Microplastics are increasingly detected in drinking water, bottled water, and food. As a result, more products, filters, and studies now claim to be “tested for microplastics.” What is rarely explained is a critical fact: not all microplastic tests measure the same thing.
The method determines what you see — and what you miss.
There Is No Single “Microplastic Test”
Microplastics are not a single substance. They vary in:
- size (from millimeters to nanometers)
- polymer type
- shape (fibers, fragments, spheres)
Different analytical methods capture different size ranges and particle types. A test result is therefore always limited by the method used.
Common Testing Methods — and Their Limits
Many studies rely on optical microscopy or basic filtration combined with visual counting. These approaches detect only larger microplastics, often above 50–100 micrometers. Smaller particles remain invisible.
More advanced techniques such as FTIR or Raman spectroscopy allow polymer identification, but still struggle with very small particles and require complex sample preparation. Nanoplastics frequently fall below detection limits entirely.
This means two tests on the same water sample can produce dramatically different results — without either being “wrong.”
What Often Gets Overlooked
Most routine tests:
- exclude particles below a certain size
- ignore dissolved or semi-dissolved plastic residues
- focus on particle count, not biological relevance
As particle size decreases, biological interaction increases — yet detection becomes more difficult. The most biologically relevant fraction is often the least measured.
Why This Matters for Consumers
A claim like “tested for microplastics” is meaningless without context. Key questions should always be:
- What size range was analyzed?
- Which polymers were included?
- Was nanoplastic considered at all?
Without this information, test results can create a false sense of safety.
Testing Is a Tool — Not a Verdict
Microplastic analysis is still evolving. No single method captures the full picture. Meaningful assessment requires method transparency and multi-layered analysis, not simplified claims.
Clean water decisions should be based on understanding what was measured — and what was not.
Learn more at klar2o.com