Journal of Hazardous Materials · Review

Exposure to microplastics from food: Comparative analysis of food types and quantification techniques

Maria Hayder*, Maud M. Laan, and Annemarie P. van Wezel — University of Amsterdam & Utrecht University, the Netherlands

Published 29 November 2025 · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.140657 · Open Access (CC BY 4.0)

What this paper found

A meta-analysis of 193 studies reveals that fruits, vegetables, and grains — not seafood — are the primary dietary source of microplastics. The median estimated daily intake is 721 particles per kg of body weight per day, summing to roughly 50,000 particles ingested daily by an average person. This is 50–500× higher than earlier estimates that lacked data on plant-based foods.

193 Studies analyzed
721 MPs/kg bw/day (median)
99.5% From grains, fruit & veg
50–500× Higher than prior estimates
Download original PDF

Contents

  1. Abstract
  2. Introduction
  3. Methods
  4. Data distribution & geographic coverage
  5. Quality of data
  6. Estimated daily intake by food type
  7. Dependence on analytical techniques
  8. Microplastic characteristics & polymer identity
  9. Knowledge gaps & recommendations
  10. Conclusions
  11. References
Abstract

Microplastics are a widespread environmental pollutant and their presence in food is widely reported. However, the abundance and characteristics of microplastics — including polymeric identity and size distributions — have not yet been comprehensively scrutinized in the dietary context.

In this work, the authors collected a dataset of MP concentrations in food extracted from 193 papers (number-based concentrations) and 12 papers (mass-based concentrations), reviewing data on MPs across 13 food and drink categories: meat, grains, fruit and vegetables, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, tap water, bottled water, beer, milk, sugar and honey, salt, and other beverages.1Hayder M, Laan MM, van Wezel AP (2026) Exposure to microplastics from food: Comparative analysis of food types and quantification techniques. J Hazard Mater 501:140657. Open →

The summed total daily intake of MPs was estimated to range between 7.7 × 10−3 and 3.8 × 108, with a median value of 721 #MPs/kg of body weight per day. Although most works have focused on seafood as a probable major source, the data shows that fruit, vegetables, and grains yield the highest estimated daily intake. The polymeric identity of MPs in food roughly follows production proportions, with PE, PET, and PP being most common.

Introduction

The ongoing growth in plastic production, widespread single-use applications, and lack of efficient waste management have led to a steep increase in amounts of plastic litter present in the environment.2Wang C, Zhao J, Xing B (2021) Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of microplastics. J Hazard Mater 407:124357. Open → Microplastics (MPs) are small plastic particles (<5 mm), either produced on purpose (primary MPs) or resulting from degradation of plastic products (secondary MPs).3,4Hartmann NB et al. (2019) Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol 53:1039–1047. Open →

There is increasing concern about MP effects on human health since MPs accumulate through the food chain at higher trophic levels, ultimately affecting humans.5–9Multiple studies (2020–2024) on microplastic health impacts: food chain accumulation, exposure pathways, and toxicological effects. See references 5–9. Since these particles are omnipresent in both groundwater and soil, they can be absorbed by plant and animal tissues. Plastic mulch films used in agriculture and plastic food packaging have been suggested as additional sources.10–14Sohail M et al. (2023) Micro- and nanoplastics: contamination routes of food products. Sci Total Environ 891:164596. Open →

Detection of MPs in human stool provides evidence that these particles are indeed ingested and can traverse the gastrointestinal (GI) tract,15,16Schwabl P et al. (2019) Detection of Various Microplastics in Human Stool. Ann Intern Med 171:453–457. Open → while MP presence has been demonstrated in human blood, feces, testes, placenta, and even brain tissue.17–21Leslie HA et al. (2022) Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int 163:107199; Nihart AJ et al. (2025) Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nat Med. Open →

Why this review matters: Previous dietary intake estimates relied heavily on seafood and drinking water data. This study is the first to include commonly eaten foods — meat, grains, fruit, and vegetables — revealing that these overlooked categories actually deliver the vast majority of microplastics in the human diet.

Methods

Data collection & analysis approach

Systematic literature search was conducted using Google Scholar and Scopus. A total of 193 original research papers describing detection and number-based quantification of MPs in food published through August 2025 were included, along with 12 additional papers reporting mass-based concentrations.

Food samples were assigned to one of 13 categories: fish, crustaceans, mollusks, grains, meat, fruit and vegetables, tap water, bottled water, milk, salt, beer, other beverages, and sugar and honey. Since MP identification and quantification are reported within varying size ranges depending on the protocol used, all data was extrapolated to a common size range of 1–5000 μm using a power law distribution approach.22,23Koelmans AA et al. (2020) Solving the Nonalignment of Methods and Approaches Used in Microplastic Research. Environ Sci Technol 54. Open →

The estimated daily intake (EDI) was calculated using the equation: EDI = ΣIn[pMP]n / bw, where In is consumption rate per food type, [pMP]n is the predicted MP concentration, and bw is average body weight (70 kg). Papers were also graded on a 0–20 quality scale based on 10 quality control criteria.24Pang L et al. (2023) Data quality assessment for studies investigating microplastics and nanoplastics in food products. Front Environ Sci Eng 17. Open →

Data distribution & geographic coverage

Results · Section 1

Fish and shellfish are the food matrices described in over one third of the papers (79 out of 201 papers), meaning the number of studies clearly does not reflect the dietary habits of the global population. MP detection in salt was the topic of nearly one fifth of the papers collected. Meanwhile, no papers describing MPs in eggs were found, and data on dairy, meat, grains, or fruit and vegetables is scarce.

World map showing geographical distribution of food microplastic studies, with concentration in Europe and Southeast Asia, and bar chart showing number of datapoints per region and food type
Figure 1. (A) Geographical distribution of analyzed food samples. (B) Number of datapoints per region and per food type. Fish and mollusks dominate the literature, concentrated in coastal Europe and East Asia. Central Asia, South America, and Africa are underrepresented.

The geographical distribution roughly follows socioeconomic development per region, with the highest density of studies in Southeast Asia and Europe. This uneven geographic distribution is a serious limitation in attempts to estimate global MP dietary intake, since farming habits and regulatory issues mean MP content from different regions may vary greatly.

Quality of data

Results · Section 2

The average quality score of the collected papers was 11.4 ± 3.2 on a scale of 0–20, with scores varying from 2 to 19. Although paper quality might be presumed to increase over time, the authors found it quite stable since 2017 with no decline in variability.

The highest scores (1.5 ± 0.6 out of 2) were assigned to “sampling strategy” and “abundance and size,” while the lowest score (0.5 ± 0.9 out of 2) went to “positive controls.” The lack of positive controls is a well-known issue25Hermsen E et al. (2018) Quality criteria for the analysis of microplastic in biota samples: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 52:10230–10240. Open → and questions the reliability of results, as during sample treatment plastic particles can be lost or degraded, especially in food matrices requiring extensive digestion.

Key finding: Considering that the average study barely reaches half of the possible quality score, the authors urge the community to establish a harmonized quality control checklist and to include positive controls in future studies.

Estimated daily intake by food type

Results · Section 3

When comparing the calculated total EDI values for the food categories, fruit and vegetables stand out with a value significantly higher than other categories, though not significantly different from grains. This means that the most commonly eaten food types are the main source of MPs in the diet.

Box plot charts showing estimated daily intake of microplastics by food category and microplastic concentrations per food category, with fruit and vegetables showing the highest EDI
Figure 2. (A) Estimated daily intake (EDI) per food category, in #MPs/kg body weight/day. (B) MP concentration per food category. Fruit and vegetables show the highest EDI (median 406 MPs/kg bw/day), followed by grains. Salt shows the highest concentrations but lower consumption volume limits its dietary contribution.
Key finding: Fruits, vegetables, and grains account for 99.5% of the total estimated daily MP intake. Even assuming the highest reported concentrations are unrealistically high, the approximately ten times higher average consumption of fruit and vegetables over fish means these foods still contradict the hypothesis that seafood is the main dietary MP source.

Seafood is conventionally thought to be a major MP source in the diet, but the relevance of grains, fruits, and vegetables is consistent with findings that soil is a long-term sink for MPs,26,27Yang L et al. (2021) Microplastics in soil: A review. Sci Total Environ 780; Yu Z et al. (2024) Uptake and transport of micro/nanoplastics in terrestrial plants. Sci Total Environ 907:168155. Open → through which MPs may be transported into plants, enriched by biosolids used as fertilizers,28Okoffo ED et al. (2021) Plastics in biosolids from 1950 to 2016. Water Res 201:117367. Open → and accumulated on crop surfaces via airborne MP deposition.29Li Y et al. (2025) Leaf absorption contributes to accumulation of microplastics in plants. Nature 641:666–673. Open →

Bottled water differs significantly in EDI from tap water (p = 1.8 × 10−8), due to lower assumed consumption, despite MP concentrations in bottled water reaching slightly higher levels. Among drinks, beer and beverages have significantly lower EDI than both tap and bottled water. Soft drinks in plastic bottles showed higher MP concentrations than beer — supporting plastic bottles as one of the sources of MPs in drinks.

Chart showing total estimated daily intake of microplastics, comparing results with and without low-quality papers excluded
Figure 3. Total EDI, including and excluding low-quality papers. After exclusion of studies scoring ≤8 on quality, the total EDI increased by 16%, suggesting that the quality criteria do not reliably mirror the quality of results.

The sum of calculated EDIs for all food categories ranges from 7.7 × 10−3 to 3.8 × 108, with a median value of 721 #MPs/kg bw/day, summing to approximately 50,000 particles ingested daily by an average person (range: 0.54 to 2.7 × 1010). This is approximately 50–500 times higher than earlier estimations of 107–883 particles.30,31Cox KD et al. (2019) Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ Sci Technol 53:7068–7074; Mohamed Nor NH et al. (2021) Lifetime accumulation of microplastic in children and adults. Environ Sci Technol 55. Open →

Key finding: The mass-based total EDI sums to 4.92 mg of plastic ingested daily by an average person — dramatically higher than the previous estimate of 583 ng, based on only 12 mass-concentration studies.

Dependence on analytical techniques

Results · Section 4

The analytical method matters enormously. Selected papers used various techniques including (micro-)FTIR, (micro-)Raman, stereomicroscopy, fluorescence staining, SEM-EDX, and Py-GC-MS. The most striking difference was obtained for fruit and vegetables, where visual observations led to drastically higher MP numbers.

Chart comparing estimated daily intake of microplastics across food categories when measured by different analytical techniques including FTIR, Raman, and visual microscopy
Figure 4. EDI dependence on analytical technique (all studies included). For fruit and vegetables, visual microscopy yields dramatically higher counts. In salt, bottled water, and tap water, Raman spectroscopy often leads to higher EDIs than FTIR, likely due to its better resolution for smaller particles.

In salt, bottled water, and tap water (the simplest matrices), (micro-)Raman often led to higher EDIs than (micro-)FTIR, likely due to its better resolution and ability to identify smaller particles. Raman spectroscopy can reach approximately 1 μm detection limits, while FTIR is limited to 10–20 μm.32–34Ivleva NP (2021) Chemical Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics. Chem Rev 121:11886–11936; Xu J-L et al. (2019) FTIR and Raman imaging for microplastics analysis. TrAC 119:115629. Open → However, in complex matrices (fish, mollusks, meat), FTIR-based EDIs were higher than Raman-based ones, possibly because Raman is more vulnerable to interferences from organic matrices.35Dąbrowska A et al. (2025) Feasibility of Raman and FTIR spectroscopy for direct microplastic search in human milk samples. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 296:118159. Open →

Key finding: The choice of analytical technique strongly influences results, and the bimodal EDI distribution for fruit and vegetables clearly stems from different analytical approaches. The authors recommend using (micro-)Raman over FTIR due to its better resolution and recommend orthogonal techniques when possible.

Microplastic characteristics & polymer identity

Results · Section 5

The relative contribution of different polymers reported in food appears highly variable across studies. The most common polymers — polyethylene (PE), PET, and polypropylene (PP) — constitute a relative contribution of 0–85%, 0–65%, and 0–55%, respectively.

Box plot showing polymer distribution in food samples for both number-based and mass-based concentrations, showing PE, PET, and PP as most common
Figure 5. Polymer distribution in food samples (all studies included). (a) Number-based concentrations. (b) Mass-based concentrations. PE (polyethylene) is the only polymer whose interquartile range lies entirely above 0%. PET is more common in food than its 6% share of global plastic production would suggest.

PE is the only polymer whose interquartile range lies entirely above zero. The high contribution of polyolefins accords with the polymer distribution in global production, where PE is the most abundantly produced polymer (27%), followed by PP (19%).36Plastics Europe (2022) Plastics — The Facts 2022. Open → However, PET, commonly found in food samples, is produced in much smaller volumes (6%), suggesting either higher degradation rates, higher contamination from food packaging (particularly bottles), or higher contamination during analysis.

PE is among the most abundant MPs in most food groups, yet in crustaceans, sugar and honey, and tap water, PP reaches higher levels. PET is abundant in mollusks, grains, and both tap and bottled water. A recent study found that leaf absorption contributes to accumulation of microplastics in plants, adding another pathway for these polymers to enter the food chain.29Li Y et al. (2025) Leaf absorption contributes to accumulation of microplastics in plants. Nature 641:666–673. Open →

Infographic showing recommendations for future research on micro- and nanoplastics in food, including standardized protocols, geographic coverage, and understudied food types
Figure 6. Recommendations for future research on micro- and nanoplastics. Key areas include: standardized analytical protocols, positive controls, broader geographic sampling, inclusion of understudied food types (oils, eggs, processed foods), and nanoplastic quantification.

Knowledge gaps & future recommendations

Discussion

The major limitation of the current body of research is poor data availability, especially regarding commonly consumed foods compared to overrepresented seafood. There is a scarcity of studies quantifying nanoplastic presence in food, as the necessary analytical approaches for low concentrations in complex matrices are only now being developed.

The authors identify several critical gaps:

  • Geographic bias: Data from Central Asia, South America, and Africa is lacking or scarce, while Southeast Asia and Europe are overrepresented
  • Food type gaps: No studies on MPs in eggs; very few on dairy, meat, grains, or fruit and vegetables
  • Nanoplastics: Almost entirely excluded due to analytical limitations, though methodologies are rapidly developing
  • Standardization: Lack of harmonized quality control, incomparable studies, and differing analytical approaches remain the fundamental hurdle
  • Quality controls: Average study barely reaches half the possible quality score; positive controls are rarely included
Call to action: The authors urge a shift from the “seafood mindset” to a more comprehensive, dietarily relevant scope of research. They strongly recommend that future work focus on grains, meat, fruit and vegetables, as well as entirely unstudied food types such as oils and eggs.

Conclusions

Summary

This work summarized the currently available data on MPs in food based on 193 original studies for number-based EDIs and 12 for mass-based EDIs. The total EDI was estimated to be between 7.7 × 10−3 and 3.8 × 108, with a median value of 721 #MPs/kg of body weight per day.

The highest number of MPs is consumed together with grains, fruit, and vegetables (99.5% of the total EDI). The research spotlight should shift to these food categories, as well as to meat, rather than seafood. Different analytical techniques handle different levels of interferences, and orthogonal techniques are recommended when possible.

The environmental implication is clear: the majority of microplastics ingested originate from understudied food types. This review implies the urgent need for a shift in future research to food matrices beyond seafood, alongside standardized protocols and quality controls.

Graphical abstract & highlights

Supplementary figures
Graphical abstract showing the workflow from food sample collection through microplastic analysis to estimated daily intake calculations across 13 food categories
Graphical abstract. Overview of the study workflow: systematic collection of MP data from 193 papers across 13 food categories, extrapolation to a common size range, and estimation of daily intake.
Highlights summary showing key findings: daily MP intake updated, seafood overrepresented in literature, vegetables and grains are major sources, and analytical protocol influences results
Study highlights. Daily intake of microplastics was re-estimated including the newest data. Vegetables, grains, and meat are an important but understudied source. Choice of analytical protocol influences results but not in a foreseeable way.
Journal of Hazardous Materials article metadata and publication information
Article info. Published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 501, 2026. Available online 29 November 2025.

References

  1. Hayder M, Laan MM, van Wezel AP (2026) Exposure to microplastics from food: Comparative analysis of food types and quantification techniques. J Hazard Mater 501:140657. doi →
  2. Wang C, Zhao J, Xing B (2021) Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of microplastics. J Hazard Mater 407:124357. doi →
  3. Vethaak AD, Legler J (2021) Microplastics and human health. Science 371:672–674. doi →
  4. Hartmann NB et al. (2019) Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol 53:1039–1047. doi →
  5. Yuan Z, Nag R, Cummins E (2022) Human health concerns regarding microplastics in the aquatic environment. Sci Total Environ 823:153730. doi →
  6. Jiang B et al. (2020) Health impacts of environmental contamination of micro- and nanoplastics: a review. Environ Health Prev Med 25:29. doi →
  7. Prata JC et al. (2020) Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ 702:134455. doi →
  8. Hore M et al. (2024) Human Exposure to Dietary Microplastics and Health Risk: A Comprehensive Review. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 262:14. doi →
  9. Mamun AA et al. (2023) Microplastics in human food chains: Food becoming a threat to health safety. Sci Total Environ 858:159834. doi →
  10. Sohail M et al. (2023) Micro- and nanoplastics: contamination routes of food products and critical interpretation of detection strategies. Sci Total Environ 891:164596. doi →
  11. Hernandez LM et al. (2019) Plastic teabags release billions of microparticles and nanoparticles into tea. Environ Sci Technol 53. doi →
  12. Schwabl P et al. (2019) Detection of Various Microplastics in Human Stool. Ann Intern Med 171:453–457. doi →
  13. Leslie HA et al. (2022) Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int 163:107199. doi →
  14. Zhao Q et al. (2023) Detection and characterization of microplastics in the human testis and semen. Sci Total Environ 877:162713. doi →
  15. Ragusa A et al. (2021) Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int 146:106274. doi →
  16. Nihart AJ et al. (2025) Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nat Med 31:1114–1119. doi →
  17. Koelmans AA et al. (2020) Solving the Nonalignment of Methods and Approaches Used in Microplastic Research to Consistently Characterize Risk. Environ Sci Technol 54. doi →
  18. Kooi M, Koelmans AA (2019) Simplifying Microplastic via Continuous Probability Distributions for Size, Shape, and Density. Environ Sci Technol Lett 6. doi →
  19. Pang L et al. (2023) Data quality assessment for studies investigating microplastics and nanoplastics in food products. Front Environ Sci Eng 17. doi →
  20. Hermsen E et al. (2018) Quality criteria for the analysis of microplastic in biota samples: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 52:10230–10240. doi →
  21. Yang L et al. (2021) Microplastics in soil: A review on methods, occurrence, sources, and potential risk. Sci Total Environ 780. doi →
  22. Yu Z et al. (2024) Uptake and transport of micro/nanoplastics in terrestrial plants: Detection, mechanisms, and influencing factors. Sci Total Environ 907:168155. doi →
  23. Okoffo ED et al. (2021) Plastics in biosolids from 1950 to 2016. Water Res 201:117367. doi →
  24. Li Y et al. (2025) Leaf absorption contributes to accumulation of microplastics in plants. Nature 641:666–673. doi →
  25. Cox KD et al. (2019) Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ Sci Technol 53:7068–7074. doi →
  26. Mohamed Nor NH et al. (2021) Lifetime accumulation of microplastic in children and adults. Environ Sci Technol 55. doi →
  27. Ivleva NP (2021) Chemical Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics: challenges, Advanced Methods, and Perspectives. Chem Rev 121:11886–11936. doi →
  28. Xu J-L et al. (2019) FTIR and Raman imaging for microplastics analysis: State of the art, challenges and prospects. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 119:115629. doi →
  29. Dąbrowska A et al. (2025) Feasibility of Raman and FTIR spectroscopy for direct microplastic search in human milk samples. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 296:118159. doi →
  30. Plastics Europe (2022) Plastics — The Facts 2022. Open →
  31. Zimmermann L et al. (2025) Food contact articles as source of micro- and nanoplastics: a systematic evidence map. NPJ Sci Food 9:111. doi →
  32. Thompson RC et al. (2024) Twenty years of microplastic pollution research. Science 386:1979. doi →
  33. Xu J-L, Wright S, Rauert C, Thomas KV (2025) Are microplastics bad for your health? More rigorous science is needed. Nature 639:300–302. doi →
  34. Jeffries C, Rauert C, Thomas KV (2025) Quantifying Nanoplastics and Microplastics in Food and Beverages Using Py-GC-MS. ACS Food Sci Technol 5:1536–1545. doi →
  35. Senathirajah K et al. (2021) Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested — a pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment. J Hazard Mater 404:124004. doi →

License: This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Original article: Hayder M, Laan MM, van Wezel AP. Exposure to microplastics from food: Comparative analysis of food types and quantification techniques. Journal of Hazardous Materials 501 (2026) 140657. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.140657. This page is an annotated summary prepared by DetoxBio for educational purposes.

↑