caveat
- Laboratory extraction conditions; apply only to matching contact scenario.
- Confidence
- Low — study high, your answer high, match low-medium
- Other eligible studies
- C074 — Hu et al. — Microplastic release from takeout food containers (proxy from another region)
- C075 — Hu et al. — Microplastic release from takeout food containers (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- S065 is a laboratory contact scenario. Which container material you actually get is usually unknown, and the three materials it tested differ by two orders of magnitude.
The air you breathe
Inhalation is a different route from swallowing. This is never added to the ingestion figure, and an inhaled count is not a dose retained in the lung.
1.8 million particles a year inhaled indoorsIndicative range 430,000–3.2 million
Measured indoor concentration × your indoor hours
Particles per cubic metre of indoor air, multiplied by an age-specific breathing volume and the share of the day you spend indoors.
Indoor air — measured concentration
1,800,000
430,000–3.2 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C081 · S079)
- Study
- Maurizi et al. — High concentration of breathable microplastics in indoor environments (2024) · 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142663
- Study type
- Primary inhalation study
- Geography
- Europe — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 4 indoor environments
- Method
- Micro-Raman
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≥ 1 µm
- Reported value
- Range: 58 / 684 particles/m³
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Multiply by inhaled m³ in matched environments.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 58–684 (range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- Inhaled particles. Not swallowed, and not a retained lung dose.
- Study's own caveat
- Four environments; activity and ventilation strongly affect concentrations.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Notes
- Particles per cubic metre from S079, multiplied by an age-specific breathing volume and the share of the day you spend indoors.
26 million particles a year inhaled indoorsIndicative range 26 million–26 million
Study-reported daily inhaled count, by particle size
A second, independent estimate that reports a daily inhaled count directly. It is an alternative to the first scenario, not an addition to it, and its two size bins are kept apart.
Indoor air — 1–10 µm particles
25,000,000
25 million–25 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C082 · S080)
- Study
- Yakovenko et al. — Human exposure to PM10 microplastics in indoor air (2025) · 10.1371/journal.pone.0328011
- Study type
- Primary inhalation study
- Geography
- France — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 16 air samples
- Method
- Raman microspectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 1–10 µm
- Reported value
- Adult mean ± SD: 68,000 particles/day
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Keep separate from 10–300 µm.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 68000 (adult mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- Inhaled particles. Not swallowed, and not a retained lung dose.
- Study's own caveat
- Small sample; cars and residences pooled only with time-activity assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium-high, match medium
- Notes
- S080 reports a daily inhaled count directly, already including its own time-activity assumptions, so it is not multiplied by a breathing volume or by your indoor hours.
Indoor air — 10–300 µm particles
1,200,000
1.2 million–1.2 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C083 · S080)
- Study
- Yakovenko et al. — Human exposure to PM10 microplastics in indoor air (2025) · 10.1371/journal.pone.0328011
- Study type
- Primary inhalation study
- Geography
- France — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 16 air samples
- Method
- Raman microspectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 10–300 µm
- Reported value
- Adult mean ± SD: 3,200 particles/day
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Likely upper-airway deposition and clearance.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 3200 (adult mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- Inhaled particles. Not swallowed, and not a retained lung dose.
- Study's own caveat
- Small sample; cars and residences pooled only with time-activity assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium-high, match medium
- Notes
- Kept separate from the 1–10 µm bin. Larger particles are more likely to be caught in the upper airway and cleared.
The two scenarios are alternatives, not additions. They differ by roughly an order of magnitude, which is itself the finding: indoor-air estimates depend heavily on the smallest particle a method can see.
The smallest particles researchers can now detect
Methods that resolve below a micron count orders of magnitude more particles than conventional microplastic counting. These totals cannot be compared with, or added to, the headline figure.
136 million particles a year, counted from the nanoscale upIndicative range 84 million–193 million
Bottled water — counted below 1 µm
140,000,000
84 million–193 million · measured in your country · high confidence
Where this comes from (C005 · S005)
- Study
- Qian et al. — Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy (2024) · 10.1073/pnas.2300582121
- Study type
- Primary occurrence / method development
- Geography
- United States — measured in your country
- Sample size
- 5 bottles each of 3 brands
- Method
- Stimulated Raman scattering imaging
- Particle class
- Micro+nano
- Size cutoff
- 0.1–5 µm
- Reported value
- Mean ± SD: 110,000 / 240,000 / 400,000 particles/L
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Do not average with micro-only water values.
- How it was sampled
- Triangular between the reported low 110000, central 240000 and high 400000 (mean ± sd).
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Small brand/sample set; not comparable to >50–100 µm studies.
- Confidence
- High — study high, your answer high, match high
- Other eligible studies
- C018 — Jamison Hart & Lenhart — What’s in your water? (measured in your country)
- Notes
- S005 found that roughly nine in ten particles it counted were nanoplastics, below the size any of the conventional studies could see.
Polymer mass
A separate calculation in separate units. Mass and particle counts are never converted into one another, because doing so needs an assumed average particle that does not exist.
410 mg of polymer a yearIndicative range 290 mg–540 mg
Rice — polymer mass
410 mg
290 mg–540 mg · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C047 · S038)
- Study
- Dessì et al. — Plastics contamination of store-bought rice (2021) · Source
- Study type
- Primary mass-based occurrence
- Geography
- Australia — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Commercial rice products
- Method
- Py-GC/MS
- Particle class
- Polymer mass
- Size cutoff
- Polymer mass
- Reported value
- Approximate range: 3 / 4 mg polymer/100 g
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Mass-only track.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 3–4 (approximate range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 75 g of dry rice per serving — S038 measures polymer mass per 100 g of dry rice, so cooked portions are converted back to a dry weight.
- Study's own caveat
- Do not combine with particle counts; mass estimate has different assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C048 — Dessì et al. — Plastics contamination of store-bought rice (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Drinking water — polymer mass
550 µg
61 µg–1 mg · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C016 · S011)
- Study
- Braun et al. — Smart filters for the analysis of microplastic in beverages (2021) · 10.1080/19440049.2021.1889042
- Study type
- Primary occurrence / method
- Geography
- Germany — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Multiple bottled beverages and tap water
- Method
- TED-GC/MS
- Particle class
- Polymer mass
- Size cutoff
- Mass-based
- Reported value
- Range: 0.01 / 2 µg/L
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Never convert to count without explicit particle distribution.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 0.01–2 (range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Mass cannot be converted to counts without size/shape assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Notes
- Measured as micrograms of polymer per litre by thermal analysis. This is a separate track: it can never be turned into a particle count.
How certain is this?
Overall confidence: Medium
Confidence is the weakest of three things: how good the study is, how precisely you answered, and how well the study matches your question. Across the subtotals that make up at least a tenth of your estimate, the weakest link is hot drinks in disposable cups (C122, graded medium). Confidence is a label, not a number: it is never multiplied into the estimate, and it says nothing about harm.
Confidence for each major subtotal
- Hot drinks in disposable cupsMedium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Fruit and vegetablesMedium — study medium-high, your answer medium, match medium
Study-choice sensitivity
Running the same answers again, but picking the other eligible study for each category, moves the central estimate between 240,000 and 2.3 million particles a year. That span is reported next to the interval above, never merged into it: which paper you pick often matters more than the statistical uncertainty inside any one of them.
Which studies were swapped
- Hot drinks in disposable cups: C122 → C123 (lower end)
- Fish and other seafood: C086 → C062 (lower end)
- Fresh meat, eggs and plant proteins: C065 → C091 (lower end)
- Processed or breaded proteins: C067 → C065 (lower end)
- Milk and yoghurt: C119 → C103 (lower end)
- Water from single-use plastic bottles: C008 → C013 (higher end)
- Hot drinks in disposable cups: C122 → C125 (higher end)
- Whole shellfish: C060 → C061 (higher end)
- Milk and yoghurt: C119 → C052 (higher end)
- Cheese: C054 → C055 (higher end)
- Rice — polymer mass: C047 → C048 (higher end)
- Fruit and vegetables: C088 → C089 (higher end)
- Meals in takeaway containers: C073 → C075 (higher end)
- Bottled water — counted below 1 µm: C005 → C018 (higher end)
Non-detects
- Fish and other seafood (C086): This study's range starts at zero, so some samples contained no detected particles. The workbook does not record its reporting limit, so the 0 / RL÷2 / RL non-detect sensitivity cannot be run for it — the evidence is insufficient rather than a confirmed zero.
How well is your country covered?
United States: national survey defaults (WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023)
- 13 subtotals use a study proxy from another region.
- 3 subtotals use a study measured in your country.
Where nothing closer exists, a study from another region is used and labelled as a proxy, which lowers that subtotal’s confidence. Your country never acts as a multiplier — it only decides which studies and which food survey are eligible.
What we could not estimate for you
A category missing here is a gap in the research or in this questionnaire — not a category where exposure is zero.
Rice
The workbook's rice studies report either polymer mass per 100 g, which is included in the mass track, or a daily intake per kilogram of body weight. Converting the second into a particle count would need a body weight, which this calculator does not ask for. There is no default-eligible particle count for rice.
Related coefficients: C132, C133, C134
Bread and flour foods
The only flour measurements in the workbook come from six samples in one city, counted from 600 µm upwards, and the workbook marks all three as sensitivity-only. Using them as a default would turn one small exploratory study into a universal bread coefficient.
Related coefficients: C128, C129, C130
Every study behind every subtotal
One coefficient per subtotal. Nothing here is an average of several papers.
Water from single-use plastic bottles
13,000
2,300–23,000 · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C008 · S008)
- Study
- Schymanski et al. — Analysis of microplastics in water by micro-Raman spectroscopy (2018) · 10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.011
- Study type
- Primary occurrence
- Geography
- Germany — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 38 mineral waters
- Method
- Micro-Raman
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 5–100 µm
- Reported value
- Range: 2 / 44 particles/L
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Raman confirmed.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 2–44 (range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Only selected German products.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C013 — Oßmann et al. — Small-sized microplastics and pigmented particles in bottled mineral water (proxy from another region)
- Sensitivity-only studies
- C004 — Mason, Welch & Neratko — Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled Water
Hot drinks in disposable cups
170,000
120,000–230,000 · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C122 · S107)
- Study
- Zhou et al. — How many microplastics do we ingest when using disposable drink cups? (2023) · 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129982
- Study type
- Primary release and exposure
- Geography
- China — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- PP, PET and PE cups under time/temperature tests
- Method
- Microscopy and spectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≤ 50 µm
- Reported value
- Range after 5 minutes: 723 / 1,489 particles/cup
- Workbook status
- Optional event / route module — Use per cup; material and temperature dependent.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 723–1489 (range after 5 minutes); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- The particles were released into the drink in the cup, and the drink is consumed.
- Study's own caveat
- Cup polymer, liquid temperature, contact time and assumed use frequency must match.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C125 — Du et al. — Identification and characterization of microplastics released during actual use of disposable cups (proxy from another region)
- C126 — Du et al. — Identification and characterization of microplastics released during actual use of disposable cups (proxy from another region)
- C123 — Akbulut et al. — Microplastic Release from Single-Use Plastic Beverage Cups (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- Release depends strongly on the cup material, the drink temperature and how long the drink sits in the cup. The chosen study's conditions are shown with the subtotal.
Whole shellfish
3,500
2,500–4,500 · proxy from another region · low confidence
Where this comes from (C060 · S048)
- Study
- Expósito et al. — Microplastics in commercial bivalves (2022) · 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113843
- Study type
- Primary occurrence
- Geography
- Spain / Europe — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Commercial shellfish
- Method
- Digestion and spectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≥ 20 µm
- Reported value
- Mean: 18.6 particles/individual
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Per individual.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 18.6 (mean). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 12 animals per serving of whole shellfish — S048 reports particles per individual mussel or oyster, so a serving has to be expressed as a number of animals. Twelve is a common restaurant portion and is close to the 250 g portion S047 used.
- Study's own caveat
- Serving requires edible individuals, not grams.
- Confidence
- Low — study high, your answer medium, match low-medium
- Other eligible studies
- C061 — Expósito et al. — Microplastics in commercial bivalves (proxy from another region)
- Sensitivity-only studies
- C058 — Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen — Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption
- C059 — Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen — Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption
- Notes
- Mussels, oysters and clams are eaten whole, including the gut, which is where most measured particles are. Fillets are counted separately.
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Fish and other seafood
8,300
45–1.7 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C086 · S056)
- Study
- Süssmann et al. — Microplastics in fresh and processed seafood sold in Germany (2026) · 10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111565
- Study type
- Primary occurrence and exposure
- Geography
- Germany — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 130 retail products
- Method
- Nile Red screening with spectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≥ 5 µm
- Reported value
- Median and observed range: 0 / 0.9 / 183 particles/g
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Use the median as central; do not use the observed maximum as a typical value.
- How it was sampled
- Right-skewed lognormal with its median at the study's median of 0.9 particles/g and its 95th percentile at the highest sample it observed, 183 particles/g. The workbook's note on this coefficient says to use the median as the central value and not to treat the observed maximum as typical, which a triangular distribution across the same three numbers would do — its own median would sit near 53.9 particles/g.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 120 g per serving of fish or other seafood — A conventional cooked portion of fillet. Replace with national survey portion sizes when microdata are integrated.
- Study's own caveat
- Screening/confirmation design and German diet assumptions; 97% of particles were <150 µm.
- Confidence
- Medium — study medium-high, your answer medium, match medium
- Non-detects
- This study's range starts at zero, so some samples contained no detected particles. The workbook does not record its reporting limit, so the 0 / RL÷2 / RL non-detect sensitivity cannot be run for it — the evidence is insufficient rather than a confirmed zero.
- Other eligible studies
- C065 — Milne et al. — Exposure of U.S. adults to microplastics from commonly-consumed proteins (measured in your country)
- C064 — Piyawardhana et al. — Microplastics in dried fish products (proxy from another region)
- C087 — Süssmann et al. — Microplastics in fresh and processed seafood sold in Germany (proxy from another region)
- C062 — Akhbarizadeh et al. — Abundance, composition, and potential intake of microplastics in canned fish (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Fresh meat, eggs and plant proteins
27,000
20,000–34,000 · measured in your country · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C065 · S055)
- Study
- Milne et al. — Exposure of U.S. adults to microplastics from commonly-consumed proteins (2024) · 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.123233
- Study type
- Primary occurrence and exposure
- Geography
- United States — measured in your country
- Sample size
- 111 samples; 16 product types
- Method
- Microscopy; Raman/FTIR correction
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≥ 45 µm
- Reported value
- Mean ± SD: 74 particles/serving
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Highly right-skewed; use product rows when possible.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 74 (mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Right-skewed values; 66% of suspected particles excluded after blank correction.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium, match high
- Other eligible studies
- C066 — Milne et al. — Exposure of U.S. adults to microplastics from commonly-consumed proteins (measured in your country)
- C090 — Bahrani et al. — Occurrence of microplastics in edible tissues of livestock (proxy from another region)
- C091 — Bahrani et al. — Occurrence of microplastics in edible tissues of livestock (proxy from another region)
- C092 — Bahrani et al. — Occurrence of microplastics in edible tissues of livestock (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- Seafood is asked about separately and is not counted again here. The workbook's questionnaire groups fish with the other fresh proteins; splitting them is what keeps the same serving from being counted twice.
- S055 found that how a protein is processed mattered more than whether it came from an animal or a plant.
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Processed or breaded proteins
39,000
28,000–49,000 · measured in your country · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C067 · S055)
- Study
- Milne et al. — Exposure of U.S. adults to microplastics from commonly-consumed proteins (2024) · 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.123233
- Study type
- Primary occurrence and exposure
- Geography
- United States — measured in your country
- Sample size
- 111 samples; 16 product types
- Method
- Microscopy; Raman/FTIR correction
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≥ 45 µm
- Reported value
- Mean ± SD: 370 particles/serving
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Highest product mean; large SD.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 370 (mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Right-skewed values; 66% of suspected particles excluded after blank correction.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium, match high
- Other eligible studies
- C065 — Milne et al. — Exposure of U.S. adults to microplastics from commonly-consumed proteins (measured in your country)
- Notes
- Modelled on the most heavily processed product S055 measured. Its standard deviation was larger than its mean, so treat this subtotal as indicative only.
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Milk and yoghurt
1,200
904–1,600 · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C119 · S101)
- Study
- Al-Mansoori et al. — Microplastics in commercial food products from the United Kingdom market (2026) · 10.1016/j.envres.2025.123178
- Study type
- Primary occurrence and exposure
- Geography
- United Kingdom — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 78 food samples
- Method
- Digestion, microscopy and µFTIR
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 44–516 µm
- Reported value
- Mean ± SD: 19 particles/L
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Large-particle UK scenario; keep separate from small-cutoff milk studies.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 19 (mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 250 mL per serving of milk or yoghurt — One glass or one small pot.
- Study's own caveat
- Do not use a pooled mean across liquids and solids; UK market only.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C053 — Visentin et al. — Assessing microplastic contamination in milk and dairy products (proxy from another region)
- C104 — Mitu et al. — Microplastic contamination in commercial and traditional dairy products (proxy from another region)
- C105 — Mitu et al. — Microplastic contamination in commercial and traditional dairy products (proxy from another region)
- C106 — Mitu et al. — Microplastic contamination in commercial and traditional dairy products (proxy from another region)
- C103 — Gürmeriç et al. — Microplastics in Dairy Products (proxy from another region)
- C052 — Da Costa Filho et al. — Detection and characterization of small-sized microplastics in milk products (proxy from another region)
- C051 — Kutralam-Muniasamy et al. — Branded milks: are they immune from microplastics contamination? (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Cheese
6,000
4,400–7,700 · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C054 · S044)
- Study
- Visentin et al. — Assessing microplastic contamination in milk and dairy products (2025) · 10.1038/s41538-025-00506-8
- Study type
- Primary occurrence
- Geography
- Italy — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 28 products; 26 positive
- Method
- Micro-FTIR ATR
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 24–4817 µm
- Reported value
- Mean: 1,280 particles/kg
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Italian products.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 1280 (mean). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 30 g per serving of cheese — A matchbox-sized piece; the portion used in most national food guides.
- Study's own caveat
- Limited brands/region; food processing may drive differences.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C055 — Visentin et al. — Assessing microplastic contamination in milk and dairy products (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- S044 measured fresh and ripened cheese separately and reported different means. The question does not distinguish them, so one is used and the other appears in the study-choice sensitivity.
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Rice — polymer mass
410 mg
290 mg–540 mg · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C047 · S038)
- Study
- Dessì et al. — Plastics contamination of store-bought rice (2021) · Source
- Study type
- Primary mass-based occurrence
- Geography
- Australia — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Commercial rice products
- Method
- Py-GC/MS
- Particle class
- Polymer mass
- Size cutoff
- Polymer mass
- Reported value
- Approximate range: 3 / 4 mg polymer/100 g
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Mass-only track.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 3–4 (approximate range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 75 g of dry rice per serving — S038 measures polymer mass per 100 g of dry rice, so cooked portions are converted back to a dry weight.
- Study's own caveat
- Do not combine with particle counts; mass estimate has different assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C048 — Dessì et al. — Plastics contamination of store-bought rice (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Fruit and vegetables
170,000
120,000–220,000 · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C088 · S087)
- Study
- Aydın et al. — Occurrence of Microplastics in Most Consumed Fruits and Vegetables from Turkey (2023) · 10.3390/life13081686
- Study type
- Primary occurrence
- Geography
- Turkey — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 72 produce samples
- Method
- Digestion, microscopy and µ-Raman
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- Study-specific
- Reported value
- Mean ± SD: 2.9 particles/g
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Sensitivity scenario; keep separate from disputed 1.5–2.5 µm SEM-EDX study.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 2.9 (mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Assumed conversions
- 80 g per serving of fruit or vegetables — The portion size used by most five-a-day guidance.
- Study's own caveat
- One national market sample; surface and tissue sources cannot be cleanly separated.
- Confidence
- Medium — study medium-high, your answer medium, match medium
- Other eligible studies
- C089 — Aydın et al. — Occurrence of Microplastics in Most Consumed Fruits and Vegetables from Turkey (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- A widely reported study found roughly 100,000 particles per gram of fruit using a method that is disputed. The workbook marks it off by default, and this estimate uses the Raman-confirmed study instead.
- Declared default for 18–64 in United States, pending microdata from WWEIA, NHANES 2021–2023 (D002). It is a placeholder, not a survey result — entering your own amount replaces it and raises the input confidence.
Meals in takeaway containers
990,000
990,000–990,000 · proxy from another region · low confidence
Where this comes from (C073 · S065)
- Study
- Hu et al. — Microplastic release from takeout food containers (2023) · 10.1080/19440049.2022.2157894
- Study type
- Primary release study
- Geography
- China — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Multiple polymer containers
- Method
- Raman imaging
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 0.8–38 µm
- Reported value
- Mean / representative: 19,000 particles/L
- Workbook status
- Optional event / route module — Lab contact scenario.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 19000 (mean / representative). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured what the plastic released, not how much of it was swallowed. The subtotal is reported as potential release and is never added to the intake total.
- Assumed conversions
- 0.5 L of food per takeaway container — S065 reports particles per litre of contents for a laboratory contact scenario. Half a litre is a typical single-meal container.
- Study's own caveat
- Laboratory extraction conditions; apply only to matching contact scenario.
- Confidence
- Low — study high, your answer high, match low-medium
- Other eligible studies
- C074 — Hu et al. — Microplastic release from takeout food containers (proxy from another region)
- C075 — Hu et al. — Microplastic release from takeout food containers (proxy from another region)
- Notes
- S065 is a laboratory contact scenario. Which container material you actually get is usually unknown, and the three materials it tested differ by two orders of magnitude.
Indoor air — measured concentration
1,800,000
430,000–3.2 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C081 · S079)
- Study
- Maurizi et al. — High concentration of breathable microplastics in indoor environments (2024) · 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142663
- Study type
- Primary inhalation study
- Geography
- Europe — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 4 indoor environments
- Method
- Micro-Raman
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- ≥ 1 µm
- Reported value
- Range: 58 / 684 particles/m³
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Multiply by inhaled m³ in matched environments.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 58–684 (range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- Inhaled particles. Not swallowed, and not a retained lung dose.
- Study's own caveat
- Four environments; activity and ventilation strongly affect concentrations.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Notes
- Particles per cubic metre from S079, multiplied by an age-specific breathing volume and the share of the day you spend indoors.
Indoor air — 1–10 µm particles
25,000,000
25 million–25 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C082 · S080)
- Study
- Yakovenko et al. — Human exposure to PM10 microplastics in indoor air (2025) · 10.1371/journal.pone.0328011
- Study type
- Primary inhalation study
- Geography
- France — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 16 air samples
- Method
- Raman microspectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 1–10 µm
- Reported value
- Adult mean ± SD: 68,000 particles/day
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Keep separate from 10–300 µm.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 68000 (adult mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- Inhaled particles. Not swallowed, and not a retained lung dose.
- Study's own caveat
- Small sample; cars and residences pooled only with time-activity assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium-high, match medium
- Notes
- S080 reports a daily inhaled count directly, already including its own time-activity assumptions, so it is not multiplied by a breathing volume or by your indoor hours.
Indoor air — 10–300 µm particles
1,200,000
1.2 million–1.2 million · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C083 · S080)
- Study
- Yakovenko et al. — Human exposure to PM10 microplastics in indoor air (2025) · 10.1371/journal.pone.0328011
- Study type
- Primary inhalation study
- Geography
- France — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- 16 air samples
- Method
- Raman microspectroscopy
- Particle class
- Micro
- Size cutoff
- 10–300 µm
- Reported value
- Adult mean ± SD: 3,200 particles/day
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Likely upper-airway deposition and clearance.
- How it was sampled
- Held fixed at the single reported value 3200 (adult mean ± sd). The study reports no spread that would support a distribution, so uncertainty from this coefficient appears in the study-choice sensitivity instead of the interval.
- Swallowed fraction
- Inhaled particles. Not swallowed, and not a retained lung dose.
- Study's own caveat
- Small sample; cars and residences pooled only with time-activity assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer medium-high, match medium
- Notes
- Kept separate from the 1–10 µm bin. Larger particles are more likely to be caught in the upper airway and cleared.
Drinking water — polymer mass
550 µg
61 µg–1 mg · proxy from another region · medium confidence
Where this comes from (C016 · S011)
- Study
- Braun et al. — Smart filters for the analysis of microplastic in beverages (2021) · 10.1080/19440049.2021.1889042
- Study type
- Primary occurrence / method
- Geography
- Germany — proxy from another region
- Sample size
- Multiple bottled beverages and tap water
- Method
- TED-GC/MS
- Particle class
- Polymer mass
- Size cutoff
- Mass-based
- Reported value
- Range: 0.01 / 2 µg/L
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Never convert to count without explicit particle distribution.
- How it was sampled
- Uniform across the reported range 0.01–2 (range); the study gives no central value, so every value in the range is treated as equally likely. This is a weaker assumption about shape than a reported central value.
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Mass cannot be converted to counts without size/shape assumptions.
- Confidence
- Medium — study high, your answer high, match medium
- Notes
- Measured as micrograms of polymer per litre by thermal analysis. This is a separate track: it can never be turned into a particle count.
Bottled water — counted below 1 µm
140,000,000
84 million–193 million · measured in your country · high confidence
Where this comes from (C005 · S005)
- Study
- Qian et al. — Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy (2024) · 10.1073/pnas.2300582121
- Study type
- Primary occurrence / method development
- Geography
- United States — measured in your country
- Sample size
- 5 bottles each of 3 brands
- Method
- Stimulated Raman scattering imaging
- Particle class
- Micro+nano
- Size cutoff
- 0.1–5 µm
- Reported value
- Mean ± SD: 110,000 / 240,000 / 400,000 particles/L
- Workbook status
- Eligible with exact match — Do not average with micro-only water values.
- How it was sampled
- Triangular between the reported low 110000, central 240000 and high 400000 (mean ± sd).
- Swallowed fraction
- The study measured the food or drink as it is consumed, so everything counted is swallowed.
- Study's own caveat
- Small brand/sample set; not comparable to >50–100 µm studies.
- Confidence
- High — study high, your answer high, match high
- Other eligible studies
- C018 — Jamison Hart & Lenhart — What’s in your water? (measured in your country)
- Notes
- S005 found that roughly nine in ten particles it counted were nanoplastics, below the size any of the conventional studies could see.