Raman-confirmed particles in pooled Italian retail-water samples packaged in PET, recycled PET, and returnable glass.
Source details
Isabella Gambino, Cosimino Malitesta, Francesco Bagordo, Tiziana Grassi, Alessandra Panico, Silvia Fraissinet, Antonella De Donno, Giuseppe Egidio De Benedetto. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2023.
Findings
Confirmed particles occurred across packaging types. PET was prominent in PET-packaged samples; polyethylene with additives dominated the other packaging groups, consistent with a possible closure contribution. Counts were lower than the separate process-tracing study, without demonstrating a general packaging ranking.
Scroll horizontally for methods and measurement limits.
| Reported result | Conditions | Size context | Original locator |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.09 ± 3.28 confirmed plastic particles/L | Pooled retail-water analytical samples from single-use PET bottles; polymer-specific control subtraction | Observed size bins <10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, >100 µm; predominant 20-100 µm; no nanoplastic claim | PDF p. 3 (printed 3393), Results and Figure 1 |
| 8.65 ± 5.39 confirmed plastic particles/L | Pooled retail-water analytical samples from returnable glass bottles; polymer-specific control subtraction | Observed size bins <10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, >100 µm; predominant 20-100 µm; no nanoplastic claim | PDF p. 3 (printed 3393), Results and Figure 1 |
Methods and scope
Water pooled into analytical samples by product and market; microscopy tracked particles across the whole filter, with Raman analysis of every detected particle. Control concentrations were subtracted by polymer identity. Laminar-flow processing, cotton clothing, cleaned glass/steel tools, and filtered rinse water were used. Reported means use standard deviations.
What this source can support
Direct product-water occurrence study with individual detected-particle chemistry and polymer-specific blank subtraction.
Pooling obscures bottle-level variability. Visible-particle selection and Raman acquisition still constrain the observed size range; >1 µm stated in comparison table is not a claim of complete capture of that range. Small selected market set. Recycled-PET mean differs between abstract (3.33) and results/table (3.31); no recycled-PET numerical claim is reproduced here. No causal manufacturing-source isolation or health endpoint.
Related evidence
Reported values and source locations
| Reported value | Measurement basis | Conditions and size context | Original document location |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.09 ± 3.28 confirmed plastic particles/L | Arithmetic mean ± SD of pooled analytical samples | Pooled retail-water analytical samples from single-use PET bottles; polymer-specific control subtraction Observed size bins <10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, >100 µm; predominant 20-100 µm; no nanoplastic claim | PDF p. 3 (printed 3393), Results and Figure 1 |
| 8.65 ± 5.39 confirmed plastic particles/L | Arithmetic mean ± SD of pooled analytical samples | Pooled retail-water analytical samples from returnable glass bottles; polymer-specific control subtraction Observed size bins <10, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, >100 µm; predominant 20-100 µm; no nanoplastic claim | PDF p. 3 (printed 3393), Results and Figure 1 |
Source provenance
Primary PDF SHA-256: e8627d56229c959e4958dfecb22f2df5321a9d2507c7b75b609518a0251089f1
The source record identifies the scope and limits of the primary-document review. Follow the DOI or official source link for the original document; this site does not redistribute the PDF.