Microplastics found in every popular drink in Britain, with hot drinks having the most

Scientists from Birmingham measured microplastics (MP) in 31 types of hot and cold drinks that UK residents buy in coffee shops and supermarkets. MP particles were found in all 155 samples, from coffee and tea to juices and energy drinks. The highest concentration was found in hot tea (60 ± 21 particles/l on average), and significantly lower in fizzy drinks (17 ± 4). According to the authors, if all drinks are taken into account, not just water, the average daily intake of microplastics in humans is higher than previous calculations “based on water” showed. The work was published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Background

• Why this study was needed. Almost all previous estimates of “how much microplastic we drink” only counted water (tap or bottled). The new work is the first to count the entire “portfolio” of drinks (tea, coffee, juices, soda, energy drinks) and compares hot vs. cold, so as not to underestimate the actual intake of particles.
• What was already known: microplastics were found in bottled water (multi-center measurements in 259 bottles from 9 countries) and in plastic tea bags, which, when brewed at ~95 °C, release billions of micro- and nanoparticles into the cup. These findings pointed to the important role of container and temperature.
• Temperature increases the "removal" of particles from plastic. A striking example is polypropylene baby bottles: when preparing the mixture according to the instructions (sterilization, shaking, 70 °C), up to 16.2 million particles/l pass into the liquid. This gave grounds to test hot drinks separately.
• Measurement methods and their blind spots. Most food matrices are analyzed by µ-FTIR and Raman spectroscopy (with reliable polymer recognition, but usually for particles ≳10 µm), and mass fraction by thermo-/pyrolysis-GC-MS. Different methods yield different metrics (number vs. mass), so comparisons between studies require caution.
• Health risk context. The WHO stressed back in 2019 that there was little data on the impact on humans, but that reducing the plastic load was a reasonable goal; subsequent reviews agree that there is still insufficient evidence of harm, especially for **nano**particles — a field that is actively developing (including after studies showed hundreds of thousands of nanoparticles in a liter of bottled water).
• What the current UK work adds is that it puts on one map: (i) different types of drinks, (ii) the contribution of packaging and heating, (iii) a more realistic estimate of daily intake – and shows that if we consider more than just water, the real intake of microplastics may be higher than previously thought.

What did they do?

The team combined laboratory measurements of MPs in beverages with an online survey of consumption. In 2024, they collected 155 samples (5 replicates for 31 beverage types) of popular brands: hot/iced coffee, hot/iced tea, juices, energy drinks, and soft drinks. They searched for and typed particles using micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (µ-FTIR), and then estimated daily MP intake from “total drinking volume” based on concentrations and the survey.

Key results (in particles per liter, mean ± SD)

• Hot tea: 60 ± 21 - leader in MP content.
• Hot coffee: 43 ± 14; iced coffee: 37 ± 6.
• Ice tea: 31 ± 7.
• Juices: 30 ± 11; energy drinks: 25 ± 11.
• Carbonated drinks: 17 ± 4 – the lowest value among those studied.

Additionally:

• Hot drinks overall contained more MPs than cold drinks (P < 0.05), indicating that temperature accelerates the leaching of particles from packaging and disposable containers.
• The particle size is 10–157 μm; fragments predominate, followed by fibers. Polypropylene (PP) is the leader in polymers, followed by polystyrene (PS), PET and PE — that is, the same materials from which lids, cups, bottles, capsules, etc. are made. The authors directly note the contribution of packaging to beverage contamination.

How much microplastic do we get from drinking?

When all beverages (not just water) were included, the average daily intake estimate was 1.7 particles MP/kg body weight/day for women and 1.6 for men. This is higher than the “water only” estimate (~1 particle/kg/day) and suggests that previous estimates may have underestimated actual MP intake.

Why is this important?

Most "microplastic" assessments have so far looked only at water. But people drink coffee, tea, juice, soda, energy drinks — and, as this work shows, each of these channels contributes. The temperature and packaging material factors are especially clear. For regulators, this is an argument to test hot drinks and their containers more actively, and for manufacturers to reconsider the materials and technology of contact with hot liquid.

It is important to remember the limitations

• This is a UK 2024 sample: brands and packaging may vary in other countries.
• The µ-FTIR method reliably sees particles ≈10 μm and larger, meaning that nano- and the smallest microparticles are not taken into account here.
• Estimated daily intakes are estimates based on a combination of laboratory data and interviews; they do not equal the "absorbed dose" in the body.

What can be done now

• For hot drinks, use reusable glass/steel mugs whenever possible and allow the drink to cool slightly before pouring into plastic.
• At home, choose glass/metal for heating and storage.
• Regularly refresh reusable plastics if you must: Worn plastic releases more particles.
  These steps don’t cure the problem entirely, but they do reduce contact where the study found the risk was highest: at high temperatures and with plastic containers. (These are logical recommendations based on the authors’ findings about the role of temperature and packaging.)

Source: Al-Mansoori M., Harrad S., Abdallah MA-E. Synthetic microplastics in hot and cold beverages from the UK market: Comprehensive assessment of human exposure via total beverage intake. Science of the Total Environment 996 (2025): 180188. Early online: August 1, 2025. Open access (PDF). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180188