By Challenge / Contaminant
Microplastics Removal Companies
Microplastic removal via high-efficiency filtration, membranes, coag/floc, and advanced oxidation.
This page is a good fit if you need:
- Cartridge Filters or Flat Sheet UF Membranes capabilities
- Suppliers with agriculture sector experience
- Providers operating in United Kingdom or China
- Providers
- 8
- Verified
- 2
- Countries
- 5
Can't find the right fit? Post a brief and let qualified suppliers come to you.
Post a projectHow to choose a microplastics removal provider
Start with providers that clearly operate in your target geography and project footprint.
Look for industry exposure that matches your water challenge, compliance constraints, and deployment context.
Use technologies, service scope, and proof signals to narrow the list before reaching out to suppliers.
Not sure where to start? Our experts can help.
Filter results
Verified providers
2 claimed companies in this category
Country
Industry
Technology
Find a Microplastics Removal Provider
Showing 1-8 of 8
8 results from 8 matched providers
Microplastics in Water: Size Classification, Occurrence, and Treatment Removal Efficiency
Microplastics (MPs) are plastic particles between 1 micron and 5 mm in size; nanoplastics are below 1 micron. Sources in drinking water include atmospheric deposition, catchment runoff, synthetic textile fibres (released during laundry: 700,000 to 1.9 million fibres per wash cycle), plastic pipe corrosion (particularly PVC distribution pipes under chlorinated water), and treatment plant contamination. WHO (2019) preliminary review found limited evidence of adverse health effects at concentrations found in drinking water but identified data gaps; ongoing research focuses on particle-associated chemicals (plasticisers, flame retardants) and physical effects. US EPA and EU are developing regulatory frameworks; no binding potable water standard for MPs exists as of 2026.
Occurrence in drinking water: untreated surface water contains 1 to 10 particles per L for fibres above 100 microns; treated drinking water 0 to 2 particles per L in well-operated systems. Wastewater treatment plants release 1 to 10 million MPs per day per plant in effluent (OECD 2021), contributing to surface water contamination. Conventional water treatment provides 70 to 80 percent MPs removal: coagulation (aluminium sulphate or ferric chloride at 10 to 40 mg per L) aggregates MPs into floc that is removed by sedimentation; rapid sand filtration removes an additional 10 to 20 percent of particles above 50 microns. Activated carbon adsorption provides minimal direct MPs removal but removes associated hydrophobic organic contaminants.
Advanced MPs removal: ultrafiltration (UF, pore size 0.01 to 0.1 micron) provides absolute barrier for particles above 0.1 micron - removing essentially all MPs above 100 nm. Reverse osmosis adds a second barrier (pore size 0.0001 to 0.001 micron) rejecting all particles. Rapid sand filtration optimised with coagulation achieves 95 to 99 percent removal of MPs above 100 microns. For nanoplastics (below 1 micron), conventional treatment achieves only 40 to 60 percent removal; UF or RO is required for comprehensive removal. Research challenge: standardised analytical methods for MPs quantification in water matrices are still being developed (ISO TC147 working group); absence of standardised methods makes comparison of published studies difficult and creates uncertainty in regulatory limit-setting.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does conventional water treatment remove microplastics?
Yes, conventional water treatment removes 70 to 99 percent of microplastics depending on the treatment processes applied and particle size. Coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation: removes 40 to 70 percent (aggregates particles into floc, less effective for fibres and negatively charged polyethylene particles). Rapid sand filtration: removes an additional 20 to 40 percent of particles above 10 to 50 microns. Combined coagulation plus filtration: 70 to 90 percent removal of MPs above 100 microns. Ultrafiltration (pore size 0.01 to 0.1 micron): 95 to 99.9 percent removal, providing an effective barrier for all MPs above the pore size. Reverse osmosis: essentially complete removal (99.9 percent-plus) of all MPs and nanoplastics. Residual MPs in treated drinking water: typically 0 to 2 particles per L from well-operated plants using coagulation and filtration, compared to 1 to 10 per L in untreated surface water.
Are microplastics regulated in drinking water?
As of 2026, no binding regulatory limit for microplastics in drinking water exists in any major jurisdiction. EU Drinking Water Directive (2020/2184) requires member states to develop methodology for microplastics monitoring and implement risk-based watch lists but has not set a parametric value. US EPA is conducting health effects assessment; EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulation development for microplastics is in early stages. WHO (2019) concluded current evidence insufficient to support a health-based guideline value. Netherlands drinking water suppliers (among the most advanced) monitor MPs routinely and report results publicly. Some US states (California, New York) are requiring utilities to conduct monitoring studies. Industry expectation is that regulatory standards will emerge between 2026 and 2032 as standardised analytical methods are validated and health effects data accumulates.
What types of plastics are most common in drinking water?
Fibres (from synthetic textiles, particularly polyester and nylon) are the most frequently reported MPs type in both surface water and treated drinking water globally, comprising 60 to 90 percent of particle types in many studies. Fragment particles (from fragmentation of larger plastics) are the second most common type. Polymer types: polyethylene (PE, from packaging), polypropylene (PP, from containers, ropes), polystyrene (PS, from foam packaging), polyethylene terephthalate (PET, from bottles, textiles), polyvinyl chloride (PVC). PVC is a specific concern for drinking water systems: PVC distribution pipes under chlorinated water and UV light can release particles, with studies detecting PVC-derived MPs at taps served by older PVC mains. Tyre rubber particles (styrene-butadiene rubber, SBR) from road runoff are a significant contamination source for surface water sources.
How are microplastics analysed in water samples?
Microplastic analysis involves: (1) Sample collection - pre-cleaned stainless steel or glass equipment, cotton clothing for sampling personnel (to prevent textile fibre contamination), multiple field blanks; (2) Filtration - sample filtered through stainless steel or glass fibre filters (1 to 300 micron pore size) to capture MPs; (3) Organic matter removal - hydrogen peroxide (30 percent) or Fenton's reagent oxidation removes biogenic material (algae, humic matter) that would interfere with particle counting; (4) Identification - visual microscopy (for particles above 100 microns), fluorescent staining (Nile Red for hydrophobic plastics, allows epifluorescence microscopy identification at above 10 microns), and chemical composition by micro-FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy) or Raman spectroscopy for polymer type identification. ISO TC147/SC2 and EFSA are developing standardised methods; without standardisation, comparison between laboratories has uncertainty of 2 to 5 times for the same samples.
A UK water company receiving public inquiries about microplastics in drinking water following national media coverage in 2023 sought to understand microplastics occurrence at its treatment works and to quantify the removal efficiency of its existing treatment trains at three sites using different process configurations (coagulation plus sand filtration; coagulation plus DAF plus sand filtration; UF membrane only).
Commissioned a UKAS-accredited environmental laboratory to collect and analyse paired raw and treated water samples at all three sites over four consecutive months (covering seasonal variation) using fluorescent Nile Red staining and epifluorescence microscopy for particles above 20 microns, with micro-FTIR confirmation of polymer type for a 20 percent subsample. Field blanks and laboratory blanks were run at all sampling events.
All three treatment configurations achieved measurable microplastics removal: coagulation plus sand filtration averaged 71 percent removal (range 55 to 84 percent), DAF addition improved removal to 79 percent (range 65 to 89 percent), and UF membrane achieved 98.5 percent removal (range 97 to 99.5 percent). The dominant particle type in treated water was polyester fibres below 50 microns attributed to internal process equipment (polyester filter cloths). The UF configuration produced the lowest absolute count in treated water (below 0.3 particles per L). Results were published in the company's annual water quality report, satisfying the public interest context.
Questions to Ask Shortlisted Providers
- 1
What is the sampling and analytical method you propose for microplastics, and how does it handle fibre contamination from the sampling environment and laboratory reagents?
Microplastics analytical results are highly sensitive to contamination during sampling and analysis: airborne fibres from laboratory air, clothing, and reagent containers can add 10 to 30 times the sample MP count if not controlled. Reputable laboratories use cleanroom conditions, cotton clothing protocols, reagent blanks, and multiple field blanks per sampling event. Results from laboratories without documented contamination controls cannot be interpreted with confidence.
- 2
What is the lower size limit for microplastic quantification in your analytical method, and does your method detect nanoplastics?
Most published microplastics methods detect particles above 50 to 300 microns (visible under standard microscopy). Particles below 50 microns (including tyre rubber particles, which are typically 1 to 50 microns) require fluorescent staining or micro-FTIR at higher magnification. Nanoplastics (below 1 micron) require pyrolysis-GC-MS or similar specialist techniques not yet validated for water matrices. Confirming the size detection range allows you to assess which particle classes are included and excluded from the reported result.
- 3
What treatment modification would most cost-effectively improve microplastics removal at our works, and is there a pilot plant approach to validate this before capital investment?
For treatment works already using coagulation plus sand filtration, the incremental improvement from adding DAF or optimising coagulant dose may increase MPs removal by 5 to 15 percent at low capital cost. The step to UF membrane filtration adds 1.5 to 6 million GBP for a 10 MLD plant but achieves near-complete removal above the membrane pore size. A pilot plant approach (3 to 6 months) validates the improvement before committing capital, which is particularly important given the absence of regulatory standards that would define the required removal level.
- 4
How do you distinguish internally generated microplastics (from process equipment: polyester filter cloths, plastic fittings) from source water microplastics in the treatment works results?
A treatment works that uses plastic-containing internal process components (filter media bags, polyester screen cloths, PVC piping) can add microplastics to treated water even while removing those from the source. Sampling both before and after each process unit, and testing internal process components for particle shedding, allows internal sources to be separated from the raw water contribution. Without this analysis, a treatment works may attribute internal-generated MPs to the source and misidentify the remediation priority.
- 5
What reporting format will you use, and will you include polymer type identification alongside particle count, to support future regulatory compliance if a parametric value is introduced?
Future regulatory frameworks for microplastics in drinking water are expected to include polymer-type-specific limits (based on toxicological data by polymer type) as well as particle count limits. Analytical reports that provide particle count only (without polymer identification) will not be sufficient for regulatory compliance demonstration if polymer-specific standards are set. Ensure that the analytical scope includes micro-FTIR or Raman confirmation of polymer type for a statistically representative subsample, creating a data archive that will be usable for future regulatory purposes.
What Drives Cost in This Category
Basic microplastics analysis (visual microscopy, particles above 300 microns, one sample): 200 to 500 GBP per sample. Intermediate analysis (Nile Red staining, particles above 50 microns): 500 to 1,200 GBP per sample. Comprehensive analysis (micro-FTIR polymer identification, particles above 20 microns): 1,500 to 4,000 GBP per sample. A 4-site, 4-season monitoring programme (32 samples) at comprehensive level costs 48,000 to 128,000 GBP. For screening purposes, intermediate analysis at 2 sites per season (8 samples) costs 4,000 to 10,000 GBP.
Coagulant dose optimisation (no capital, operational change only): 0 to 5,000 GBP. Addition of GAC filtration (existing filter hall): 100,000 to 300,000 GBP for 10 MLD. Coagulation plus DAF retrofit to existing plant: 500,000 to 2,000,000 GBP for 10 MLD. UF membrane filtration as new plant: 1,500,000 to 6,000,000 GBP for 10 MLD. RO addition for near-complete removal: add 2,000,000 to 8,000,000 GBP for 10 MLD. The appropriate technology investment depends on the baseline removal achieved and the target (which is currently non-regulatory).
In the absence of regulatory standards, capital investment to achieve high microplastics removal (UF or RO) is driven by reputational risk management and anticipatory regulatory compliance rather than existing legal obligation. Companies investing ahead of regulation bear the cost of early adoption. Those waiting for standards risk capital programme acceleration if a standard is set requiring retrofit. The option value of designing new treatment works to be 'membrane-ready' (civil footprint and pipework provision for future UF addition) at 5 to 10 percent capital cost premium is a common strategic approach.
A systematic audit of all internal process surfaces that may shed microplastics (filter cloths, piping, storage tanks) and replacement with inert alternatives (stainless steel, HDPE with no fibre release) costs 20,000 to 100,000 GBP per treatment works. This is often the most cost-effective first step at works where internal sources are significant, reducing treated water MPs count before any external treatment modification is required.
Key Regulations & Standards
The EU DWD 2020 requires member states to monitor microplastics in drinking water as part of a harmonised watch list, with the EU Commission to assess available monitoring methodologies and propose parametric values if health evidence supports it. The UK, post-Brexit, is not bound by the EU DWD but DWI and DEFRA monitor EU regulatory developments. Industry expectation is that UK regulation will follow EU DWD direction on microplastics within 3 to 5 years of EU parametric value adoption.
WHO's 2019 report on microplastics in drinking water concluded that, at current measured concentrations in treated drinking water, the risk to human health is low, but data gaps remain significant, particularly for nanoplastics and particle-associated chemicals. WHO recommended: prioritising research on standardised analytical methods, dose-response relationships, and occurrence data globally. WHO reiterated the importance of established water treatment processes for removing microplastics as a co-benefit of primary treatment objectives.
The Environment Act 2021 sets long-term targets for environmental improvement in England, including plastic pollution reduction in rivers and oceans. The associated Environmental Improvement Plan (2023) commits the UK government to further action on plastic pollution in water bodies, including producer responsibility reform for synthetic textiles (a major source of microplastic fibres in wastewater and drinking water sources). This policy direction increases the probability of future regulation on microplastics in treated water.
ISO Technical Committee 147 (Water Quality), Sub-committee 2, is developing ISO standards for microplastics detection and quantification in water matrices. Draft ISO standard ISO/DIS 24187 covers principles for analysis of microplastics in water; ISO/TR 21960 provides guidance on terminology and classification. Regulatory compliance with any future drinking water parametric value for microplastics will require use of ISO-standardised methods by UKAS-accredited laboratories. Investing in monitoring using ISO-consistent methods now creates data that will be defensible in future regulatory submissions.