Microplastic Quantification in Amsterdam’s Drinking Water Using Py-GC–MS

The widespread presence of microplastics (MPs) in fresh surface water has raised concerns about potential human exposure through drinking water sourced from these environments. While research pertaining to MP presence is advancing to understand the occurrence and fate of MPs in drinking water production systems, data based on mass concentration is scarce. To fill this knowledge gap, a multinational research study set out to provide a full-scale assessment of MPs in Amsterdam’s drinking water production system from source to tap, employing pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC–MS) for quantitative analysis for particles down to 0.7 µm. A paper based on this research was published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research (1).

The contamination of freshwater by MPs has been documented globally (2,3). Drinking water has been studied in recent years as a potential route of MP intake, with evidence that both bottled and tap water can contain MPs (4-8). Investigations of MPs in drinking water show a trend of increasing particle numbers and decreasing sizes, which, the researchers noted, underscores the influence of the analytical instruments’ detection size limits on reported MP levels (9,10).

Raw water from two freshwater sources (Lek Canal and Bethune Polder), treated water from two drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) (Leiduin and Weesperkarspel), and household tap water samples from the Amsterdam distribution area were used in the analysis. MPs ≥ 0.7 µm were identified and quantified using Py-GC-MS targeting six high production volume polymers: polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Average MP concentrations in raw water samples were 50.6 ± 34.7 µg/L (n = 14) and 47.5 ± 33.7 µg/L (n = 14), while treated water samples exhibited significantly lower levels of 0.80 ± 0.44 µg/L (n = 12) and 1.65 ± 2.19 µg/L (n = 14), demonstrating high removal efficiencies of 97-98%. polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyethylene terephthalate were the most abundant polymer types detected. Household tap water samples showed lower concentrations with an average of 0.21 ± 0.12 µg/L (n = 20) (1).

“This study,” the authors of the paper stated, “provides valuable insights into the occurrence of MPs in drinking water supply systems.” However, “the use of Py-GC–MS for MP analysis in water samples needs further research and application. Increasing the analyzed water volumes and expanding the target polymer list would enhance the reliability and comparability of the data. Furthermore, the application of complementary techniques alongside harmonized methodologies is essential to align findings from different studies and advance our understanding of microplastic contamination in drinking water systems.” (1)

“By providing valuable data on mass concentrations of MPs in the drinking water production network,” added the authors, “this study contributes to the growing knowledge essential for developing strategies to mitigate microplastic contamination in drinking water systems.” (1)

Read More on Similar Topics:

Microplastics in Wastewater and Sludge: Challenges in Sampling, Detection, and Standardization

Detecting Microplastics in Wastewater and Oceans: Advances and Challenges

Discovering the Hidden Plastic in Garden Compost with Pyr-GC–MS

References

1. Sefiloglu, F. Ö.; Brits, M.; van Velzen, M. J. M. et al. Microplastics in Drinking Water: Quantitative Analysis of Microplastics from Source to Tap by Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-025-37130-8
2. Albignac, M.; de Oliveira, T.; Landebrit, L. et al. Tandem Mass Spectrometry Enhances the Performances of Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for Microplastic Quantification. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2023, 172, 105993. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2023.105993
3. Sefiloglu, F. Ö.; Stratmann, C. N.; Brits, M. et al. Comparative Microplastic Analysis in Urban Waters using μ-FTIR and Py-GC-MS: A Case Study in Amsterdam. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 351, 124088. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124088
4. Kankanige, D.; Babel S. Smaller-Sized Micro-Plastics (MPs) Contamination in Single-Use PET-Bottled Water in Thailand. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 717, 137232. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137232
5. Li, H.; Zhu, L.; Ma, M. et al. Occurrence of Microplastics in Commercially Sold Bottled Water. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 867, 161553. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161553
6. Kirstein, I. V.; Hensel, F.; Gomiero, A. et al. Drinking Plastics? – Quantification and Qualification of Microplastics in Drinking Water Distribution Systems by µFTIR and Py-GCMS. Water Res. 2021, 188,116519. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116519
7. Shruti, V. C.; Kutralam-Muniasamy, G.; Pérez-Guevara, F. et al. Free, but Not Microplastic-Free, Drinking Water from Outdoor Refill Kiosks: A Challenge and a Wake-Up Call for Urban Management. Environ Pollut. 2022, 309, 119800. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119800
8. Sun, X.; Zhu, Y.; An, L. et al. Microplastic Transportation in a Typical Drinking Water Supply: From Raw Water to Household Water. Water (Basel) 2024, 16 (11),1567. DOI: 10.3390/w16111567
9. Koelmans, A. A.; Mohamed Nor, N. H.; Hermsen, E. et al. Microplastics in Freshwaters and Drinking Water: Critical Review and Assessment of Data Quality. Water Res. 2019, 155, 410–422. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.054
10. Dietary and Inhalation Exposure to Nano-and Microplastic Particles and Potential Implications for Human Health. World Health Organization, 2022.