Table 1 Comparison of airborne MPs concentrations across different regions.
From: Characterization and health risk assessment of airborne microplastics in Delhi NCR
Study location | /m3) | PM₁₀ (items PM₂.₅ (items/m3) | PM₁ (items/m3) | Sampling method | Dominant polymer types | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delhi NCR, India (This study) | 1.87 ± 0.5 | 0.51 ± 0.2 | 0.49 ± 0.2 | Active (PM₁₀/PM₂.₅/PM₁ samplers) | PET, PE, PP, PS, PVC | This study |
Arabian Sea (India, Goa) | 1.30–1.46 | - | - | High volume TSP sampler | PVC, PMMA, Polyester (PES), SBMA, POM | |
California, USA | 3.3 ± 1.9 | - | - | Active sampler | PS, PET, PE, PVC, PC, PA, ABS | |
Bushehr Port, Iran | 5.2 | 5.2 | - | Street dust/suspended particles | PE, PP, PS | |
Paris, France | 0.3–1.5 | - | - | Atmospheric deposition (passive) | PE, PP, PS, PET | |
Mexico City, Mexico | 0.2 | 0.1 | - | Urban dust/air | PE, PET | |
Spain | 1.5–13.9 | - | - | Suspended atmospheric MPs | PA, PU, PES, PE, PS | |
Sri Lanka | 0.1–0.9 | - | - | Outdoor ambient air | PET, PES, Acrylic, PA, PP, PS | |
China (Multiple Cities) | 0–4.18 | - | - | Suspended atmospheric MPs | PET, PE, PES, PAN, PAA | |
Turkey (Indoor) | 12.03– 18.51 | - | - | Indoor air (active sampling) | PA6, PVC, PP, PS, HDPE |
