MICROPLASTICS IN DRINKING WATER
Abstract
Plastic pollution has been a decades-long issue without resolution. Humans continue to overproduce plastic, which has long infiltrated our precious ecosystems by leeching toxic chemicals into freshwater. Microscopic particles of plastic, known as microplastics, have been around for decades but are not mandated for testing in drinking water reservoirs. According to the EPA, the health impacts of microplastics are vast to the point of immeasurability. With the current state of our environment, the issue will worsen until humanity reaches a point of no return. As of 2022, microplastics have officially been discovered in 93% of tap water, according to the WHO, and a large portion of major bottled water companies (Mason, 2022). The presence of these contaminants can be attributed directly back to the plastic pandemic and the uncontrolled overconsumption of plastic in households. Ultimately, this research pointed out three significant insights: 1) Hamilton County has an unacknowledged microplastic contamination issue, 2) residents’ unawareness of the topic is exacerbating the issue, and 3) proper government funding towards microplastic research can help reverse the effect of public indifference on the plastic pandemic. The content of this paper will consist of in-depth analysis of water testing conducted by the researcher for microplastics at critical drinking water sources within the county, and a survey administered to test public knowledge on the issue. With this data, this research will discuss the effect of plastic pollution on our environment, explicitly highlighting the proliferation of microplastics and modeling what a future with a continuing uptake trend of plastic usage would look like.
Intro
Microplastics are defined as microscopic fragments of plastic less than 5 mm long (U.S. National Oceanic Administration, 2020). Rapidly contaminating the food and water consumed daily, these deadly microplastics were revealed to be consumed by the American adult at an alarming rate of 126 to 142 microplastics per day (Hoffard, 2020). A new study in The Polymers found microplastics in human breast milk, with 24 out of the 36 samples tested containing alarming levels of the plastic, indicating the severity of plastic contamination (Ordonez-Nunez, 2022, pg.7). The World Health Organization has also admitted that microplastics are present in all food, air, and water through extensive analysis of international water tests of drinking water reservoirs, lakes that serve to store potable water (World Health Organization, 2019). However, world governments are not taking action, as proper testing to determine microplastics’ health implications has yet to be funded by authorities. Nevertheless, there is significant evidence to suggest that the health impacts of microplastics are deadly. Uncleaned plastic contains fluorinated compounds and flame retardants that can leach into the body and cause cancer, chronic inflammation, and a long list of other diseases stated by the EPA (Rockwell, 2021, pg 16). Despite the clear detrimental effects of microplastics, plastic pollution remains at an all-time high. A 2022 report from Greenpeace discovered a 5% recycling rate in the U.S., leaving over 11 billion tons of plastic in our landfills, ecosystems, and oceans (MacArthur, 2022). This plastic does not evaporate into the air; it breaks down into microplastics and nanoplastics, which environmentalists have confirmed to have been discovered in human blood, lung tissue, placentas, and breast milk by Russell (2020) and the majority of academia. The buildup of microplastics in our environment and consumption is horrifying. The Ordonez (2022) study and dozens of others implore the damaging effect that plastic particles pose on the human digestive system and blood purity levels, directly shortening the average person’s lifespan. This emphasizes the urgency needed for the government to provide more funding towards microplastics research, and make the public aware of the issue in an effort to mitigate further impacts of plastic pollution. Therefore, this research will evaluate the state of the water specifically in the scope of Hamilton County and conduct a survey to determine if residents are aware of the problem.
Literature Review
Plastic Pollution
Plastic pollution has become a major global crisis threatening our planet and human health. Rochman’s (2020) research reveals that over 14 million tons of plastic end up in the oceans yearly, with 170,000 tonnes of microfibres from textiles being one of the main contributors to this issue. This issue results from decades of unregulated human plastic consumption, with single-use plastics and over-manufacturing progressively degrading our ocean ecosystems. Mass public consumption only exacerbates the situation, with over one million plastic bottles purchased by Americans every minute and five trillion plastic bags consumed yearly internationally (Schymanski et al. 2018, pg 63). This excludes other single-use plastics, such as Ziplocs, plastic containers, and packaging that humans use daily. As a result, the number of macro and microplastics in our oceans has reached 5.25 trillion, with an estimated 8 million increase daily and an annual production of 400 million tonnes (Rochman, 2020, pg 18). This aligns with a paper written by Alla Katsnelson, a marine science journalist, who quantified the direct effect of microplastics in the oceans and the exponential growth curve of the presence of primary microplastics in ocean ecosystems. Katsnelson (2015) also describes a startling discovery made by her team during their study — polyethylene beads were found in a natural water reservoir in the United Kingdom (Katnelson, 2015, pg. 17). These beads derive from cosmetic products, whose chemical composition influences their presence in drinking water (Katnelson, 2015). This exemplifies the cosmetic industry’s influence on the plastic pandemic as a whole, supporting Schymanski’s (2018) claim that many industries proliferate the plastic pandemic, a trend that often goes unnoticed by the public. However, despite the severity of the issue, many people are unaware that microplastics exist. A 2019 study by YouGov indicates that 52% of U.S. adults have heard of microplastics, leaving the other 48% unaware of its presence in food, water, and ocean ecosystems (Mathson, 2019). This lack of awareness is concerning, as knowledge of the cause-and-effect relationship between plastic pollution and its impact on human health and the environment is necessary for future ratification efforts of plastic waste.
Microplastics in Food/Water
A study conducted by environmental scientist Francis Mason discovered the presence of plastic in 93% of major bottled water brands, as well as in 83% of tap water samples internationally (Mason, 2018, pg. 14). The same study, in association with the EPA, discovered nano and microplastics in beer, wine, rice, honey, and tea (Mason, 2018); vegetables, such as broccoli and carrots, were also found to have alarmingly high levels of plastic through their intricate root systems which absorb the soil water that they absorb for nutrients (Mason 2018, pg.19). This exemplifies that the impact of plastic pollution does not just affect ocean ecosystems; the versatile nature of microplastics has allowed for them to infiltrate food and water. As a result of this presence, it has been discovered by the EPA study that most adults are predicted to ingest 5 grams of microplastics weekly, which equates to the weight of an average credit card (Mason, 2018). Upon further analysis, conclusive evidence discovered that the average human consumes approximately 52,000 particles from various sources yearly (Stapleton, 2020, pg 3). In addition, Phoebe Stapleton, a Rutgers toxicology professor, states that this number would be significantly higher if nano plastic were included in the study (Stapleton, 2020 pg. 4). Stapleton conducted a study with eight international countries that discovered microplastic particles in human feces, placenta, lung, liver, and kidney tissue in alarmingly high quantities (Stapleton, 2020 pg. 4). This statement highlights the alarming persistence of these harmful particles in our environment, which pose a significant threat to human health. The mechanism by which these particles accumulate and travel through the human body remains poorly understood, exacerbating the challenge of preventing adverse health outcomes. Despite the emphasis on the presence of these particles in our food and water, the lack of government funding has hindered the development of effective prevention strategies.
Health Impacts of Microplastic Ingestion
The impacts of microplastics are considerably complex and are multifaceted stressors regarding their impact on human health. As various chemical-physical properties influence the relationship between plastic and human cells, a comprehensive review of existing literature on microplastics can help better understand plastic consumption’s effect (Campanale, 2020, pg. 3). In a recent study by scientists Davies and Covernton, 0.44 MPs/g of micro and nanoplastics have been discovered in sugar, 0.09 MPs/g in bottled water, and 0.11 MPs/g in salt (Covernton, Davies 2020). Plastics smaller than 2.5 p/M that enter the body can infiltrate the gastrointestinal tract via endocytosis. Via persorption, the solid particles mechanically knead through gaps in the gastrointestinal tract epithelium and enter the circulatory system, thus resulting in toxicity and progressively worsening inflammation based on dose (Convention, Davies 2020). The gravity of this impact cannot be ignored, as it clearly underscores the urgent need to address this issue and take proactive measures to mitigate its impact. These observations are consistent with research by Campbell (2021), who inspected the contents of human stool to confirm the presence of such plastics in the digestive tract (Campbell, 2021, pg 2). The chemical composition of the plastics presents the possibility of leeching flame retardants and cancer-causing agents into the human body upon entry (Uricchio, 2021). Another category of microplastic commonly used are Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or PFAS, which are used as a coating on synthetic textiles. The health implications of PFAS range from increased cholesterol levels to cardiovascular failure (Uricchio, 2021). The significance of funding for microplastic research cannot be overstated, especially given that every distinct type of microplastic has its own detrimental impact on various human organ systems. Without a comprehensive understanding of these effects, prevention becomes difficult. Therefore, it is imperative to increase awareness about the impact of microplastics, as this serves as the initial step toward promoting a proactive approach to reducing human consumption levels.
Identifying the GAP
The very first synthetic plastic, known as Bakelite, began production in 1907 (Ritchie, Roser, 2022). This production was the beginning of the uptake in the plastics industry. Over 70 years, the annual rate of plastic production increased by approximately 230 times to 460 million tonnes by 2019 (Ritchie, Roser, 2022). A gradual accumulation of plastic that has been widely unacknowledged as a society has put us in a position of irreversibility. Research has proved that this is an ongoing problem in our society, a silent killer contaminating our drinking water and food. However, it questions the general population’s awareness of this issue. The YouGov study aforementioned does highlight US adults’ public awareness levels. However, upon further analysis, there is a lack of studies currently detailing a younger demographic’s awareness of the issue. In addition, after questioning Hamilton County Utilities directly, who test the water in Hamilton County annually to ensure water safety, microplastic tests are not a mandated part of the annual checks for water safety. California is currently the only state that requires the annual testing of microplastics in drinking water and has proper, thorough government testing (Vasilogambros, 2022). According to a study by Ball State University on the White River, microplastics are heavily concentrated in Indiana water reservoirs and streams (Hylton, Ghezzi, 2022, pg. 7). These studies and numerous other examples have indicated that these plastic contaminants are likely also present in local Hamilton County reservoirs (Han, 2022, pg.8). However, no formal testing has taken place to provide this conclusive evidence. Therefore, this study aims to answer the question as follows; to what extent are Hamilton County residents aware of the levels of microplastics present in local drinking water reservoirs? Through detailed analysis of these sources and extensive research, it has become apparent that no sources specifically highlight the connection between the lack of public awareness regarding the plastic pandemic and the perpetuation of microplastic contamination. Therefore, this paper’s primary objectives will be to 1) localize the scope of plastic contamination 2) address a younger demographic. The fulfillment of these two objectives will fill three crucial aspects of the GAP that this paper addresses in the scientific community: 1) Establishing a clear threshold for the level of microplastic contamination at the location of Hamilton County specifically. 2) An analysis of solely microplastics in the water samples, isolating water contaminants such as metals and diseases. 3) Providing data and analysis of awareness regarding microplastics among a younger age demographic of individuals aged 14–19.
Study Design
This study employed survey research and chemical testing to investigate local Hamilton County residents’ awareness of contaminants in their drinking water. A survey was conducted to accurately and efficiently determine the level of awareness regarding a specific issue in Hamilton County. Since there was no existing data on the awareness level within this specific scope, the researcher needed to ask targeted questions in order to obtain accurate results. Previous studies on awareness about plastic pollution, such as the one conducted by YouGov in 2020, have focused solely on adults (Armstrong, Mathson, 2019). To reach a representative target demographic of individuals from ages 14–19, an online survey was conducted. Laboratory testing of the water samples was the best way to determine the microplastic concentration levels in a unified manner. This method isolated lurking variables that could account for discrepancies between different studies’ water analysis reports, as they were all conducted by different organizations in various locations. It allowed for a consistent testing procedure that could evaluate the same classification of microplastic across all five collection points. This research is mainly descriptive in nature. As all variables were objective in nature, the study used the data collected to accurately describe the current situation with quantitative data from the one-variable water testing and the answers from the survey. This study is non-comparative as the focus will not be to compare to specific other groups regarding awareness or plastic levels. This study design did not implement randomization and involved testing current water reservoirs without human intervention. The study ultimately seeks to identify the problem of microplastics and raise awareness on the issue, so the research can be classified as an observational study, as the researcher had no control over certain variables that might impact either the microplastic concentration or the awareness of Hamilton County residents.
Participants
The participants for this study were selected during Student Research Time (SRT), a study block during February 2023. According to the Nielson Norman group for a quantitative study on a local scale in a high school setting, 40 respondents are appropriate for the survey (Norman, 2021). Fifty respondents (less than 10% of all Hamilton County residents) would be enough to get an accurate sample of awareness around the county. The survey was administered online to all grades between 9th and 12th grade and publicized in person. Under the scope of this study, this was a population size of approximately 5000 students, from which a goal of 50 were to be sampled. As it was a voluntary response, the demographics of the individuals were varied in terms of socioeconomic status. Around 50 participants were ideal for the survey; however, more were accepted. However, it is also a realistic number in terms of outreach. According to the Nielson Norman group, nearly 78% of consumers look at the content in flyers, with 23% measured to analyze them thoroughly (Norman, 2021). Not only are flyers effective at engaging the target audience but they are also proven to drive conversions and trigger further interaction with the survey (Inman, 2022, pg. 2). Thus, half sheets of paper were printed with a Q.R. code linking to the survey and advertised in as many classes as possible (See Appendix A). The survey was promoted on social media platforms, and friends and family were willing to fill it out.
Ethical Considerations
The survey and all extending survey materials (see Appendix B) were evaluated and approved by the Ethics Review Committee. All participants signed informed consent, marked as “required,” before completing any other questions. As this survey was administered to minors (individuals under the age of 18), a parental consent question was also required. The participants were not asked for any personally identifiable information, such as full names or emails, to ensure anonymity, and confidentiality was ensured. No questions were required, and participants were informed that they were free to withdraw at any time from the survey. As lab equipment from PACE Analytical-the environmental science lab that agreed to assist with the water testing-was used to test the water samples collected from the various water reservoirs for microplastics, written confirmation was obtained to ensure that PACE Analytical consented to participate in this research project (see Appendix C). A potential ethical concern that was taken into consideration was the accountability if microplastics were discovered in the water. Regardless of the results of the microplastic testing, neither PACE Analytical nor Hamilton County is obligated to take any action, acknowledge the results of the study, or take any liability for the outcome of the analysis.
Procedure
A survey was conducted first to answer the research question. The survey aimed to determine if a relationship exists between awareness about plastic pollution and plastic consumption levels. The first section of the survey was a brief questionnaire asking for demographic information in order to classify results by age and family size. The second section of the survey asked modified questions from scientist Amelia Crawford’s research study in California regarding plastic consumption, asking specific questions about the user’s day-to-day usage of single-use plastics and disposal practices and routine plastic consumption (Crawford, 2021). This portion of the survey mainly presented the questions as statements that had the user select whether they agreed or disagreed on a scale of 1–5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The third portion of the survey asked questions pertaining to the scope of Hamilton County and the awareness of residents regarding the state of the water contaminant in Hamilton County. On the administration date, a half sheet of paper with a Q.R. code linking to the survey was distributed to SRTs around the school building (See Appendix A). A summary was given verbally to the class regarding the study’s purpose. The survey was promoted on social media platforms, as well as with friends and family that were willing to fill it out. For the experimental design portion, the variables were identified first. The independent variable was the location of the testing (tap water, fridge water, water from Morse Reservoir, Geist Reservoir, and Eagle Creek Reservoir) (see Appendix D), and the dependent variable was the concentration of each type of water contaminant present in the samples. The variations between these sources included the levels of filtration, the usage of this water, and the source of the water that feeds into these reservoirs. PACE Analytical, after giving written consent to partake in this experiment (see Appendix C), provided the laboratory equipment and sampling kits required to test the water samples for microplastics. Bottling kits hold up to 10 mL of water. The researcher traveled to each of the five sites and used a latex-gloved hand to dip the bottles into each water source at public access point depths of 1 ft, 2ft, and 2.5 feet and immediately screw the cap on to contain the samples (See Appendix D). The researcher filled up three bottles at each water depth for each of the three contaminant variables being tested for. All of the water samples were taken on the same date, January 11th 2023, within 5 hours to minimize confounding variables such as temperature. The samples were then immediately transferred into a temperature-regulated ice box and transported to the PACE Analytical laboratory. The lab then ran tests for Settleable Solids, Total Dissolved Solids, and Total Suspended Solids using a TSS filter, an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer, and an Imhoff cone (See Appendix E). These tests pinpointed any plastic contaminants with a pore filter size of 1.5 microns, falling under the classification of a microplastic defined as plastic particles under 5 mm. This data was consolidated into a data table and evaluated with the survey results to answer the research question.
Results/Findings
The results and findings of this paper aim to answer the following; to what extent are Hamilton County residents aware of the microplastics present in local drinking water reservoirs? The researchers tested water samples from various locations at depths of 0.5 feet and 2 feet using a TDS evaporator, TSS filters, Imhoff Cones, an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer, and a mass spectrometer (See Appendix E). The first dataset the researchers analyzed was the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration, which comprises solid particles larger than 2 microns, which falls under the classification of a microplastic (5 mm), according to the EPA. This makes the TSS concentration the most reliable indicator of plastic particles in water reservoirs. The TSS concentration measured at the Eagle Creek Reservoir was (18.3 mg/L and 9.1 mg/L), Morse Reservoir (2.7 mg/L and 3.1 mg/L), and Geist Reservoir (5.3 mg/L). These values are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Total Suspended Solids Concentrations
Secondly, the researchers examined the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration. TDS includes dissolved inorganic and organic matter, with sulfates being the primary component (as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency). TDS values indicate the concentrations of certain compounds that may have seeped into the water due to the presence of plastic contaminants. The results showed that TDS was present in tap and fridge water samples, with 601 mg/L and 588 mg/L, respectively. These values can are found in Table 2 of the study.
Table 2
Total Dissolved Solids
The survey garnered 52 responses in total, exceeding the original goal of 50. The conclusive results of the survey showed that a significant number of respondents (40.4%) believed that their families used five or more items daily from class 3, which were plastic bags and straws. Plastic bags are particularly problematic as they are a significant source of secondary microplastics. Over time, they photodegrade into smaller particles and absorb toxins, which can harm marine life and ecosystems (Elsher, 2020). Plastic bags are the primary contributor to Total Suspended Solids concentrations, with more than 730,000 tons of TSS in ocean ecosystems (Elsher, 2020). Please refer to Figure 1 for a visual representation of the survey results on single-use plastics.
Figure 1
Classes of Single-use Plastic Used
When assessing the awareness levels of the impact of said single-use plastics on the environment, 40.4% of the respondents indicated familiarity with the issue. In comparison, 44.2% claimed to be very familiar with it. This ratio suggests that most respondents believed they had at least some knowledge about the harmful effects of plastic waste on the environment. However, despite this awareness, the survey found that many people did not reduce their plastic usage actively. Specifically, 42.3% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that their families made a conscious effort to reduce plastic usage, making it the most prominent response category for that particular question. See Figure 2 for conscious reduction levels.
Figure 2
Conscious reduction of plastic usage
The survey also sought to understand people’s awareness regarding the water quality in Hamilton County. It found that a significant proportion of respondents, 59.6%, were not familiar with the state of the water in the county. Moreover, more than half of the respondents, 51.9%, were unaware that water testing was conducted annually in the area. Although Hamilton County does not test for microplastics annually, there is conclusive evidence that the water reservoirs contain Total Suspended Solids concentrations. Despite this evidence, the survey found that 53.8% of respondents believed that the water in Hamilton County was relatively safe, rating it as a “4” on a scale of 5, with five being considered “very safe.” See Figure 3.
Figure 3
How Safe is Hamilton County Drinking Water?
The data in Figure 3 regarding the awareness of water quality in Hamilton County utilized the data gathered from the question in Figure 2, “My family makes a conscious effort to reduce plastic waste,” which ranked on a scale of 1–5, with one meaning that they strongly disagreed, and five meaning that they strongly agreed. Data points comprised all participant responses, with the x variable being how safe they believed the water to be and the y variable being how much of a conscious effort they made to reduce their plastic intake. The values were inputted into the data table, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Data points for Linear Regression t-test.
A Linear Regression t-test for the slope (β1) was conducted to determine if there was a relationship between the two variables of awareness of water quality and a conscious effort made to reduce plastic waste. As shown in Figure 5, there was a p-value of .0327, which is lower than the significance level of .05. This t-test demonstrated that there is statistically significant evidence to suggest a correlation between awareness about water plastic contamination and plastic consumption levels (Linear regression t-test for β1; Ho: β1=0; Ha: β1≠0; df = 49; P-value = 0.0327).
Figure 5
Linear Regression T-test Results
To conclude the survey, participants were explicitly asked if they would make a conscious effort to reduce plastic waste if they knew more about the water quality in the area. The results of this question were the majority, with 68.6% of respondents answering “yes” to the question, as shown in Figure 5. This ratio indicates that most respondents were willing to take practical steps to reduce plastic waste if they were more aware of the condition of the drinking water, supporting the results of the linear regression t-test. See Figure 6.
Figure 6
Would residents make an active ef ort to reduce plastic waste?
Discussion/Analysis
The main objective of this study was to investigate the presence of microplastics in the drinking water of Hamilton County and to examine whether there was a correlation between contamination levels and local awareness of water quality issues. Previous studies (Mason, 2018; Hylton, Ghezzi, and Han, 2017) had established the existence of nanoplastics in food, water, breastmilk, and meats and had also tested for microplastics in the White River reservoir. However, there had been no direct link between plastic contamination in Hamilton County’s water and its residents’ awareness of the problem. This study addressed this correlation, finding that the water had significant plastic contamination, as evidenced by the average TSS concentrations of 7.36 mg/L. Interestingly, the survey participants considered the water quality “very safe” while consuming substantial amounts of plastic. This trend indicated a need for more awareness of the contamination issue.
The study results also suggested that active efforts towards habitual change could occur if the problem were apparent. The p-value of .0327, providing statistically significant evidence between the two variables of awareness and conscious usage, suggests that habitual change would occur if people were made aware of the problem. It concludes that the need for more initiatives to promote public awareness about water quality exacerbates the issue of microplastic contamination in Hamilton County’s drinking water. The survey and water testing results revealed the importance of public awareness campaigns in addressing the problem. Therefore, the sub-question of whether the lack of awareness was the underlying issue was effectively answered. The findings of this survey are consistent with those of Mason et al. (2018), which found microplastics in 83% of the tap water samples collected from various locations across the country. This observation is also consistent with Rochman (2020), which found that average people consume roughly 50,000 particles of microplastic each year, maybe ingesting an additional 121,000 particles per year if they consume bottled water. However, the water testing results proved that the concentration of TSS particles in the tap water and fridge water samples was negligible, which proves to be inconsistent with the Mason (2018) study, and many other studies highlighting a presence of microplastics in tap water. While this can be attributed to testing variability and many other factors, it is important to note that the TSS particles were still present in all three drinking water reservoirs, directly connected to the water cisterns that humans consume. Rochman (2018) evidence implores that 8 million new plastic pieces are dumped into the ocean daily, indicating that the filtration capacity of the water flow into tap water may prove to have a declining trend in terms of efficacy over the years, providing evidence to suggest that the negligible concentration of TSS in the tap water samples for this particular study may not pertain to a long-term pattern. While a potential limitation in the water testing and viable source of variability could have resulted from the inadequacies in the proposed water testing method with limited resources that fell within the scope of this study, microplastic presence in any concentration is still conclusive evidence that applies to the research question being answered. However, this begs the question, why is this ingestion even a possible topic of concern? We extract that the main threat from these plastics to the human body is the per- and polyfluoroalkyl synthetic chemicals or a joint group of manufactured chemicals found as ingredients in many materials, mainly plastic (Convention, Davies 2020). Known as PFAS, these chemicals are leached into the water by the transported microplastics. This claim is consistent with a study conducted by Convention, Davies (2020) determined that microplastics in freshwater environments had a higher concentration of PFAS than the surrounding water. However, PFAS is persistent and bioaccumulative, linked to various adverse health impacts, including developmental issues, major reproductive problems, immune system dysfunction, and cancer (Gomis et al., 2019). Since microplastics can absorb and concentrate PFAS, they increase the risk of human exposure to these toxic chemicals. This threat suggests humans are in active danger as a result of the contaminants that have been proven to be present in the water. However, this leads to the inquiry, if humans are causing microplastics through plastic consumption, why aren’t humans taking measures to stop it? The answer lies in the conclusive survey results, which exemplify humans are unaware of the correlation between their habitual plastic usage and ingestion. The findings of this portion of the study are consistent with Schymanski et al. (2018), which shows only 14% of the respondents were aware of microplastics in drinking water. In conjunction with the survey results, these sources exemplify the gap in awareness that is correlated directly with plastic overconsumption. While the narrow sample size of 52 for the survey may be perceived as a limitation for this study, it allowed the researcher to focus on the scope of Hamilton County to provide the most accurate relationship analysis between the variables of awareness and plastic usage. The survey question directly asking about the habitual changes that would be made if awareness was a factor further solidifies the conclusion that the problem is directly associated with the unfamiliarity of the issue. This response brings to light the need for new initiatives highlighting the severity of the plastic pandemic and its direct contribution to the ingestion of plastics. The lack of such initiatives, in part, is due to the testing not being required for such contaminants on an annual basis. However, the results of this study emphasize the urgency of addressing this issue and implementing measures to reduce plastic consumption and prevent the release of microplastics into the environment. By increasing awareness and taking action, we can mitigate the harmful impact of plastic on our health and the environment.
Future Directions
There are several avenues for further research and testing to measure microplastic concentration. Firstly, a deeper analysis of the difference between tap and bottled water could be conducted through meta-analyses and cross-application to various bottled water brands. This approach would provide a more comprehensive view of plastic consumption and community awareness about plastic infiltration. On this note, as Total Suspended Solids categorize as any suspended solids particle larger than 2 microns, a potential source of variation in the dataset may have come from the infiltration of non-plastic solids particles into the sampling container. Using more distinguished and government-issued water sampling equipment could reduce the potential variation in the dataset caused by the infiltration of non-plastic solids particles into the sampling container, making the testing more effective. Secondly, the specificity of the survey questions regarding Hamilton County could have limited the dataset’s results for awareness regarding the topic, posing a source of variability in the findings. Broadening the questions to the scope of the United States could provide the dataset with different results. A larger sample size might reveal more people with awareness of even a marginal amount of water quality knowledge. Thirdly, new research could explore the specific subcategories of TSS solids and their unique impact on the human body. While existing research indicates the general impact of microplastic contamination on the digestive tract, it remains unclear whether different classifications of microplastics have varying health impacts. This limitation could be addressed through further research and experimentation. Investigating these different avenues for further research and testing could deepen our understanding of microplastic concentration and its impact on human health and the environment.
Conclusion
In summary, this study sheds light on the current state of local microplastic contamination in drinking water and the public’s awareness of it. These findings can serve as a valuable analysis for future research to address this critical issue and pave the way for environmental restoration. As anticipated, the results indicate that the prevalence of plastic pollution has led to a significant amount of plastic particles in our drinking water, which has gone unnoticed by most people. While certain limitations exist, such as the scope of this study’s ability regarding sampling equipment, and the limited sample size for the survey, this research still provided new evidence identifying trends that future research can address in the field. Notably, a large portion of the population unknowingly consumes plastic daily through items such as cups, bags, straws, and water bottles. As a society, we have been conditioned to believe that plastic consumption does not directly impact our lives and is a distant concern. However, this research shows that a lack of awareness is directly proportional to increased plastic usage. This study emphasizes the importance of raising awareness about the direct link between plastic consumption and plastic ingestion. Therefore, educating future generations is crucial to building a safer future. This research contributes to the ongoing discussion surrounding plastic pollution by highlighting the importance of increasing public awareness. By doing so, we can take necessary steps to combat this issue and work towards a cleaner, healthier planet.