DOI: 10.3303/CET2290045
Paper Received: 30 November 2021; Revised: 3 March 2022; Accepted: 23 April 2022
Please cite this article as: Roupcova P., Kubatova H., Batrlova K., Klouda K., Slany J., 2022, Covid-19 pandemic influence on the presence of
micro and nanoplastics in the environment, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 90, 265-270 DOI:10.3303/CET2290045
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS
VOL. 90, 2022
A publication of
The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.cetjournal.it
Guest Editors: Aleš Bernatík, Bruno Fabiano
Copyright © 2022, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608-88-4; ISSN 2283-9216
Covid 19 Pandemic Influence on the Presence of Micro and
Nanoplastics in the Environment
Petra Roupcovab*, Hana Kubatovac, Katerina Batrlovaa, Karel Kloudaa, Jan Slanyb
a Occupational Safety Research Institute, v.v.i., Jeruzalemská 9, 110 00 Prague 1
b VSB - Technical University of Ostrava, Lumírova 13, 700 30 Ostrava
c State Office for Nuclear Safety, Senovážné náměstí 9, Prague 1
petra.roupcova@vsb.cz
The presence of micro-and nano-plastics in the water and in the soil, is not any secret. The primary source of
nanoplastics in the natural environment is the production and processing of plastics, and the secondary source
of nanoplastics is the fragmentation of plastic products. The fragmentation of plastics is the result of a number
of processes, which depend on both the composition of the plastics and environmental conditions. The 2020
COVID-19 pandemic has changed many aspects of daily life and has perhaps forever changed the way we live.
The future certainly appears to be less urban and less global. The 2020 pandemic of the the COVID-19 has
increased the demand for respiratory protective equipment, especially covid-19 face masks and respirators.
Covid- 19 face masks include nanotextiles made of plastic nanofibers are especially popular and widely used.
Due to the number of nanotextile-based masks and respirators used daily, their production, use and improper
and unregulated disposal contribute to and will continue to contribute to increasing environmental pollution by
micro- and nano-plastics. It is likely that there will be no return to normality. The global ecosystem upon which
modern society has evolved will have to be redesigned.
1. Introduction
The occurrence of nano- and micro-plastics in the world's oceans and freshwaters, including potable water, has
been demonstrated in a number of studies (Waymana and Niemann, 2021); (Gerritse et al., 2020) (Pirsaheb et
al., 2020). Similarly, the presence of nano- and micro-plastics has also been confirmed in soil (Brewer et al.,
2021). The primary source of nanoplastics for the environment is referred to as plastics production and
processing, while the secondary source of nanoplastics is the fragmentation of plastic products (Barnes et al.,
2009). Facilitated fragmentation is offered by non-woven textiles, which are fabrics containing fine fibres. Their
specification is influenced by production technology, namely Spunbond, Meltblown, electrospinning.
1.1 Ecotoxicity of micro- and nanoplastics
Knowledge about the toxicity of nanoplastics is still very limited. Testing has so far concentrated mainly on
aquatic tests that are internationally recognised (ISO standards, etc.) and easy to perform. The mechanisms of
toxic effect and the factors that influence toxicity have not yet been fully clarified (Klaine et al., 2008) (Farré et
al., 2009) (Bhatt and Tripathi et al., 2011). Different nanoplastics will have different action mechanisms, which
is often linked to the purpose they serve. In addition, the same nanoplastic may also exhibit different action
mechanisms depending on the ambient conditions. The following possible action mechanisms of nanoplastics
are most often mentioned (Figure 1).
1.2 Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics – bacteria
Although to a lesser extent and due to the proven low toxicity of polymeric materials, the application of polymeric
nanomaterials has also been studied. In a similar research work, Naha et al. (2016) tested the toxic effects of
poly (N-isopropylacrylamide), (PNIPAM) and N isopropylacrylamide/N -tert-butylacrylamide (NIPAM/BAM)
polymer nanoparticles in different ratios, using Vibrio fischeri as a model.
265
Although they exhibited excellent properties as nanosystems for biomedical purposes, the results of tests
performed by the authors on these bacteria led to a significant toxic effect after a short exposure time (5 min:
EC50 = 40.5 mg/l for 65: 35 NIPAM/BAM ratio and 5 min: EC50 = 25.7 mg/l for a 50:50 NIPAM/BAM ratio).
According to the results, reaching a general conclusion about the toxic effects of nanoparticles on
microorganisms is by no means an easy task, as their inherent toxicity varies substantially from one another,
between organisms, and between experimental conditions. In addition, the intrinsic characteristics of NPs, such
as size, shape, solubility or surface charge, may suffer modification due to various conditions such as
agglomeration of particles in the presence of aqueous solution. The presence of all these variables highlights
the need for rigorous and standardised toxicity assessment protocols (Martinéz et al., 2021).
Figure 1: Possible action mechanisms of nanomaterials (CYP - cytochrome P) (Sovová and Kočí, 2012)
1.3 Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics – aquatic organisms
Several studies have investigated the toxic effects of polystyrene and polyethylene in the form of micro- and
nanoplastics in invertebrates such as nematodes, bivalves, and crustaceans. Exposure of the nematode
Caenorhabditis elegans to five different sizes of spherical polystyrene (PS) microplastics, (0.1 to 5 μm) with a
concentration in the medium (1 mg/L) resulted in excitotoxicity on locomotion/motor behaviour, reduced survival
rates and decreased life expectancy, particularly after exposure to 1.0 μm polystyrene particles. Furthermore,
the expression of various neuronal genes was affected, which coincided with impaired cholinergic and
GABAergic neurons and oxidative stress. Unfortunately, no evidence was found of the actual uptake of spherical
polystyrene in the form of microplastic by C. elegans (Lei et al., 2018).
1.4 Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics – animals
To assess the human health risk posed by micro- and nanoplastics, there is a large body of evidence on the
translocation of plastic particles from artificial substitutes to lymph nodes and other parts of the body. Exposure
studies in mammalian model systems indicate potential absorption of micro- and nanoplastics in various organs.
Micro- and nanoplastics are cytotoxic to human macrophages. In human brain and epithelial cell lines, a mixture
of micro- and nanoparticles of 40-250 nm PS, 10 μm PS and 100-600 nm PE, and 3-16 μm PE, caused a dose-
dependent increase in oxidative stress (ROS). Platelet activation (in vitro) was triggered by aminated PS (Kögel
et al., 2020). In mice, daily oral doses administered by a probe with a 5 and 20 μm fluorescent polystyrene (PS)
microparticles resulted in accumulation of both sizes in the liver and kidney. Very high doses (from 2 × 104 to
1.5 × 106 items/animal/day) induced liver inflammation and metabolic changes indicating effects on (energy)
lipid metabolism, oxidative stress (ROS) and neurotoxic effects. Mice fed with 500 nm and 50 μm of PS particles
at a concentration of 1 mg/l showed a decrease in body weight and changes in liver and lipid values after five
weeks.
266
2. Production of nanofibres
Nanotextile-based protective equipment is usually made-up of non-woven fabrics onto where nanofibres created
by electrospinning have been applied. The concentration measurements of nanoparticles released into the
working environment were carried out at three workplaces where continuous production of nanofibre textiles
takes place – at SPUR a.s., NAFIGATE Corporation a.s. and Nano Medical s.r.o. In these companies, a different
technological set-up is used to produce nanotextiles. However, the area where the actual spinning of the input
material takes place is always separated from the surrounding working environment. The air from the spinning
chamber is exhausted and filtered through HEPA filters.
In NAFIGATE Corporation, a.s. and Nano Medical s.r.o., nanotextiles are produced on lines manufactured by
ELMARCO s.r.o. These electrospinning lines contain two spinning segments with string electrodes. During our
measurements, both companies were spinning polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) from dimethylacetamide
solution. The resulting PVDF nanotextile was immediately laminated between 2 layers of non-woven fabric
prepared by Spunbond technology. Measured nanoparticle concentrations were pulsatile at both workplaces. In
the line service area at the Nano Medical s.r.o. workplace (Figure 2), values in the range of 4,000-7,000 #·cm-3
were measured with more pronounced peaks of 9,000 #·cm-3 and 16,000 #·cm-3. Nanoparticle concentrations
in the range of 2,000-#·cm-3 with an average of 4,000 #·cm-3 were measured at the NAFIGATE Corporation a.s.
The mean diameter of the nanoparticles was approximately 30 nm. The fluctuations at low concentration were
measured, namely the growth of the diameter at 60; 100; 180 nm.
Figure 2: High-capacity production line for continuous production of nanofibre textiles of Nano Medical s.r.o.
The letter A indicates the location of the spinning units with polymer material containers
3. Ekotoxicity tests performed
According to the OECD methodology [20], seeds of white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) and oilseed rape (Brassica
napus) meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) were plated against samples of non-
laminated PVDF (seeds were placed on the exposed PVDF layer), laminated PP-PVDF, unworn mask Nanovia
Mask 99.97 and worn mask Nanovia Mask. The germination and root growth inhibition of seeds placed on and
off the tested fabric were investigated. The calculation of root growth inhibition when seeds are applied on/off
the tested nanotextile is based on the measurement of root length (root elongation) after the test and follows
the formula Eq(1):
I =
(𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 − 𝐿𝐿𝑉𝑉)
𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐
× 100 (1)
where I is the inhibition or stimulation of root growth (%), Lc is the average root length in the control (mm), Lv is
the average root length in the test specimen (mm). If the resulting value of I > 0, it equals to root growth inhibition,
if I < 0, it equals to root growth stimulation.
In Figures. 3 and 4 are graphs comparing inhibition in mustard and rapeseed in direct contact with the specimen
and out of the specimen. Separate columns represent: Mustard non-laminated PVDF and Rapeseed non-
laminated PVDF, Mustard laminated PP-PVDF and Rapeseed laminated PP-PVDF, Mustard Mask Nanovia
267
Mask unworn and Rapeseed Mask Nanovia Mask unworn, Mustard Mask Nanovia Mask worn and Rapeseed
Mask Nanovia Mask worn.
Figure 3 Graphical comparison of inhibition in mustard and rapeseed (seeds out of specimen)
Figure 4 Graphical comparison of inhibition in mustard and rapeseed (seeds per specimen)
Figures 5 and 6 are graphs comparing inhibition in meadow fescue and lettuce in direct contact with the
specimen and out of the specimen. Separate columns represent: Meadow grass non-laminated PVDF, Lettuce
non-laminated PVDF, Meadow grass laminated PP-PVDF, Lettuce laminated PP-PVDF, Meadow grass Mask
Nanovia Mask unworn, Lettuce Mask Nanovia Mask unworn, Meadow grass Mask Nanovia Mask worn, Lettuce
Mask Nanovia Mask worn.
268
Figure 5 Graphical comparison of inhibition in meadow grass and lettuce (seeds per specimen)
Figure 6 Graphical comparison of inhibition in meadow grass and lettuce (seeds out of specimen)
From Fig. 3, it is apparent that significantly higher root growth inhibition occurred in mustard and rapeseeds that
were in direct contact with the nanotextile. The average inhibition reaches values of more than 50%. For lettuce,
the highest inhibition was found for seeds placed on the Nanovia Mask specimen unworn (85.5%), while for
seeds placed outside the fabric, the highest inhibition was found for the Nelam PVDF specimen (55.42%). In
meadow fescue, on the other hand, root growth was stimulated, both in seeds that were in direct contact with
the fabric and in specimen where the seeds were placed outside the fabric, e.g., in an unworn Nanovia Mask,
the I value of -131% was determined.
4. Conclusion
One consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented increase in respiratory protective
equipment production incorporating nanotextiles. As these protective agents are made of fibres and nanofibres
of different plastics, they contribute to the increase of nano- and micro-plastics in the environment (Sullivan et
al. 2021). On the basis of measurements carried out both in the material production for the production of
269
nanomasks and nanorespirators and in the production of our own protective equipment, we have shown that if
the production line (or its corresponding part) is separated from the rest of the working environment and the air
exhausted from this separated area is filtered by HEPA filters, the filters will trap the nano- and micro-plastics
formed. Therefore, a greater risk to the environment is posed by the actual use of protective equipment,
particularly mechanical stress (abrasion). Semichronic toxicity tests performed on seeds of selected plants
showed the effect of the protective equipment material on root growth. Direct contact of the fabric with mustard
and rapeseeds showed root growth inhibition of more than 50%. In the case of meadow fescue seeds, on the
contrary, its growth was stimulated.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ing. Bohdan Filipi, Ph.D. from the Faculty of Safety Engineering, VSB-TU
Ostrava for the spectra measurements and David Chadima from Prusa Research a.s. for his help in performing
the tensile tests.
References
Bhatt, I., and Tripathi, B. N., 2011, Interaction of engineered nanoparticles with various components of the
environment and possible strategies for their risk assessment, Chemosphere, 82(3), 308−317.
Brewer, A., Dror, I. and Berkowitz, B., 2021, The Mobility of Plastic Nanoparticles in Aqueous and Soil
Environments: A Critical Review, ACS EST Water, 1(1), 48 - 57, doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00130.
Farré, M., Gajda-Schrantz, K., Kantiani, L., and Barceló, D., 2009, Ecotoxicity and analysis of nanomaterials in
the aquatic environment, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 393(1), 81 - 95.
Gerritse, J., Leslie, H. A., de Tender, C. A., Devriese, L. I. and Vethaak, A. D., 2020, Fragmentation of plastic
objects in a laboratory seawater microcosm, Sci. Rep. 10(1), doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67927-1.
Novotna, K., Cermakova, L., Pivokonska, L., Cajthaml, T., and Pivokonsky, M., 2019, Microplastics in drinking
water treatment – Current knowledge and research needs, Science of The Total Environment,
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.431.
Klaine, S. J.; Alvarez, P. J.; Batley, G. E.; Fernandes, T. F.; Handy, R. D., Lyon, D. Y and Lead, J. R., 2008,
Nanomaterials in the environment: behaviour, fate, bioavailability, and effects, Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry: An International Journal, 27(9), 1825 − 1851.
Kögel, T., Bjorøy, Ø., Toto, B., Bienfait, A. M., and Sanden, M., 2020, Micro-and nanoplastic toxicity on aquatic
life: Determining factors, Science of the Total Environment, 709, 136050.
Martínez, G., Merinero, M., Pérez-Aranda, M., Pérez-Soriano, E. M., Ortiz, T., Begines, B., and Alcudia, A. ,
2021, Environmental Impact of Nanoparticles’ Application as an Emerging Technology: A
Review. Materials, 14(1), 166.
Lei L, Liu M, Song Y, Lu S, Hu J, Cao C, et al., 2018, Polystyrene (nano) microplastics cause size-dependent
neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and other adverse effects in Caenorhabditis elegans, Environmental
Science: Nano ;5(8), 2009–20, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8en00412a.
Naha, P.; Casey, A.; Tenuta, T.; Lynch, I.; Dawson, K.; Byrne, H.; Davoren, M., 2009, Preparation,
characterization and ecotoxicological evaluation of four environmentally relevant species of N-
isopropylacrylamide and N- sopropylacrylamide-co-N-tert-butylacrylamide copolymer nanoparticles, Aquat.
Toxicol, 92, 146–154.
Pirsaher, M., Hossini, H., and Makhdoumi, P., 2020, Review of microplastic occurrence and toxicological effects
in marine environment: Experimental evidence of inflammation, Process Safety and Environmental
Protection, doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.050.
Pivokonský, M., Pivokonská, L., Novotná, K., Čermáková, L., and Klimtová, M., 2020, Occurrence and fate of
microplastics at two different drinking water treatment plants within a river catchment, Science of The Total
Environment, 140236, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140236.
Sovová, T., and Kočí, V., 2012, Ecotoxicology of nanomaterials, Chemical Letters, 106(2).
Sullivan, G. L., Delgado-Gallardo, J., Watson, T. M. and Sarp, S., 2021, An investigation into the leaching of
micro and nano particles and chemical pollutants from disposable face masks - linked to the COVID-19
pandemic, Water Research, 196, doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.117033.
Wahl, A., Le Juge, C., Davranche, M., El Hadri, H., Grassl, B., Reynaud, S. and Gigault, J.,2021, Nanoplastic
occurrence in a soil amended with plastic debris. Chemosphere, 262, doi:
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127784.
Waymana, C. and Niemann, H., 2021, The fate of plastic in the ocean environment – a minireview, Environ.
Sci.: Processes Impacts, 23(2), 198 - 212, doi: 10.1039/d0em00446d.
270
lp-2022-abstract-238.pdf
Covid 19 Pandemic Influence on the Presence of Micro and Nanoplastics in the Environment