Study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire shows residents’ reproductive outcomes near contaminated sites

Tom Perkins Mon 8 Dec 2025 15.00 ESTShare

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.

The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%.

It was also tied to an increase in extremely premature birth and extremely low-weight birth by 168% and 180%, respectively.

The findings caught authors by surprise, said Derek Lemoine, a study co-author and economics professor at the University of Arizona who focuses on environmental policymaking and pricing climate risks.

“I don’t know if we expected to find effects this big and this detectable, especially given that there isn’t that much infant mortality, and there aren’t that many extremely low weight or pre-term births,” Lemoine said. “But it was there in the data.”

The study also weighed the cost of societal harms in drinking contaminated water against up-front cleanup costs, and found it to be much cheaper to address Pfas water pollution.

Extrapolating the findings to the entire US population, the authors estimate a nearly $8bn negative annual economic impact just in increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. The cost of complying with current regulations for removing Pfas in drinking water is estimated at about $3.8bn.

“We are trying to put numbers on this and that’s important because when you want to clean up and regulate Pfas, there’s a real cost to it,” Lemoine said.

Pfas are a class of at least 16,000 compounds often used to help products resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate in the environment, and they are linked to serious health problems such as cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders and birth defects.

Pfas are widely used across the economy, and industrial sites that utilize them in high volume often pollute groundwater. Military bases and airports are among major sources of Pfas pollution because the chemicals are used in firefighting foam. The federal government estimated that about 95 million people across the country drink contaminated water from public or private wells.

Previous research has raised concern about the impact of Pfas exposure on fetuses and newborns.

Among those are toxicological studies in which researchers examine the chemicals’ impact on lab animals, but that leaves some question about whether humans experience the same harms, Lemoine said.

Other studies are correlative and look at the levels of Pfas in umbilical cord blood or in newborns in relation to levels of disease. Lemoine said those findings are not always conclusive, in part because many variables can contribute to reproductive harm.

The new natural study is unique because it gets close to “isolating the effect of the Pfas itself, and not anything around it”, Lemoine said.

Researchers achieved this by identifying 41 New Hampshire sites contaminated with Pfoa and Pfos, two common Pfas compounds, then using topography data to determine groundwater flow direction. The authors then examined reproductive outcomes among residents down gradient from the sites.

Researchers chose New Hampshire because it is the only state where Pfas and reproductive data is available, Lemoine said. Well locations are confidential, so mothers were unaware of whether their water source was down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site. That created a randomization that allows for causal inference, the authors noted.

The study’s methodology is rigorous and unique, and underscores “that Pfas is no joke, and is toxic at very low concentrations”, said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst with the Environmental Working Group non-profit. The group studies Pfas exposures and advocates for tighter regulations.

The study is in part effective because mothers did not know whether they were exposed, which created the randomization, Evans said, but she noted that the state has the information. The findings raise questions about whether the state should be doing a similar analysis and alerting mothers who are at risk, Evans said.

Lemoine said the study had some limitations, including that authors don’t know the mothers’ exact exposure levels to Pfas, nor does the research account for other contaminants that may be in the water. But he added that the findings still give a strong picture of the chemicals’ effects.

Granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis systems can be used by water treatment plants and consumers at home to remove many kinds of Pfas, and those systems also remove other contaminants.

The Biden administration last year put in place limits in drinking water for six types of Pfas, and gave water utilities several years to install systems.

The Trump administration is moving to undo the limits for some compounds. That would probably cost the public more in the long run. Utility customers pay the cost of removing Pfas, but the public “also pays the cost of drinking contaminated water, which is bigger”, Lemoine said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/08/drinking-water-pfas-infant-mortality-study?

SHARE

New study of PFAS forever chemicals highlights need to reduce contamination in drinking wate

Why this matters:

• This study is the first to assess PFAS exposure in a community affected by contamination from a paper mill landfill, an often-overlooked source. Elevated levels of PFAS were found in both drinking water and residents’ blood, with higher levels in those who consumed more contaminated municipal water.
• Long-term exposure to PFAS-contaminated drinking water was identified as a primary predictor of elevated serum levels, consistent with previous studies in other communities affected by PFAS contamination from different sources.
• Even three years after switching to clean water, PFAS levels in blood remained elevated, demonstrating the long-lasting presence of these chemicals in the human body.
• These findings underscore the importance of identifying and monitoring lesser-known sources of PFAS contamination. The data provided by this study are crucial for supporting future efforts to reduce exposure, evaluate health risks and guide intervention strategies.

A new study involving researchers from Michigan State University has revealed concerning findings on the long-term impact of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance, or PFAS, exposure in communities affected by industrial contamination in drinking water sourced near an abandoned paper mill landfill.

The study, “Elevated per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in tap water and serum in a community near an abandoned paper mill,” is the first biomonitoring study to assess PFAS exposure from contamination linked to a paper mill landfill. It highlights a potentially overlooked source of PFAS contamination and provides useful insights into the persistence of these harmful chemicals in the environment and the human body.

PFAS, widely used for their water- and fire-resistant properties, are manufactured chemicals in many consumer products, including specialty clothing and carpets, nonstick cookware, electronics and food packaging. Many of these chemicals are highly mobile, allowing them to easily migrate through soil, air, plants, surface and groundwater. They break down very slowly and build up in humans, animals and the environment over time, posing severe risks to human and environmental health.

Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOS, have been detected in the blood of most Americans, with the highest levels among people who are occupationally exposed and those who have contaminated drinking water.

Courtney Carignan, an assistant professor in the MSU Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and lead for the Michigan study cohort, emphasized the urgency of addressing PFAS exposure in drinking water.

---

 

In partnership with the federal government, Spartan researchers drive lifesaving breakthroughs and address society’s most pressing challenges.Learn More

---

“We hope this work raises awareness about potential sources and pathways of PFAS in drinking water, which can be an important source of exposure,” said Carignan. “I think we can feel good as Michiganders that our state has tested all public drinking water supplies, but most states have done less testing, and people with private wells have to do their own.”

The study focused on a city in southwest Michigan, where the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team first identified contamination in drinking water in 2018. Michigan’s proactive stance has positioned it among the few states in the U.S. to set maximum contaminant levels for PFAS, with the U.S. EPA following suit with national standards.

The study found elevated PFOA, PFOS and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, or PFHxS, in residents’ drinking water and blood in a community affected by contamination from a nearby paper mill landfill. The mill, which operated from 1909 to 2000, had disposed of waste containing PFAS in a landfill, causing elevated contamination in the surrounding groundwater.

Participants who had consumed the contaminated water were divided into two groups: those exposed to the more highly contaminated municipal water and those with lower levels in their private wells. Blood and water samples were collected to measure PFAS levels and assess long-term exposure.

The water source was found to be the strongest predictor of PFAS levels in blood, which increased for every additional year of drinking the water. Additionally, women in the low-exposure group had lower PFOS and PFHxS levels than men, likely attributable to biological factors such as menstruation, childbirth and breastfeeding.

Chris Higgins, an environmental chemist at the Colorado School of Mines and the project’s principal investigator, emphasized that the study focused on an often-overlooked community. He noted that most PFAS exposure studies have focused on communities near fluorochemical manufacturers or military sites that used aqueous film-forming foam.

“This study helps fill an important gap in our understanding of how the use of PFASs by other industries is impacting nearby communities,” said Higgins.

Looking forward

The findings provide a baseline for assessing the toxicological effects of PFAS and evaluating the effectiveness of intervention strategies. The study’s authors, including Heather Stapleton, the Ronie-Richele Garcia-Johnson Distinguished Professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and co-author of the study, emphasize that ongoing biomonitoring and further research are needed to track the long-term effects of PFAS exposure, quantify potential health risks and develop strategies for effective interventions.

“This research highlights how vulnerable our drinking water systems can be to contamination from old paper mills or landfills,” Stapleton said. “Likely, this city is not alone. Other cities or regions could be just as vulnerable. This work underscores the importance of routine monitoring for contaminants in our drinking water.”

This work was supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities Program.

Learn More and Take Action

Sources of PFAS: Check this map of presumptive PFAS contamination and recent paper to understand more about possible sources of PFAS in your community. This figure shows the many ways we come into contact with PFAS.

Workplace: Check whether your job involves products that contain PFAS and take steps to limit exposure. This can be done by assuring use of PFAS free products, use of PPE, ventilation, etc. Check out this Slick New Guide to Avoiding PFAS in Products and this useful resource for the fire service.

Drinking Water: Private well owners are responsible for their own testing and some public drinking water systems have been tested for PFAS.

•       To check if your water has been tested see guidance from the U.S. EPA along with maps and resources from the PFAS Exchange. Some states like Michigan have tested all public water systems and provide results in an interactive map.
•       Compare detection limits and any reported levels to maximum contaminant levels from the U.S. EPA and your state.
•       If needed, filter your drinking water with an activated carbon or reverse osmosis filtration system.

Food:

•       Most paper food packaging should no longer contain PFAS. However, it is precautious to avoid microwave popcorn until the replacement is disclosed and known to be safe.
•       Fish and wildlife can accumulate PFAS in their meat from the environment (water, feed). Some states, like Michigan, have been testing. Some states have consumption advisories (see Figure 1) and national results based on data from EPA can be viewed on an interactive map.  
•       Livestock and crops can also accumulate PFAS from water, soil and feed. Maine and some other states have been testing and taking action on PFAS in agriculture. While most foods do not have elevated PFAS it is important to assure food safety and support for farmers.

Products: Some types of PFAS have been phased out of use but replaced with other types of PFAS. Scientists have recommended not using PFAS in products where they are not essential or where safer alternatives exist. In the meantime, consumers can take precautions such as:

•       Avoid stain- and waterproofing sprays on upholstery and fabrics. Check out this Slick New Guide to Avoiding PFAS in Products.
•       Avoid products with the ingredient PTFE or other “fluoro” ingredients listed on the label.
•       Choose cookware made of cast iron, stainless steel, glass, or enamel as non-stick cookware, also known as Teflon, is made with PTFE. 
•       Choose nylon or silk dental floss that is uncoated or coated in natural wax, as gliding floss is made with PTFE.

Clinicians: Learn about PFAS by reviewing this guidance from the National Academies, clinician resources on the PFAS Exchange, the PFAS Toolkit from ANHE, and taking this free CME.

Local Action:

•       Ask your state legislators to set up a program to help private well owners test for PFAS. This is especially important to prevent exposure for pregnant women, infants and children.
•       Join or start a local group that works to protect water quality.
•       Ask your elected officials to support policies for addressing PFAS and strengthen the chemical regulatory process.

For generations, Spartans have been changing the world through research. Federal funding helps power many of the discoveries that improve lives and keep America at the forefront of innovation and competitiveness. From lifesaving cancer treatments to solutions that advance technology, agriculture, energy and more, MSU researchers work every day to shape a better future for the people of Michigan and beyond. Learn more about MSU’s research impact powered by partnership with the federal government. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2025/05/new-study-of-pfas-forever-chemicals-highlights-need-to-reduce-contamination-in-drinking-water?

Study shows health benefits of tackling arsenic, chromium-6 and other pollutants at once

WASHINGTON – Drinking water treatment that pursues a multi-contaminant approach, tackling several pollutants at once, could prevent more than 50,000 lifetime cancer cases in the U.S., finds a new peer-reviewed study by the Environmental Working Group.

The finding challenges the merits of regulating one tap water contaminant at a time, the long-standing practice of states and the federal government. 

In the paper, published in the journal Environmental Research, EWG scientists analyzed more than a decade of data from over 17,000 community water systems. They found that two cancer-causing chemicals – arsenic and hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6 – often appear together in systems and can be treated using the same technologies. 

If water systems with chromium-6 contamination also reduce arsenic levels to a range from 27% to 42%, it could avoid up to quadruple the number of cancer cases compared to just lowering chromium-6 levels alone, the study finds. 

Treatment of drinking water for one contaminant, such as nitrate, has advantages for public health. But tackling multiple contaminants at once increases the health benefits. And those benefits can expand along with the number of pollutants treated at the same time. 

 “Drinking water is contaminated mostly in mixtures, but our regulatory system still acts like they appear one at a time,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., a senior scientist at EWG and lead author of the study. “This research shows that treating multiple contaminants together could prevent tens of thousands of cancer cases.”

Chromium-6 and arsenic are commonly found in drinking water across the U.S. Chromium-6 has been found in drinking water served to 264 million Americans. 

“Addressing co-occurring contaminants is scientifically the most sound approach, as well as an efficient way to protect public health,” added Stoiber.

In California alone, nearly eight out of 10 preventable cancer cases are linked to arsenic exposure.

Arizona, California and Texas bear the highest burden of arsenic pollution and would gain the most from multi-contaminant water treatment efforts.

Health risks of water contaminants

Toxic chemicals like chromium-6, arsenic and nitrate pose the greatest risks to children, pregnant people and those living in smaller communities served by water systems relying on groundwater. Systems serving these populations often rely on only one water source and the smaller communities lack the resources to demand better treatment, despite facing the most serious health harms.

Chromium-6 

This cancer-causing chemical made infamous by the film “Erin Brockovich” is linked to serious health risks. Studies show even low levels in drinking water can increase the risk of stomach cancer, liver damage and reproductive harm. 

In 2008, the National Toxicology Program found much higher rates of stomach and intestinal tumors in lab animals exposed to chromium-6 in water. California researchers later confirmed a higher risk of stomach cancer in workers who had been exposed.

The Environmental Protection Agency does not limit the amount of chromium-6 in drinking water. It does regulate total chromium, which includes chromium-6 and the mostly harmless chromium-3. Total chromium is set at 100 parts per billion, or ppb, for drinking water.

Arsenic

Arsenic is found in drinking water in all 50 states. It occurs in natural deposits and as a result of human activities such as mining and pesticide use. Long-term exposure is linked to serious health issues, including bladder, lung and skin cancers, as well as cardiovascular and developmental harm.

The legal federal limit for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb, set in 2001 based on outdated cost estimates for treatment, not on what’s safest for health. California’s public health goal is just 0.004 ppb, the level scientists say would pose no significant cancer risk over a lifetime.

Arsenic can also contaminate certain foods, especially rice and rice-based products, making clean water standards all the more important for reducing overall exposure.

Nitrate 

Nitrate is one of the most common drinking water contaminants, especially downstream from agricultural areas where it enters water supplies through fertilizer and manure runoff. It’s also found in private wells, often near farms or septic systems.

Exposure to nitrate in drinking water is linked to serious health risks, including colorectal and ovarian cancer, very preterm birth, low birth weight, and neural tube defects. 

The EPA set the nitrate limit at 10 parts per million in 1992 to prevent “blue baby syndrome.” But it hasn’t updated the standard in over 30 years. New research shows cancer and birth-related harms can occur at levels far below the legal limit. European studies have found increased cancer risks at nitrate levels more than 10 times lower than the EPA limit.

“Ensuring clean drinking water for all communities is about fairness and equity,” said Sydney Evans, MPH, EWG senior science analyst and a co-author of the new study. 

“Communities in the U.S. that rely on groundwater are often affected by these contaminants. New water treatment technologies offer a chance to improve water quality overall. This strengthens the case for action and investment.”

Call for smarter water rules

Federal regulations still evaluate the cost and benefit of water treatment on a one-contaminant basis, a model EWG’s report calls outdated and inefficient. 

Small and rural water systems often face the steepest per-person costs to implement new treatment technologies. But they’re among the most exposed to pollutants and associated risks.

These systems frequently lack the funding and technical support to upgrade aging infrastructure, leaving residents exposed to serious health threats. This level of vulnerability calls for new strategies for these communities – a  boost in funding coupled with more effective regulations.

For example, nitrate, often found alongside chromium-6 in drinking water, represents a major but overlooked opportunity for health protection.

“Nitrate pollution is a public health crisis, particularly in the Midwest but also across the country,” said Anne Schechinger, EWG’s Midwest director. “The federal nitrate limit was set decades ago to prevent infant deaths, but we now know see cancer and birth complications at levels of nitrate far below that outdated standard.

“Even lowering nitrate slightly could prevent hundreds of cancer cases and save tens of millions of dollars in health care costs, especially when paired with treatment for other contaminants, such as chromium-6 and arsenic,” she said. “There’s a real cost to inaction – our health and our wallets can’t afford to wait for better treatment.”

Proven technologies like ion exchange and reverse osmosis, already used today, can remove nitrate, chromium-6 and arsenic from drinking water at the same time. 

“This is about more than clean water – it’s about protecting health and advancing equity,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., acting chief science officer at EWG. “We have the engineering solutions to fix the broken drinking water system in the U.S., but we need state and federal policies to reflect the reality people face when they turn on the tap.”

Consumers concerned about chemicals in their tap water can install a water filter to help reduce their exposure to contaminants. The home filter system that’s most effective for removing chromium-6, arsenic and nitrate from water is reverse osmosis. Ion exchange technology is another option for reducing levels of these contaminants.

EWG’s water filter guide contains more information about available options. It is crucial to change water filters on time. Old filters aren’t safe, since they harbor bacteria and let contaminants through.

People can also search EWG’s national Tap Water Database to learn which contaminants are detected in their tap water.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2025/07/ewg-reducing-multiple-tap-water-contaminants-may-prevent-over?

Issue 617: A study of bacteria on microplastics in nine European rivers shows salinity to serve as a barrier stopping serious pathogens travelling large distances on plastic debris. 

Microplastics are a growing global concern, with much research looking at their transport in the environment and potential effects on ecosystems and human health. One aspect of plastic waste which may have health implications is the presence of biofilms – a layer of microorganisms which collect on their surface. When plastics end up in water bodies they can be transported over large distances, taking their ‘plastisphere’ community of microbes with them.  

Despite such concerns, there remain research gaps around how this microbial community changes with environmental stressors, as it moves through freshwater to the sea, and the extent to which pathogens potentially harmful to human and animal health are harboured on water-borne plastic.  

French researchers embarked on a seven-month mission on a boat traversing nine major European rivers, including the Seine and the Rhine, from the sea to a point upstream of the first heavily populated city on each river. They sampled water at four or five points along a salinity gradient on the rivers, then sub-sampled to analyse nutrients, particulate matter and bacterial diversity. They also collected microplastics using a special mesh trawl, analysing these to identify the species present in the plastisphere, their virulence and ability to form biofilms.  

To explore the bacterial colonisation of microplastics in the same waters, a month prior to the arrival of the boat, a land-based group placed pristine polyethylene, polyoxymethylene and nylon mesh in secured cylindrical cage structures, which the scientists on the boat then collected a month later.  

The team extracted all microplastics in the study using alcohol and flame-sterilised forceps before immediately freezing them in liquid nitrogen until DNA extraction, to avoid the risk of contamination. They carried out DNA sequencing of all the bacteria sampled and used an infrared spectrometer to analyse the composition of the sorted microplastics they recovered. They looked at bacterial communities in each river separately, paying particular attention to the colonisation of potentially harmful species such as those that may cause toxic algal blooms, illness in humans, and fungi.  

From their analyses, the scientists found that bacterial communities on microplastics were highly distinct when compared to free-living bacteria and those attached to organic particles in surrounding waters.  

Crucially, their data also uncovered distinct communities on microplastics in freshwater and the sea, with estuaries differing from both. Marine microplastics harboured significantly lower richness, evenness and diversity in their bacterial communities than those from rivers. They identified the potential pathogen genera Aeromonas, Acidovorax, Arcobacter and Prevotella in freshwater samples, but not in the sea; while Vibrio¹ was the dominant pathogen in the sea. They found no pathogen transfer between the two.  

This evidence highlighted what the scientists described as a “strong selective pressure exerted between freshwater and marine environments,” representing a limit to the dispersal of microorganisms from freshwaters to the sea as part of the plastisphere.  

The potential risks of bacteria travelling on microplastics was underlined by the team recording the pathogen Shewanella putrefaciens on microplastics for the first time, exclusively in river water. Although rare, S. putrefaciens can infect humans, causing intestinal, skin and soft tissue disease. However, the salinity barrier identified in the study suggests that the chance of such pathogens travelling from rivers to the sea is low.  

The approaches used in the study recovered microplastics which would be typically expected in the watercourses, with polyethylene the dominant component, accounting for 45% of what was found and polypropylene the second most recovered, at 12%. The researchers found the chemical composition of polymers did not significantly affect the plastisphere community, although previous work has suggested a link². The researchers suggesed this may be due to those studies looking at long-term colonisation, rather than sampling directly from the environment.  

The problem of microplastics as an additional habitat and vector for pathogen transfer is a global issue of note. The European Union is tackling plastic and microplastic pollution in various environmental, chemical and sectoral policies, including the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards synthetic polymer microparticles, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The latter’s jurisdiction over surface waters, both inland and in transitional zones, means that the new work provides relevant knowledge on biofilms and their potential risks. 

The study fills knowledge gaps in the so far limited and fragmented research on microbial communities on microplastics, considering various spatial locations. Additional research looking beyond bacteria, at groups such as viruses and single-celled organisms, as well as explorations of tide-dependent changes, would help further inform future policy addressing plastic pollution, water quality and health.  

Notes 

1. This salt-water tolerant genus includes the species Vibrio cholerae – which causes cholera – and V. parahaemolyticus – which may cause gastroenteritis. 

2. For example: Pinto M, Langer TM, Hüffer T, Hofmann T, Herndl GJ. (2019) The composition of bacterial communities associated with plastic biofilms differs between different polymers and stages of biofilm succession. PLoS ONE 14(6): e0217165. 

Reference: 

Philip, L., Chapron, L., Barbe, V., Burgaud, G., Calvès, I., Paul-Pont, I., Thiébeauld, O., Sperandio, B., Navarro, L., Ter Halle, A., Eyheraguibel, B., Ludwig, W., Palazot, M., Kedzierski, M., Meistertzheim, A.-L. and Ghiglione, J.-F. (2024). A Pan-European study of the bacterial plastisphere diversity along river-to-sea continuums. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, pp.1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35658-9 

To cite this article/service: 

“Science for Environment Policy”: European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service, edited by the Science Communication Unit, The University of the West of England, Bristol. 

Notes on content: 

The contents and views included in Science for Environment Policy are based on independent, peer reviewed research and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission. Please note that this article is a summary of only one study. Other studies may come to other conclusions. 

Details

Publication date

24 April 2025AuthorDirectorate-General for Environment

Contacts

Jean-François Ghiglione

Name

Jean-François GhiglioneEmail

ghiglione@obs-banyuls.fr

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/water-salinity-cuts-risk-harmful-bacteria-riding-microplastics-freshwater-sea-2025-04-24_en?

Wastewater treatment plants are still not effectively removing dangerous microplastics

Date:April 21, 2025

Source:University of Texas at Arlington

Summary:Despite advances in wastewater treatment, tiny plastic particles called microplastics are still slipping through, posing potential health and environmental hazards, according to new research.Share:

    

FULL STORY

---

Despite advances in wastewater treatment, tiny plastic particles called microplastics are still slipping through, posing potential health and environmental hazards, according to new research from The University of Texas at Arlington.

Because plastic is inexpensive to produce yet lightweight and sturdy, manufacturers have found it ideal for use in nearly every consumer good, from food and beverage packaging to clothing and beauty products. The downside is that when a plastic item reaches the end of its useful life, it never truly disappears. Instead, it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics — particles five millimeters or less, about the width of a pencil eraser — that end up in our soil and water.

“What our systematic literature review found is that while most wastewater treatment facilities significantly reduce microplastics loads, complete removal remains unattainable with current technologies,” said Un-Jung Kim, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at UT Arlington and senior author of the study published in Science of the Total Environment.

“As a result, many microplastics are being reintroduced into the environment, likely transporting other residual harmful pollutants in wastewater, such the chemicals Bisphenols, PFAS and antibiotics,” Dr. Kim added. “These microplastics and organic pollutants would exist in trace level, but we can get exposure through simple actions like drinking water, doing laundry or watering plants, leading to potential long-term serious human health impacts such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.”

According to the study, one of the main challenges in detecting and mitigating microplastics is the lack of standardized testing methods. The researchers also call for a unified approach to define what size particle qualifies as a microplastic.

“We found that the effectiveness of treatments varies depending on the technology communities use and how microplastics are measured to calculate the removal rates,” said the study’s lead author, Jenny Kim Nguyen. “One way to better address the growing microplastics issue is to develop standardized testing methods that provide a clearer understanding of the issue.”

Nguyen began this research as an undergraduate student in Kim’s Environmental Chemistry Lab. She is now pursuing a master’s degree in earth and environmental sciences at UTA, where she is working to develop standardized experimental protocols for studying microplastics in air and water.

“This work helps us understand the current microplastics problem, so we can address its long-term health impacts and establish better mitigation efforts,” said Karthikraj Rajendiran, a co-author of the study and assistant professor of research from UTA’s Bone Muscle Research Center within the College of Nursing and Health Innovations.

The team also emphasizes the need for greater public awareness of microplastics to help consumers make more eco-friendly choices.

“While communities must take steps to improve microplastic detection and screening at the wastewater and water quality monitoring, consumers can already make a difference by choosing to buy clothing and textiles with less plastics whenever feasible, knowing that microfibers are the most common microplastic continually released through wastewater,” Kim added.

Funding for the project was provided by UTA’s Research Enhancement Program, which supports multidisciplinary researchers in launching new projects

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/04/250421162936.htm?

Wastewater treatment plants are not effectively removing this tiny pollutant, study shows

Thursday, Jun 05, 2025 • Katherine Egan Bennett : Contact

By Un-Jung Kim, Karthikraj Rajendiran and Jenny Kim Nguyen for the The Dallas Morning News

The potential health and environmental hazards from microplastics filtered into our drinking water is real. Microplastics are tiny solid plastic particles, less than 5 millimeters in size, that result from the breakdown of larger plastics or are directly found in some of the consumer products.

Our recently published research in the peer-reviewed journal Science of the Total Environment systematically reviewed over 120 research articles from the past 10 years on microplastics in wastewater treatment plants.

These articles were selected based on specific criteria, allowing for an in-depth analysis of the occurrence, removal rates and behaviors of microplastic fibers and beads in wastewater and water environments. Our study gives the latest information on where microplastics are found, what happens to them, how they affect health and current regulations. It also includes details about their size and shape, specifically microfibers and microbeads found in wastewater.

The study highlights that while most wastewater treatment facilities significantly reduce inflowing microplastics loads, complete removal remains impossible with current technologies.

Microfibers, primarily shed from synthetic textiles like polyester, dominate wastewater streams. Microbeads, even though there are fewer of them now because of bans, still cause pollution because they release harmful chemicals like plastic softeners and fire-resistant additives.

As a result, many microplastics are being reintroduced to the environment, likely transporting other residual harmful pollutants in wastewater, including chemicals, pesticides and antibiotics.

Right now, the release of microplastics from wastewater treatment facilities is inevitable. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the exposure risks to not only microplastics but the relevant organic chemical pollutants that can be released from or absorbed on the microplastics and transported along with the microplastics from wastewater treatment plants into receiving environmental water systems.

Many of the chemicals that stick to microplastics can mess with hormones and be harmful even in tiny amounts. If microplastics and these chemicals keep getting released into the environment, they could cause serious long-term health problems for people, like increasing the risk of heart disease and cancer.

Despite advancements in wastewater treatment technologies to keep harmful pollutants out of water sources, findings from our study urge us to address the growing microplastics issue in water and other environmental media by developing standardized testing methods to help understand the issue.

We hope our findings bring better understanding of microplastics and their dangers so we can improve our risk management and mitigation efforts.

Bringing attention to this complex pollutant that is continuously released in wastewater and other pathways demands more research. Microplastics can harm the environment and build up in our bodies through things like drinking water and the food we eat.

Un-Jung Kim is an assistant professor in the Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Texas at Arlington. Karthikraj Rajendiran is an assistant professor of research in the Kinesiology and Bone Muscle Research Center at UTA. Jenny Kim Nguyen is a graduate student in the Earth and Environmental Sciences at UTA. The opinions expressed in this column are the views of the authors, not of UTA.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2025/06/05/ut-arlington-researchers-microplastics-are-infiltrating-our-drinking-water?

Douglas Main

A newly released trove of data reveals widespread pollution of US tap water with more than 320 chemical contaminants, including industrial chemicals and farm-related pollutants.

The latest information is part of a tap water database, created by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and incorporates information from nearly 50,000 water systems collected between 2021 and 2023.

Though few chemicals were found exceeding the federal government’s legally mandated maximum contaminant level (or MCL), almost all US water systems nation-wide contained at least one contaminant at levels that surpassed the health guidelines developed by EWG that are based on scientific research of the harms associated with the various contaminants.

“This is a wake-up call,” Tasha Stoiber, an EWG senior scientist, said in a statement. “Outdated federal regulations continue to leave millions of people at risk of exposure to harmful substances.”

Among the chemicals commonly detected were per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as forever chemicals, which were found in the water of at least 143 million Americans. Nitrates, found in agricultural runoff and linked to colorectal cancer and thyroid disease, were also commonly detected as well as disinfection byproducts caused by using chlorine.

Many of these disinfection byproducts — including chemicals called trihalomethanes, chloroform, haloacetic acids, and more — showed up in tens of thousands of water systems at concentrations far above what many health scientists consider safe.

Heavy metals, especially arsenic, were also frequently detected, as were some volatile organic compounds such as trichloroethylene (TCE). Hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, was found in the water of 250 million people, according to EWG. This substance was infamously released in wastewater by Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Hinkley, California, in the 50s and 60s, eventually leading to a class action lawsuit initiated by Erin Brockovich.

Many of these chemicals are likely carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, according to EWG.

Legal limits for most of these substances have not been revisited in many decades, Stoiber said. For some, such as hexavalent chromium, there are no binding legal limits.

But “legal” doesn’t mean safe, the researchers behind the database stressed. A 2019 study by scientists with the group concluded that “over 100,000 lifetime cancer cases could be due to carcinogenic chemicals in tap water.” A historic exception are new limits for six PFAS chemicals, which came into force in April 2024.

The database includes information on agricultural chemicals such as the herbicide atrazine, a widespread water contaminant banned in the European Union, which is in the process of being reviewed for re-registration by the US EPA. The database revealed atrazine in concentrations above the recommended health limit in 479 systems that serve 3 million people.

The EPA has proposed a new framework for mitigating the impact of atrazine, while also raising the proposed allowable level in streams and lakes. The public can comment on the EPA’s proposal before April 4.

The database also notes whether water systems contain fluoride, which is widely added to the water to prevent cavities. Some recent studies cast doubt on the efficacy and safety of this practice. Utah just passed a bill to ban water fluoridation, which will go into force if and when the governor signs the legislation. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kenndy Jr. has previously stated he opposes the practice based on the risk it poses to children’s neurodevelopment.

There’s reason to worry that water quality regulations are not likely to improve any time soon at the federal level, advocates say, with the Trump Administration focused on reducing rules general, firing hundreds of scientists, and appointing industry-friendly people to prominent posts.

For example, Lynn Dekleva, a former lobbyist at the American Chemistry Council, an industry group that spends millions of dollars on government lobbying, was just appointed to run the EPA office in charge of approving new chemicals.

Worried by potential back-tracking on laws meant to protect water quality, California and other states have introduced legislation to set new regulations that would mirror the Biden Administration’s PFAS limits.

Water quality varies widely based on location, and generally larger water systems have more resources for removing contaminants and addressing problems when they arise.

“It’s fundamentally your right to know what’s in your drinking water,” Stoiber said. “Nobody voted to have contaminants in drinking water.”

(Featured image by Jacek Dylag via Unsplash.)

Author

• Douglas MainDouglas Main is a journalist, writer, and editor.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

New data show widespread chemical contamination of drinking water

Source:University of South Australia

Summary:Water scientists have proposed a more effective method of removing organic pesticides from drinking water, reducing the risk of contamination and potential health problems.Share:

    

FULL STORY

---

Water scientists from Australia and China have proposed a more effective method of removing organic pesticides from drinking water, reducing the risk of contamination and potential health problems.

A 62% rise in global pesticide use in the past 20 years has escalated fears that many of these chemicals could end up in our waterways, causing cancer.

Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is currently used to remove organic pesticides from drinking water, but the process is costly, time consuming and not 100% effective.

University of South Australia water researcher Professor Jinming Duan has collaborated with his former PhD student, Dr Wei Li of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology and Chinese colleagues in a series of experiments to improve the process.

The researchers found that reducing the PAC particles from the existing commercial size of 38 μm (one millionth of a metre) to 6 μm, up to 75% less powder was needed to remove six common pesticides, achieving significant water treatment savings.

At 6 μm, the PAC particles are still large enough to be filtered out after the adsorption process, ensuring they do not end up in the drinking water after toxic pesticides are removed.

Prof Duan says pollutants in our waterways are projected to increase in coming decades as the world’s population and industrial development grows.

“It’s therefore critical that we develop cost-effective treatment processes to ensure our waterways remain safe,” he says.

Their findings have been published in the journal Chemosphere.

“Pesticides cannot be removed using conventional water treatment processes such as flocculation, sedimentation and filtration. Powdered activated carbon does the job, but the existing methods have limitations. Our study has identified how we can make this process more efficient.”

Approximately 3.54 million metric tons of pesticides were applied to agricultural crops worldwide in 2021, according to the Statista Research Department.

Worryingly, despite efforts to increase their efficiency, it is estimated that only 10% of pesticides reach their target pests, with most of the chemicals remaining on plant surfaces or entering the environment, including the soil, waterways and atmosphere.

Toxicological studies have suggested that long-term exposure to low levels of pesticides — primarily through diet or drinking water — could increase the risks of cancer and other diseases.

“This is why it is important to reduce their levels to as low as feasibly possible,” Prof Duan says.

The researchers also hope to explore how super-fine activated carbon could be used to remove toxic polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) found in many consumer products, which have been linked to adverse health impacts.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/07/240711111526.htm?

Aleksander de Rosset, Rafael Torres-Mendieta, Grzegorz Pasternak, Fatma Yalcinkaya

The removal of microplastics and oil from oil-water emulsions presents significant challenges in membrane technology due to issues with low permeability, rejection rates, and membrane fouling. This study focuses on enhancing nanofibrous composite membranes to effectively separate microplastic contaminants (0.5 micrometer) and oil-water emulsions in wastewater. Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) polymeric nanofibers were produced using a needle-free electrospinning technique and attached to a nonwoven surface through lamination. The membranes were modified with alkaline treatment, biosurfactant (BS), TiO_2, and CuO particles to prevent fouling and improve separation efficiency. The modified membranes demonstrated exceptional water permeability, with BS-modified membranes reaching above 9000 Lm^{-2} h^{-1} bar^{-1} for microplastic separation. However, BS modifications led to reduced water permeability during oil-water emulsion treatment. TiO_2 and CuO further enhanced permeability and reduced fouling. The TiO_2-modified membranes exhibited superior performance in oil-water emulsion separation, maintaining high oil rejection rates (~95%) and antifouling properties. The maximum microplastic and oil rejection rates were of 99.99% and 95.30%, respectively. This study illustrates the successful modification of membrane surfaces to improve the separation of microplastics and oil-water emulsions, offering significant advancements in wastewater treatment technology.

Subjects:	Chemical Physics (physics.chem-ph)
Cite as:	arXiv:2501.09529 [physics.chem-ph]
	(or arXiv:2501.09529v1 [physics.chem-ph] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.09529Focus to learn more
Journal reference:	Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 194, 2025, 997-1009
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2024.12.059Focus to learn more

Submission history

From: Aleksander De Rosset [view email]
[v1] Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:26:33 UTC (1,074 KB)

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09529?