Did you know that the water we drink might contain tiny pieces of plastic? Microplastics, are small fragments that result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, and are present in much of what we consume. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and even the water we drink, microplastics have become a pervasive part of our environment. These particles are so small that you can’t see them with the naked eye, but their impact is anything but invisible.
Illustration of the process showing how microplastics enter our drinking water supply and ultimately make their way into the human body.
Microplastics, tiny plastic particles originating from everyday sources like plastic bottles, old pipes, synthetic clothing, and numerous other items, are an increasingly pressing concern. These particles can still infiltrate our drinking water despite rigorous water treatment processes. Emerging research highlights the potential risks microplastics pose to human health, sparking growing concern about their long-term impacts.
One study we looked at was by Dharnidhar Choudhary, Caneon Kurien, and Ajay Kumar Srivastava which examined microplastics released from bottled water as anthropogenic contaminants. Their findings revealed that microplastic particles, typically measuring 5–10 µm in size, can infiltrate human tissues, potentially causing oxidative stress and contributing to broader health issues. This underscores the need for further research and improved mitigation strategies to address microplastic contamination in water sources.
Imagine this: You’re feeling thirsty and grab a drink from the water fountain on campus or at work. You assume you’re getting clean, refreshing water, but instead, you’re unknowingly sipping on tiny bits of plastic from the materials we interact with daily. In a way, you quite literally become what you drink, plastic! This growing issue has sparked critical conversations about how we manage our plastic use and maintain the purity of our water supply.
Hypothesis
My partner and I initially aimed to investigate whether the age of buildings and the type of pipes used on campus influence the levels of microplastics in drinking fountain water. Initially, we hypothesized that older buildings with metal pipes would have fewer microplastics in their water, while newer buildings with plastic pipes would have more.
Our reasoning was that older buildings likely have metal pipes, which wouldn’t contribute microplastics to the water. On the other hand, we thought that newer buildings with plastic pipes might release microplastics over time as these pipes age and degrade. This assumption was based on the idea that plastic pipes could leach tiny plastic particles into the water, potentially impacting its quality.
By testing this hypothesis, we aimed to uncover whether the infrastructure of campus buildings plays a significant role in the presence of microplastics in drinking water.
How We Tested
Our investigation began by collecting water samples from various drinking fountains across our college campus using 1-liter glass bottles. We analyzed two distinct types of fountains: Elkay EZH2O Filtered Wall-Mounted Bottle Filling Stations with filter status indicators and standard metal drinking fountains without filtration systems.
Once we collected the water samples, we used vacuum filtration to isolate particles from the water. To identify and analyze potential microplastics, we employed Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX). This imaging technique allowed us to closely examine the particles’ structure and composition to determine whether they were indeed microplastics.
To ensure our method’s accuracy and reliability, we validated our findings by creating a spiked sample. This control involved mixing polyethylene plastic particles with blank, sand and sediment samples, confirming that the SEM/EDX correctly identified microplastics. This verification step gave us confidence in the precision of our methodology and the integrity of our results.
Not What We Expected
When I initially reviewed the data, I was perplexed. There was no apparent correlation between building age and the concentrations of microplastics (MPs) found in the drinking water, despite our initial hypothesis. We had expected older buildings, often equipped with metal piping, to have lower microplastic contamination, while newer buildings with plastic piping would exhibit higher levels. However, the data showed no such relationship.
Rather than simply rejecting our hypothesis and moving on, I decided to delve deeper into the data. Late at night, as I reviewed photos of the water fountains where the samples were collected, a critical detail caught my attention. On several fountains, I noticed the filter status displays were red, indicating that the filters were overdue for replacement. These included fountains in the Nursing school building and the Engineering building- locations that, coincidentally, had the highest levels of microplastics, with the Nursing school building showing the most contamination.
This observation raised a crucial question: could filter maintenance be a key factor in microplastic levels? To explore this idea further, I examined data from other locations. At Saints Hall and the Shiley Center for Science and Technology (SCST), I discovered another pattern: these fountains lacked filters entirely. Unsurprisingly, these locations also had high concentrations of microplastics.
In contrast, locations like Camino Hall and the Knauss School of Business, where the filter indicators were green (implying properly maintained filters), had the lowest levels of microplastics in their water samples. This consistency across multiple buildings suggested a clear relationship between filter condition and microplastic contamination levels.
This realization marked a turning point in our analysis. The lack of correlation between building age and microplastic concentrations made sense when considering that the functionality and presence of water filters played a much larger role in determining water quality. Our data indicated that properly maintained filters significantly reduced microplastic contamination, while outdated or absent filters allowed microplastics to persist at high levels.
Graph of average microplastic concentrations (MPs) detected in 1-liter samples of drinking water from various fountains. The x-axis represents the sampling locations, color-coded to indicate filter status or fountain type: red for filters that need replacement and green for clean filters. Additionally, distinctions are made between Elkay filtered bottle filling stations and standard metal fountains without filters. The data highlight significant variations in microplastic levels depending on filter condition and fountain type.
Why This Matters
So, what does this mean? It turns out that the condition of the fountain’s filter plays the most significant role in reducing microplastic contamination in our drinking water—not the age of the building nor the type of pipes used. This finding underscores the importance of regular filter maintenance. If we want cleaner, safer water, ensuring that the filters in drinking fountains are replaced and maintained on schedule is essential.
This realization serves as a powerful reminder of how much we depend on filtration systems to safeguard the quality of our water. It highlights the critical role these systems play in protecting public health. Moreover, this insight not only clarified the patterns we observed in our study but also pointed to a practical, actionable solution: monitoring and maintaining water fountain filters is key to reducing microplastic contamination.
What’s Next?
While our study provided valuable insights into the presence of microplastics in drinking water, it also raised numerous questions that remain unanswered. One significant area of concern is the impact of inhaling and consuming microplastics on human health. Although some research suggests that microplastics may cause inflammation, oxidative stress, or other health issues, the long-term effects remain largely unknown. Are these tiny plastic particles accumulating in our bodies over time? If so, what are the potential consequences for organ function or overall health?
Another critical gap in knowledge is how to safely and effectively remove microplastics from water and food sources. While our study highlighted the importance of maintaining water filtration systems, it also underscored the limitations of current technology. Not all microplastics can be filtered out, especially the smallest particles. What advancements in filtration or purification methods might be necessary to address this issue on a larger scale? Can new materials or technologies offer better solutions for homes, campuses, and municipal water systems?
Beyond filtration, questions about the sources and pathways of microplastics persist. Understanding how these particles enter our water, food, and air is vital for developing preventive measures. Could changes in manufacturing processes or stricter regulations on plastic use reduce the prevalence of microplastics in the environment?
These unanswered questions highlight the urgent need for further research. As microplastics are an emerging contaminant, it is vital to expand our understanding of their health impacts and explore innovative solutions to mitigate their presence.
Visuals
Microplastic found in Kansas Business school water sample.
Microplastic found in Nursing school water sample.
Microplastic found in Saints Hall l water sample.
Elkay drinking fountain with a green filter and a drinking fountain with a red filter display.