Microplastics in Indoor Environments and Associated Health Risks
Résumé fourni par la source
Microplastics (MPs) are widely recognised as a significant contributor to indoor environmental pollution. Considering that individuals spend a significant amount of time in indoor environments, understanding the occurrence and origins of MPs in these settings is crucial for evaluating potential health hazards and developing mitigation strategies. Nonetheless, comprehensive research and data on MP levels are scarce in the context of indoor environments. This study provides an in-depth overview of indoor MP pollution, encompassing their sources of emission, potential health risks, and strategies for mitigation. Numerous reputable research databases, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, were used in the comprehensive literature search conducted for this study. This review synthesises evidence indicating that indoor environments tend to exhibit significantly higher levels of MPs compared to outdoor areas. Besides, this review explores the various sources and mechanisms that contribute to indoor airborne MP pollution, such as surface characteristics, cleaning and packaging materials, household items, ventilation systems, airflow turbulence, and human activities. Furthermore, this review highlights the potential health hazards associated with human exposure to MPs and emphasises the need to develop effective solutions to mitigate indoor MP pollution. Ultimately, this chapter has demonstrated that numerous areas and sectors require additional research. It has identified gaps that must be addressed.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Microplastics in Indoor Environments and Associated Health Risks
- Date Crossref
- 15/06/2026
- Éditeur
- CRC Press
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.