Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics. Picie przegotowanej wody z kranu zmniejsza spożycie nanoplastiku i mikroplastiku przez ludzi.

Picie przegotowanej wody z kranu zmniejsza spożycie nanoplastiku i mikroplastiku przez ludzi.

Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics.

 

Supporting Information

MANUSCRIPT TITLE:

Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics

AUTHORS:

Zimin Yu, Jia-Jia Wang, Liang-Ying Liu, Zhanjun Li, and Eddy Y. Zeng

ADDRESS:

School of Biomedical Engineering, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 511436, China and Center for Environmental Microplastics Studies, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution and Health, Jinan University, Guangzhou 511443, China

NO. OF TEXTS:

5

NO. OF TABLES:

10

NO. OF FIGURES:

6

NO. OF PAGES:

30

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

  1. Supplemental Texts
  2. Materials

Monodisperse fluorescent polystyrene (PS) microspheres (100 mg 10 mL_1, excitation peak of 540 nm, emission peak of 580 nm) containing three types of functional groups (bare-, carboxyl-, and amino-) and three particle sizes (0.1, 1, and 100 |im), calcium chloride (CaCh; 99.99%), and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3; 99.8%) were purchased from Tianjin SaiErQun Technology (Tianjin, China), Shanghai Macklin Biochemical (Shanghai, China), and Shanghai Yuanye Bio-Technology (Shanghai, China), respectively. Fluorescent PS, CaCh, and NaHCO3 solutions were prepared with deionized water, with the final concentrations at 1000, 222, and 336 mg L1, respectively.

  1. Prevention of Sample Contamination and Preparation of Control Samples

To minimize potential cross contamination, laboratory coats and nitrile gloves were worn during sample preparation and analysis. Glass beakers (50 mL) were used for sample preparation and were cleaned and dried at 200 oC before use. Before every experimental step, glass beakers were rinsed three times with deionized water and covered by glass lids. Two control samples were also analyzed for each PS nanoplastic heating/boiling group treated on different purposes (Table 1). For one of the control samples, a glass beaker filled with 40 mL deionized water and fluorescent PS microbeads (1 mg L_1, 1 |im) was heated/boiled for 5 min to induce aggregated PS at 25-100 oC. Supernatant samples at 1 mL from a 1 cm depth below the supernatant surface and bottom samples at 1 mL at the bottom of the glass beaker were collected for flow cytometry analysis. The PS precipitation efficiency ranged from 0.7 ± 0.15% to 25 ± 3.2%. For another control samples, a glass beaker filled with 40 mL tap water (180 mg L_1 of CaCO3) without fluorescent PS added was heated/boiled for 5 min to determine background contamination. Supernatant sample at 1 mL

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

was collected from a 1 cm depth below the supernatant surface for flow cytometry analysis and background residual amount was 1.9 ± 1.03 particle pL_1. All PS concentrations have been blank corrected.

S3.   Sampling, Analysis Methods, and Results for Microplastics

Sampling and Preparation of Microplastics. Microplastics (MPs) including PS sphere (~100 pm), polyethylene fragment (PE, ~150 pm), and polypropylene fiber (PP, ~100 pm) were used to verify the conclusion draw for PS nanoplastics. PS sphere (~100 pm) was purchased from Tianjin SaiErQun Technology (Tianjin, China). A PE plastic bag and a PP mask were placed under direct sunlight in an outdoor setting for 60 d in summer to produce aged PE plastic bag and aged PP mask. The aged PE and PP plastics were fragmented with a triturator, and filtered to obtain PE fragments (~150 pm) and PP fibers (~100 pm). PS sphere, PE fragments, and PP fibers were spiked into 40 mL tap water (180 mg L1 of CaCO3) with final MP concentration of 0.00075—0.0028 particle pL_1 (Table 1). The solutions were heated (25-90 oC) and boiled (100 oC) for 5 mins. After heating/boiling, the mixed solutions were left to cool for 10 min. Each experiment was repeated three times. Supernatant samples were extracted by a pipette and filtered through 0.22 pm nylon filters. Precipitates were separated for further characterization.

Identification of Microplastics. Recovered PS, PE, and PP MPs in supernatants were identified and counted using a Raman spectroscope (Renishaw; Gloucestershire, UK) linked to a microscope (Leica Microsystems GMS GmbH, Germany). The MP precipitation efficiency was calculated by equation (1) in the main text. A scanning electron microscope (S-4800, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) was used to observe the microstructures of the coprecipitates. To preserve the initial binding morphology of NPs and incrustants in water, each 10 pL fresh incrustant sample was titrated on a copper platform, and dried for 1 h in a

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

vacuum drying oven at 60 oC. Samples on the copper platform were treated with gold spray and observed by the scanning electron microscope.

Results. Boiling hard water can remove most PS, PE, and PP MPs, and PS, PE, and PP MPs precipitation efficiencies were 95 ± 4%, 81 ± 3%, and 90 ± 3%, respectively, at 100 oC. Increasing temperature accelerated the formation of incrustants on spherical, fragmented, and fibrous MP surfaces. MPs continued to be encapsulated by newly formed incrustants (Figure S2) and finally precipitated under gravity, confirming that spherical PS, fragmented PE, and fibrous PP MPs are able to coprecipitate with incrustants in tap water upon boiling. In concluding, the results with NPs in the main text were also applicable to MPs.

S4.   Details of Flow Cytometric Analysis for Supernatant Fluorescent Polystyrene

A Northern Light 3000 flow cytometer (Cytek Biosciences, Fremont, CA) can effectively detect the scattered light signal of fluorescence PS beads larger than 90 nm and allows for determination of PS particle number concentrations. Instrument calibration was performed with Cytek® SpectroFlo QC beads. The fluorescence PS beads were identified based on the 405 nm side scatter (SSC) parameter, and the fluorencence signals in B3 detector through 110 nm and 500 nm green flurescent latex beads (refractive index = 1.59) and nonfluorescent silica (Si) beads with a diameter of 180, 240, and 300 nm (refractive index = 1.43).1 The minimum forward scatter (FSC) threshold was set to 5000 units to exclude debris from the event count. Set the flow rate to “Low”. Data after 10—15 s of sample acquisition was recorded when the flow rate stabilized. Data was collected at < 1000 events s_1 and 5000 events were recorded for each sample. Exact measured volume of each sample was recorded by flow cytometry, and then total fluorescence PS concentration of each sample was subsequently extracted from the flow cytometry standard files to calculate the exact fluorescence PS concentration per ^L.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

Flow cytometric signal plots and gating of signal peaks of 1 |im and 0.1 ^m fluorescence PS were shown in Figure S3. Gating was applied to select the fluorescence PS particles. Gating of signal count of selected PS particles was analyzed. Though some background signals were occurred in the PS blank gating plots that overlapped with area of 1 |im and 0.1 |im fluorescent PS (Figures S3a and S3d), the positive signal peaks contributed by the fluorescence PS were distinguishable from the background signals (i.e., Figures S3b and S3e). And quantification of fluorescence PS was done on the B3 detector positive signal area (B3-A+).

S5.   Estimation of Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emission by Boiling Water through Electric Kettles and Gas Stoves

Electric kettles (electricity) and gas stoves (natural gas) were commonly used to boil water in human daily life. Therefore, the energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by boiling water through electric kettles and gas stoves were estimated by2, 3

Qi = M x C x (Tf - To) / r|i                                                                                                                                                                                    (1)

FMi = Qi / calorific valuei                                                                                                                                                                                    (2)

CO2 emissionsi =EFi x FMi                                                                                                                                                                                    (3)

Penergy = Qi / Qtotal                                                                                                                                                                                    (4)

Pco2 = CO2 emissionsi / CO2 emissionstotal                                                                                                                                                                                    (5)

where i indicates electric kettle or gas stove; Q is energy required to boil water; M is mass of boiled water (Table S4); C is the specific heat of water which is 4.184 kJ (kg-°C)_1; Tf and To are the final and the initial water temperatures (100 oC and 20 oC in the present study), respectively; r| is thermal efficiency of the heating tool (Table S8);2 FM is the quantity of the electricity or natural gas used to boil water; calorific value for electricity is 3600 kg kWh-1 and for natural gas is 36600 kJ m_3;4 EF is the carbon emission factor of the energy, for

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

electricity is 673 g kWh-1,5 and for natural gas is 1940 g m-3;6 Penergy is the proportion of energy consumption of electric kettles or gas stoves upon boiling of tap water (Qi, Table S9) in total energy consumption (Qtotal, Table S10); and Pco2 is the proportion of CO2 emissions from consumption of electricity or natural gas upon boiling of tap water (CO2 emissions^ Table S9) in total CO2 emissions from energy consumption (CO2 emissionstotal, Table S10).

The annual energy required for electric kettles and gas stoves were 0.20-0.47 and 0.25­0.59 GJ individual-1 year1 in 2022, respectively (Table S9). According to Statistical Review of World Energy,7 energy consumption from different countries ranged from 17-630 GJ year- 1 individual-1 (Table S10). The annual average energy demand for boiling water by electric kettles and/or gas stoves accounted for less than 1% of the annual total energy consumption (Figure S6). Boiling water may not be a burden on energy demands in most countries worldwide.

In addition, annual average CO2 emissions from consumption of electricity and natural gas upon boiling of drinking water were 38-88 and 14—33 kg year1 individual-1 in 2022, respectively (Table S9), accounting for less than 4% of the annual total CO2 emissions from energy consumption (Figure S6). Boiling through electric kettles and/or gas stoves could be environmentally friendly household water treatment. In this context, reducing human NMP intake by drinking boiled water is a feasible approach worth promoting worldwide.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

  1. Supplementary Tables

 

Table S1. Conversion Ratios of Number and Mass Concentrations of Fluorescent

Polystyrene (PS) Microsphere.

Species Size (Im)

Mass Concentration (mg L_1)

Corresponding Particle Number (particle |iL_1)

Bare-PS 1

0.1

1.4 ± 0.02

1

0.25

7.7 ± 1.5

1

0.5

15 ± 1.7

1

1

31 ± 2.0

1

3

64 ± 2.6

1

5

110 ± 2.4

0.1

0.1

9.3 ± 0.8

0.1

0.25

22 ± 1.1

0.1

0.5

49 ± 0.6

0.1

1

84 ± 1.0

0.1

3

200 ± 0.4

0.1

5

360 ± 1.7

100

1

0.0028 ± 0.000078

Carboxyl-PS 1

1

45 ± 0.8

Carboxyl-PS 0.1

1

64 ± 2.4

Amino-PS 1

1

39 ± 4.1

Amino-PS 0.1

1

91 ± 1.2

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Area

Sampling site

Water

Main NMP typea

Main NMP size

NMP particle

Average

Reference

 

 

source

 

(pm)

concentration

concentration

 

 

 

 

 

 

(10-6 particles (J.L-1)

(10-6 particles p,L_1

)

Asia

China

Household

PS, PE, PP, PET

1-500

440

230

8

 

Hong Kong, China Household

N.R.

1-50

930

 

9

 

India

Drinking water treatment plant

PS, PE, PP, PET

1-100

2.8

 

10

 

India

Household

N.R.

100-5000

6.2

 

11

 

Indonesia

Household

N.R.

100-5000

3.2

 

11

 

Lebanon

Household

N.R.

100-5000

6.6

 

11

Europe

Spain

Drinking water

PS, PE, polyester,

200-500

0.06

41

12

 

 

treatment plant

PAN, AR, PA

 

 

 

 

 

Czech Republic

Drinking water treatment plant

PE, PP, PET

1-100

470

 

13

 

Belgium

Household

PS, PE, PP, PET, PVC 25-5000

3.8

 

14

 

Germany

Drinking water

PE, PA, polyester,

50-150

0.0007

 

15

 

 

treatment plant

PVC, epoxy resin

 

 

 

 

 

Denmark

Household

PS, PP, PET

20-300

0.31

 

16

 

Norway

Drinking water treatment plant

N.R.

N.R.

2.7

 

17

 

England

Household

N.R.

100-5000

7.7

 

11

 

France

Household

N.R.

100-5000

1.8

 

11

 

Germany

Household

N.R.

100-5000

0.91

 

11

 

Ireland

Household

N.R.

100-5000

1.8

 

11

 

Slovakia

Household

N.R.

100-5000

3.8

 

11

 

Switzerland

Household

N.R.

100-5000

2.7

 

11

North

Cuba

Household

N.R.

100-5000

7.2

27

11

America

USA

Household

N.R.

100-5000

9

 

11

 

Mexico

Public drinking fountain

PTT, epoxy resin

100-5000

18

 

18

 

Mexico

Public drinking fountain

PTT, epoxy resin

100-5000

74

 

18

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Area

Sampling site

Water

source

Main NMP typea

Main NMP size (pm)

NMP particle concentration (10-6 particles pL_1)

Average concentration (10-6 particles (J.L-1)

Reference

South

Ecuador

Household

N.R.

100-5000

4

185

li

America

Brazil

Commercial

N.R.

6-50

194

 

19

 

 

area

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil

Commercial

N.R.

6-50

438

 

19

 

 

area

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil

Household

N.R.

200-1000

110

 

20

Africa b

Nigeria

Surface water

PS, PE, PP, PET, PVC 10-5000

440

290

21

 

Nigeria

Surface water

PS, PE, PP, polyester

100-1000

140

 

22

Oceania b

Australia

Groundwater

PS, PE, PP, PET,

30-5000

38

38

23

 

 

 

PVC, PA

 

 

 

 

a PS, polystyrene; PE, polyethylene; PP, polypropylene; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PAN, polyacrylonitrile; AR, alkyd resin; PA, polyamide; PVC, polyvinyl

chloride; PTT, poly-trimethylene terephthalate; N.R., not reported.

b Little attention has given to tap water NMPs from Africa and Oceania and data are not available. In the present study, surface water from Africa and groundwater from Oceania were considered in the human exposure of NMPs through drinking water consumption.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

(NMP) Precipitation Efficiency upon Boiling.

Area

Country

Hardness (mg L"1)

Reference

Corresponding a

NMP precipitation efficiency (%)

Asia

China

160

24

77 ± 1.2

 

Japan

49

25

25 ± 3.2

 

Kazakhstan

61

25

33 ± 0.6

 

Kyrgyzstan

150

25

77 ± 1.2

 

Nepal

190

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Philippines

180

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Singapore

35

25

25 ± 3.2

 

Thailand

160

25

77 ± 1.2

 

Korea

560

26

90 ± 1.2

 

India

180

27

84 ± 2.0

 

Iran

220

28

84 ± 2.0

 

Afghanistan

600

29

90 ± 1.2

 

Pakistan

170

30

77 ± 1.2

 

Turkey

48

31

25 ± 3.2

 

Iraq

370

32

90 ± 1.2

 

Saudi Arabia

610

33

90 ± 1.2

 

Indonesia

290

34

84 ± 2.0

 

Malaysia

61

35

33 ± 0.6

Europe

Andorra

20

25

25 ± 3.2

 

Austria

190

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Estonia

150

25

77 ± 1.2

 

France

180

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Germany

190

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Poland

220

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Sweden

89

25

34 ± 0.9

 

Spain

210

25

84 ± 2.0

 

Switzerland

230

25

84 ± 2.0

 

UK

37

25

25 ± 3.2

 

Italy

270

36

84 ± 2.0

 

Romania

70

37

33 ± 0.6

 

Denmark

160

38

77 ± 1.2

 

Finland

13

39

25 ± 3.2

 

Norway

3

40

25 ± 3.2

 

Netherlands

61

41

33 ± 0.6

 

Greece

26

42

25 ± 3.2

 

Russia

90

43

34 ± 0.9

North

USA

120

44

77 ± 1.2

America

USA

250

44

84 ± 2.0

 

Canada

20

45

25 ± 3.2

 

Mexico

180

46

84 ± 2.0

 

Mexico

570

47

90 ± 1.2

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Area

Country

Hardness (mg L_1)

Reference

Corresponding a

NMP precipitation efficiency (%)

South

Brazil

270

48

84 ± 2.0

America

Colombia

170

49

77 ± 1.2

 

Argentina

210

50

84 ± 2.0

 

Ecuador

69

51

33 ± 0.6

 

Chile

21

52

25 ± 3.2

Africa

Ethiopia

67

25

33 ± 0.6

 

Zambia

360

25

90 ± 1.2

 

Malawi

532

53

90 ± 1.2

 

South Africa

430

54

90 ± 1.2

 

Nigeria

210

55

84 ± 2.0

 

Niger

110

56

47 ± 4.2

 

Egypt

690

57

90 ± 1.2

 

Algeria

51

58

25 ± 3.2

 

Cameroon

51

59

25 ± 3.2

 

Ghana

180

60

84 ± 2.0

 

Tunisia

260

61

84 ± 2.0

 

Libya

210

62

84 ± 2.0

 

Libya

1700

63

90 ± 1.2

 

Morocco

300

64

90 ± 1.2

 

Kenya

50

65

25 ± 3.2

 

Sudan

270

66

84 ± 2.0

 

Zimbabwe

190

67

84 ± 2.0

 

Tanzania

120

68

77 ± 1.2

 

Mozambique

1500

69

90 ± 1.2

Oceania

Australia

180

70

84 ± 2.0

 

New Zealand

38

25

25 ± 3.2

a According to the present study, the tested NMP precipitation efficiencies mainly dominated

by water temperature and hardness instead of NMP properties. Therefore, the precipitation efficiencies in different water hardness upon boiling drawn for polystyrene nanoplastics were considered for assessing the human NMP exposure through boiled water consumption. The precipitation efficiencies were preliminarily divided into 7 categories (Table S5): 0-59 mg L_ L 25 ± 3.2%; 6^79 mg L1: 33 ± 0.6%; 80-99 mg L1: 34 ± 0.9%; 10^119 mg L1: 47 ± 4.2%; 120—179 mg L1: 77 ± 1.2%; 180-299 mg L1: 84 ± 2.0%; > 300 mg L1: 90 ± 1.2%.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Table S4. Information on the Recommended Daily Intake Rate of Water (L day-1 individual-1) Used to Determine Human Nano/Microplastic Consumption of Adults (Male/Female) 19-71 Years Old and Children (Male/Female) 1-18 Years Old.

 

Male adults

Female adults

Male children

Female children

Reference

Boiled water a

3.26

2.26

1.74

1.41

71

Tap water

3.26

2.26

1.74

1.41

71

a Recommended daily intake rates of boiled and tap water have not been distinguished,71, 72 and boiled water is generally obtained by tap water after boiling, thus the intake rate of boiled water is regarded the same as tap water.

 

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Table S5. Polystyrene Nanoplastic (NP) Precipitation Efficiency in Different Water

Temperature and Water Hardness upon Boiling.

Conditions

NP precipitation efficiency (%) (average ± standard deviation)

Supernatant concentration (particle ^L_1)

Water temperature (°C) 25

2.1 ± 0.15

30 ± 4.0

50

3.9 ± 1.3

29 ± 6.8

70

26 ± 3.9

23 ± 7.5

80

32 ± 1.0

21 ± 2.5

90

28 ± 2.6

22 ± 6.3

100

84 ± 1.1

4.8 ± 2.6

Water hardness (mg L1) 0

25 ± 3.2

 

60

33 ± 0.6

 

80

34 ± 0.9

 

100

47 ± 4.2

 

120

77 ± 1.2

 

180

84 ± 2.0

 

300

90 ± 1.2

 

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Table S6. Quantity of Incrustants Formed in Tap Water (180 mg L 1 of CaCO3, 40 mL) at Different Temperatures.

Temperature (oC)

Incrustants quantity (g)

25

50

70

80

90

100

0

0

0.0002 ± 0 0.0005 ± 0.0001 0.0013 ± 0.0002 0.0020 ± 0.0002

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Table S7. X-ray Diffraction Standard Cards of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) and Magnesium Carbonate (MgCO3).

 

Calcite (CaCOs) JCPDSNo. 00-047-1743

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

23.054

(0 1 2)

63.052

(2 1 -5)

93.055

(2 0 14)

109.552

(4 1 0)

29.4

(1 0 4)

64.659

(3 0 0)

94.711

(4 0 4)

110.472

(2 2 -12)

31.435

(0 0 6)

65.612

(0 0 12)

95

(1 3 -8)

114.037

(2 3 -7)

35.969

(1 1 0)

69.186

(1 2 -7)

96.158

(1 0 16)

117.936

(3 2 -8)

39.408

(1 1 -3)

70.24

(0 2 10)

96.2

(1 1 -15)

118.779

(4 1 -6)

43.158

(2 0 2)

72.891

(2 1 -8)

97.695

(1 2 -13)

119.248

(1 2-16)

47.114

(0 2 4)

73.667

(0 3 6)

99.155

(3 0 12)

120.77

(1 1 -18)

47.506

(0 1 8)

76.271

(2 2 0)

102.218

(2 3 -1)

127.243

(5 0 2)

48.504

(1 1 -6)

77.159

(1 1 -12)

102.936

(3 2 -2)

127.97

(2 3 -10)

56.562

(1 2 -1)

80.94

(1 3 -2)

103.528

(3 1 -10)

128.545

(2 1 -17)

57.398

(1 2 2)

81.523

(1 2 -10)

104.121

(2 1 -14)

128.704

(1 3 -14)

58.079

(1 0 10)

82.105

(0 1 14)

105.83

(2 3 -4)

130.852

(0 5 4)

60.667

(1 2 -4)

83.768

(1 3 4)

106.13

(0 4 8)

133.975

(0 1 20)

60.997

(2 0 8)

84.804

(2 2 -6)

107.333

(0 2 16)

134.496

(3 2 -11)

61.374

(1 1 -9)

86.458

(2 1 -11)

108.028

(3 2 -5)

135.725

(3 3 0)

Aragonite (CaCOs) JCPDS No. 00-041-1475

 

 

 

 

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

21.075

(1 1 0)

49.859

(2 1 2)

67.838

(0 4 3)

79.401

(0 6 2)

22.296

(0 2 0)

50.229

(1 3 2)

68.635

(2 4 2)

80.76

(1 5 3)

26.212

(1 1 1)

51.917

(1 4 1)

68.773

(3 3 1)

80.973

(2 2 4)

27.216

(0 2 1)

52.455

(1 1 3)

69.045

(1 1 4)

82.258

(2 6 0)

31.115

(0 0 2)

52.913

(2 3 1)

69.541

(0 2 4)

82.258

(1 6 2)

32.741

(1 2 1)

53.022

(0 2 3)

69.659

(3 2 2)

82.852

(0 4 4)

33.128

(0 1 2)

53.942

(2 2 2)

70.082

(1 5 2)

82.852

(3 4 2)

36.176

(2 0 0)

56.144

(0 4 2)

70.846

(0 6 0)

83.219

(4 2 1)

37.264

(0 3 1)

56.403

(1 2 3)

70.846

(1 4 3)

85.118

(4 0 2)

37.884

(1 1 2)

56.79

(3 1 0)

72.3

(2 5 1)

85.294

(0 1 5)

38.405

(1 3 0)

59.229

(3 1 1)

72.448

(1 2 4)

85.733

(3 3 3)

38.61

(0 2 2)

60.211

(0 5 1)

75.268

(3 3 2)

86.196

(4 1 2)

41.187

(2 1 1)

61.831

(2 4 1)

75.933

(1 6 1)

86.368

(3 5 1)

41.624

(1 3 1)

62.301

(2 1 3)

76.611

(3 4 1)

86.368

(2 3 4)

42.866

(1 2 2)

62.898

(3 2 1)

76.611

(2 0 4)

87.998

(1 7 0)

42.866

(2 2 0)

63.338

(1 5 1)

76.765

(4 0 0)

87.998

(1 1 5)

45.853

(2 2 1)

64.88

(0 0 4)

77.066

(3 1 3)

88.541

(4 3 1)

46.535

(0 3 2)

65.875

(2 2 3)

77.963

(0 5 3)

88.541

(0 2 5)

48.319

(0 4 1)

66.059

(0 1 4)

77.963

(1 3 4)

89.411

(4 2 2)

48.444

(2 0 2)

66.191

(3 1 2)

78.698

(2 5 2)

 

 

48.885

(0 1 3)

66.548

(3 3 0)

79.401

(2 4 3)

 

 

Vaterite (CaCOs) JCPDS No. 00-033-0268

 

 

 

 

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

21.005

(0 0 4)

49.099

(3 04)

69.524

(4 1 0)

96.561

(6 0 0)

24.9

(1 1 0)

50.079

(1 1 8)

70.48

(4 1 2)

98.868

(1 1 16)

27.047

(1 1 2)

51.038

(2 2 0)

71.969

(1 1 12)

100.485

(6 0 4)

32.778

(1 1 4)

52.229

(2 2 2)

73.595

(4 1 4)

102.041

(5 2 0)

38.818

(2 1 1)

55.807

(2 2 4)

80.678

(3 3 0)

104.395

(4 1 12)

39.456

(2 0 5)

59.854

(4 0 1)

82.956

(3 0 12)

105.939

(5 2 4)

40.759

(1 1 6)

61.345

(2 2 6)

84.468

(3 3 4)

109.888

(3 0 16)

41.765

(2 1 3)

62.869

(3 0 8)

85.201

(4 1 8)

115.641

(3 3 12)

42.76

(0 0 8)

66.07

(0 0 12)

87.988

(2 2 12)

115.641

(2 2 16)

43.849

(3 0 0)

68.653

(2 2 8)

93.564

(0 0 16)

 

 

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

2Theta

(h k l)

27.776

(0 1 2)

77.549

(1 25)

103.4

(1 34)

131.066

(2 3 2)

37.245

(1 0 4)

79.385

(2 0 8)

107.096

(2 2 6)

138.215

(3 24)

42.008

(1 1 0)

79.922

(1 0 10)

107.355

(3 1 5)

142.35

(2 0,14)

42.792

(0 0 6)

81.711

(1 1 9)

108.762

(1 1 12)

143.002

(4 10)

47.429

(1 1 3)

87.813

(2 1 7)

109.811

(2 1 10)

144.311

(2 3 5)

51.11

(2 0 2)

91.593

(2 2 0)

113.577

(0 4 2)

146.672

(3 0 12)

57.378

(0 2 4)

92.122

(0 3 6)

118.408

(1 3 7)

147.522

(0 4 8)

61.518

(1 1 6)

93.709

(0 0 12)

119.255

(4 0 4)

148.111

(2 1 13)

63.822

(0 1 8)

94.172

(1 2 8)

119.616

(1 2 11)

148.519

(1 3 10)

66.855

(2 1 1)

94.702

(0 2 10)

122.331

(0 1 14)

149.905

(1 4 3)

68.23

(1 2 2)

95.414

(2 2 3)

125.919

(3 1 8)

 

 

73.611

(2 1 4)

96.941

(1 3 1)

128.806

(2 2 9)

 

 

76.753

(3 0 0)

98.223

(3 1 2)

129.401

(3 2 1)

 

 

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

 

Electric kettle

Gas stove

Thermal efficiency (%)

85

68

Energy consumption (kJ)

394

492

Quantity of electricity (kWh)

0.11

 

Quantity of natural gas (m3)

 

0.0126

CO2 emissions (kg)

0.074

0.027

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

 

Male adults

Female adults

Male children

Female children

Energy consumption

0.47

0.32

0.25

0.20

from electric kettle (Qeiectricity, GJ year 1

individual-1)

 

 

Quantity of electricity

130

90

69

56

(FMelectricity, kWh year1

individual-1)

 

 

 

Energy consumption

0.59

0.41

0.31

0.25

from gas stove (Qnatural gas, GJ year 1 individual 1)

 

 

Quantity of natural gas

15

10

8.0

6.5

(FMnatural gas, m3 year 1 individual 1)

 

 

 

CO2 emissionselectricity

88

61

47

38

(kg year1 individual-1)

 

 

 

 

CO2 emissionsnatural gas

33

23

17

14

(kg year1 individual-1)

 

 

 

 

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Table S10. Global Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions from

Energy Consumption. a

Area

Country

Energy consumption (Qtotal, GJ year1 individual-1)

CO2 emissions (kg year1 individual-1)

Asia

China

109

7381

 

Japan

141

8540

 

Philippines

18

1168

 

Singapore

630

38265

 

Thailand

73

3753

 

Korea

245

11695

 

India

25

1789

 

Pakistan

17

944

 

Turkey

80

4726

 

Indonesia

30

2065

 

Malaysia

128

7030

Europe

Austria

166

6458

 

Estonia

179

13258

 

France

144

4027

 

Germany

152

7550

 

Poland

117

8229

 

Sweden

219

3805

 

Spain

117

5160

 

Switzerland

123

3808

 

Italy

107

5287

 

Romania

73

3690

 

Denmark

115

4760

 

Finland

209

6694

 

Norway

378

7037

 

Netherlands

198

9972

 

Greece

99

5347

North America

USA

280

13838

 

Canada

364

13547

 

Mexico

52

2920

South America

Brazil

59

2019

 

Colombia

38

1668

 

Argentina

75

3930

 

Ecuador

43

1972

 

Chile

85

4438

Africa

South Africa

83

7328

Oceania

Australia

222

2248

 

New Zealand

165

6382

a Data is obtained from the Statistical Review of World Energy,7 and data of CO2 emissions

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

from energy consumption is calculated by dividing total CO2 emissions by the population of the corresponding country.

  1. Supplementary Figures

Figure S1. Diagram of supernatant sampling location. (a) Height of 40 mL water column before heating/boiling; (b) Height of water column after heating/boiling, samples in 1cm depth below the surface of the supernatant is near the center of the water column.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Figure S2. Polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene microplastics (PS, PE, and PP MPs) and incrustants coprecipitates during boiling of tap water (180 mg L_1 of CaCO3). (a) PS, PE, and PP MP precipitation efficiencies in the supernatant at 25-100 oC; (b) Scanning electron microscopic of PS and incrustant coprecipitates at 25-100 oC; (c) Elemental mapping of PE and incrustant coprecipitates at 25-100 °C, green indicates “C” element, yellow indicates “O” element, and red indicates “Ca” element; and (d) Scanning electron microscopic of PP and incrustant coprecipitates at 25-100 oC.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

Figure S3.

a)

PS-blank

b)

Standard 1 |jm

 

4.0M'

 

4.0M-

-

3.0M-

 

3.0M-

 

< 

 

< 

 

b> 2.0M-

 

m 2.0M-

 

W

 

w

I I

1.0M-

 

 

 

1.0M-

 

 

 

•

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

0.

0      1.0M 2.0M 3.0M 4.0M

FSC-A

0      1.0M    2.0M    3.0M 4.0M

FSC-A

2.0 1.50 ! 1.00

' comp-B3-A-

Comp-B3-A+

. 100

0

 

 

.....

k.... ,..............

10 10 10 10 ComD-B3-A

d)

PS-blank

 

 

25

 

Comp-B3-A-

Comp-B3-A+

 

 

2 92

97.1

 

200-

 

 

20-

^ 150-

 

 

_ 15-

3

 

 

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50-

 

 

5.0-

0_

 

 

0.

10 10 10 ComD-B3-A

o’ 2 '4 6 10 10 10 10

FSC-A

C0mp-B3-A-

100

C0mp-B3-A+

0

 

 

1 """I ■

tO 10      10

CamD-B3-A

e)

Standard 0.1 pm

10 10 10 FSC-A

• Comp-B3-A- c 5 28

1

3rtip-B3-A+

947

1_L

........ .J.

L

10 10 ComD-B3-A

c)

PS-water 1 pm

0       1.0M     2.0M     3.0M 4 0M

FSC-A

Comp-B3-A-

Comp-B3-A+

3 88

961

 

i____________

10 10 10 Como-BS-A

f)

PS-water 0.1 pm

10 10 10

FSC-A

Comp-B3-A-

4.53

Comp-B3-A*

95.5

10 10 10 Como-B3-A

Flow cytometric signal plots and gating of signal peaks of 1 pm and 0.1 pm fluorescence polystyrene (PS). (a) Supernatant of boiled water (180 mg L_1 of CaCO3) without 1 pm PS (PS-blank); (b) PS standard solution (1 pm, 1mg L_1; Standard 1 pm); (c) Supernatant of PS polluted boiled water (1 pm, 1mg L_1, 180 mg L1 of CaCO3; PS-water 1 pm); (d) Supernatant of boiled water (180 mg L_1 of CaCO3) without 0.1 pm PS (PS-blank); (e) PS standard solution (0.1 pm, 1mg L_1; Standard 0.1 pm); and (f) Supernatant of PS polluted boiled water (0.1 pm, 1mg L_1, 180 mg L_1 of CaCO3; PS-water 0.1 pm). B3-A+ indicated fluorescence positive signal, and the quantification of fluorescence PS was analyzed on the positive signal area.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

. Bare-PS 1 pm                                JLJLi^A JudLii ..

 

. Carboxyl-PS 1 pm

Amino-PS 1 nm

 

lL

Bare-PS 0.1 pm Carboxyl-PS 0 1 pm

Amino-PS'0.1 nm

________ . i l 1 1 .1____ i__ 1_ .11 . i 1.1______ .__ ..___

 

Calcite, 00-047-1743

l___ 1_ 1_ 1__ (Ll_____ Lb_ III III___ L

 

Aragonite, 00-041-1475

i ll 1 ill li 1 L ImI ill j m i i ml i ai i ai

1 1

 

Vaterite, 00-033-0268

MgC03, 97-009-4587

________ ,_____ L_________ ,_U_____ ,J____ UU_____ U_

       

10          20           30           40           50           60           70

2Theta (degree)

Figure S4. Morphology and composition of incrustants in different conditions. (a)

Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images of bare-polystyrene (PS, 1 |im, 1 mg L_1) and incrustant coprecipitates formed in tap water at different temperatures (180 mg L1 of CaCO3, 40 mL, 25-100 oC); (b) SEM images of bare-PS (1 |im, 1 mg L_1) and incrustant coprecipitates in different water hardness upon boiling (6^300 mg L_1 of CaCO3, 100 oC); (c) SEM images of bare-PS and incrustant coprecipitates in different PS concentrations (1 |im, 0-5 mg L_1) upon boiling of tap water (180 mg L_1 of CaCO3, 100 oC); and (d) SEM images and (e) X-ray diffraction patterns of bare-, carboxyl-, and amino- PS and incrustant coprecipitates upon boiling of tap water (1 and 0.1 ^m, 1 mg

L1, 180 mg L1 of CaCO3, 100 oC).

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

 

NMP-incrustant

in boiled water

Encapsulated NMPs

co-precipitation Aggregate & precipitate

Figure S5. Mechanism governing the coprecipitation of nano/microplastics (NMPs) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) incrustants upon boiling.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

CO

NMP

Boiling

Interracial nucleation

HoCO

Boiled is Safer

Tap water-------- ► HCO

CaCOi nuclei

Ca2

Crystal growth

NMP separation

 

Figure S6. Proportion of energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from boiling water using electric kettles (electricity) and gas stoves (natural gas).

(a) Annual average energy demand to boil water by electric kettle and/or gas stove accounted for lower than 1% of the annual total energy consumption; (b) annual average CO2 emissions from consumption of electricity and/or natural gas upon boiling water accounted for lower than 4% of the annual total CO2 emissions from energy consumption.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

a)

b)

Proportion of energy consumption (%)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0

Electric Kettle

Gas stove

 

' (

 

 

< 

'

)

 

(

i ^ '

l

(

1

o Electricity

Natural gas

  • to
  • 4

0)

CN

o 3

O

**-

o

8 2

tr

o

  1. -1
  • 1

fill

 

REFERENCES

  • Voss, S. C.; Yassin, M.; Grivel, J. C.; Al Hmissi, S.; Allahverdi, N.; Nashwan, A.; Merenkov, Z.; Abdulla, M.; Al Malki, A.; Raynaud, C.; Elsaftawy, W.; Al Kaabi, A.; Donati, F.; Botre, F.; Mohamed Ali, V.; Georgakopoulos, C.; Al Maadheed, M., Red blood cell derived extracellular vesicles during the process of autologous blood doping. Drug Test.

Anal. 2022, 14, 1984-1994.

  • Cohen, A.; Pillarisetti, A.; Luo, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Li, H.; Zhong, G.; Zhu, G.; Colford, J. M., Jr.; Smith, K. R.; Ray, I.; Tao, Y., Boiled or bottled: Regional and seasonal exposures to drinking water contamination and household air pollution in rural China. Health Perspect. 2020, 128, 127002.
  • Zhang, P.; Cai, W.; Yao, M.; Wang, Z.; Yang, L.; Wei, W., Urban carbon emissions associated with electricity consumption in Beijing and the driving factors. Energy 2020, 275, 115425.
  • Engineering Tool Box. Fuels - Higher and lower calorific values. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html (accessed 2024-02-05).
  • Qu, S.; Liang, S.; Xu, M., CO2 emissions embodied in interprovincial electricity transmissions in China. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 10893-10902.
  • US EPA. Emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories.

https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub (accessed 2024-02-05).

  • bp Statistical Review of World Energy report. 2022.
  • Tong, H.; Jiang, Q.; Hu, X.; Zhong, X., Occurrence and identification of microplastics in tap water from China. Chemosphere 2020, 252,
  • Tse, Y. T.; Chan, S. M.-N.; Sze, E. T.-P., Quantitative assessment of full size microplastics in bottled and tap water samples in Hong Kong. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 2022, 19, 13432.
  • Sarkar, D. J.; Das Sarkar, S.; Das, B. K.; Praharaj, J. K.; Mahajan, D. K.; Purokait, B.; Mohanty, T. R.; Mohanty, D.; Gogoi, P.; Kumar V, S.; Behera, B. K.; Manna, R. K.;

Samanta, S., Microplastics removal efficiency of drinking water treatment plant with pulse clarifier. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 413, 125347.

  • Kosuth, M.; Mason, S. A.; Wattenberg, E. V., Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PloS one 2018, 13,
  • Dalmau-Soler, J.; Ballesteros-Cano, R.; Boleda, M. R.; Paraira, M.; Ferrer, N.; Lacorte, S., Microplastics from headwaters to tap water: occurrence and removal in a drinking water treatment plant in Barcelona Metropolitan area (Catalonia, NE Spain). Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 59462-59472.
  • Pivokonsky, M.; Cermakova, L.; Novotna, K.; Peer, P.; Cajthaml, T.; Janda, V., Occurrence of microplastics in raw and treated drinking water. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 1644-1651.
  • Semmouri, I.; Vercauteren, M.; Van Acker, E.; Pequeur, E.; Asselman, J.; Janssen, C., Presence of microplastics in drinking water from different freshwater sources in Flanders (Belgium), an urbanized region in Europe. J. Food Contam. 2022, 9, 6.
  • Mintenig, S. M.; Loder, M. G. J.; Primpke, S.; Gerdts, G., Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from ground water sources. Total Environ.2019, 648, 631-635.
  • Strand, J.; Feld, L.; Murphy, F.; Mackevica, A.; Hartmann, N. B., Analysis of microplastic particles in Danish drinking water. Aarhus University, DCE-Danish Centre for Environment and Energy2018, 1-34.
  • Uhl, W.; Svendsen, C., Mapping microplastics in Norwegian drinking water: A summary of results and evaluation of suspected health risks. 2018, 1-6.
  • Shruti, V. C.; Perez-Guevara, F.; Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., Metro station free drinking water fountain- A potential "microplastics hotspot" for human consumption. Pollut. 2020, 261, 114227.
  • Pratesi, C. B.; A. L. Santos Almeida, M. A.; Cutrim Paz, G. S.; Ramos Teotonio, M.

H.; Gandolfi, L.; Pratesi, R.; Hecht, M.; Zandonadi, R. P., Presence and quantification of microplastic in urban tap water: A pre-screening in Brasilia, Brazil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6404.

  • Ferraz, M.; Bauer, A. L.; Valiati, V. H.; Schulz, U. H., Microplastic concentrations in raw and drinking water in the Sinos River, Southern Brazil. Water2020, 12,
  • Ebere, E. C.; Wirnkor, V. A.; Ngozi, V. E.; Chukwuemeka, I. S., Macrodebris and microplastics pollution in Nigeria: First report on abundance, distribution and composition. Anal. Health. Toxicol.2019, 34, e2019012.
  • Olarinmoye, O. M.; Stock, F.; Scherf, N.; Whenu, O.; Asenime, C.; Ganzallo, S., Microplastic presence in sediment and water of a lagoon bordering the urban agglomeration of Lagos, southwest Nigeria. Geosciences2020, 10,
  • Nan, B.; Su, L.; Kellar, C.; Craig, N. J.; Keough, M. J.; Pettigrove, V., Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia. Pollut.2020, 259, 113865.
  • Du, Y.; Luo, K.; Hussain, R., Comparative study of physico-chemical parameters of drinking water from some longevity and non-longevity areas of China. Water Health2017, 15, 462-473.
  • Hori, M.; Shozugawa, K.; Sugimori, K.; Watanabe, Y., A survey of monitoring tap water hardness in Japan and its distribution patterns. Rep.2021, 11, 13546.
  • Kim, K. H.; Susaya, J. P.; Park, C. G.; Uhm, J. H.; Hur, J., Comprehensive monitoring of drinking well water quality in Seoul metropolitan city, Korea. Monit. Assess.

2013, 185, 6353-6378.

  • Mitra, P.; Pal, D. K.; Das, M., Does quality of drinking water matter in kidney stone disease: A study in West Bengal, India. Clin. Urol.2018, 59, 158-165.
  • Dindarloo, K.; Ghaffari, H. R.; Kheradpisheh, Z.; Alipour, V.; Ghanbarnejad, A.; Fakhri, Y.; Goodarzi, B., Drinking water quality: comparative study of tap water, drinking bottled water and point of use (PoU) treated water in Bandar-e-Abbas, Iran. Water Treat.2015, 1-7.
  • Ebner, P. D.; Deering, A.; Mojadady, M.; Rahimi, Z.; Amini, R.; Popal, M.; Eshaqzai, N.; Barak, S.; Amini, S.; Azizi, E.; Morshid, E.; Mohammadi, N.; Rahimi, M.; Mc, N. K.;

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

Oliver, H. F., Capacity building through water quality and safety analyses in Herat, Afghanistan. J. FoodProt. 2018, 81, 1467—1471.

  • Shahab, A.; Qi, S.; Zaheer, M.; Rashid, A.; Afnan Talib, M.; Ashraf, U.,

Hydrochemical characteristics and water quality assessment for drinking and agricultural purposes in District Jacobabad, Lower Indus Plain, Pakistan. Int. Jagr. Biol. Eng. 2018, 11, 115-121.

  • Sipahi, F.; Uslu, S., Investigation of the quality and physical-geochemical characteristics of the drinking water in Gumii§hane (Turkey) city central. J. Geosci. 2016, 9, 600.
  • Ameen, H. A., Spring water quality assessment using water quality index in villages of Barwari Bala, Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Water Sci.2019, 9, 176.
  • Badr, E.-S. A.; Al-Naeem, A. A., Assessment of drinking water purification plant efficiency in Al-Hassa, eastern region of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability2021, 13,
  • Sudia, L. B.; Indriyani, L.; Yunus, L.; Mursidi, B.; Yasin, A.; Albasri; Nurdin, M., Water quality in thirty freshwater springs and twenty four brackish springs in the karst area to realize sustainable water resources management. Sustainability2021, 13,
  • Ong, C.; Ibrahim, S.; Sen Gupta, B., A survey of tap water quality in Kuala Lumpur. Urban Water J.2007, 4, 29—41.
  • Tiwari, A. K.; Ghione, R.; De Maio, M.; Lavy, M., Evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes and groundwater quality for suitability of drinking and irrigation purposes: a case study in the Aosta Valley region, Italy. J. Geosci.2017, 10, 264.
  • Ion, A.; Vladescu, L.; Badea, I. A.; Comanescu, L., Monitoring and evaluation of the water quality of Budeasa Reservoir-Arges River, Romania. Monit. Assess.2016,

188, 535.

  • Rigas, A. S.; Ejsing, B. H.; Sorensen, E.; Pedersen, O. B.; Hjalgrim, H.; Erikstrup, C.; Ullum, H., Calcium in drinking water: Effect on iron stores in Danish blood donors-results from the Danish Blood Donor Study. Transfusion2018, 58, 1468-1473.
  • Kousa, A.; Havulinna, A. S.; Moltchanova, E.; Taskinen, O.; Nikkarinen, M.; Salomaa, V.; Karvonen, M., Magnesium in well water and the spatial variation of acute myocardial infarction incidence in rural Finland. Geochemistry2008, 23, 632-640.
  • Flaten, T. P., A nation-wide survey of the chemical composition of drinking water in Norway. Total Environ.1991, 102, 35-73.
  • Leurs, L. J.; Schouten, L. J.; Mons, M. N.; Goldbohm, R. A.; van den Brandt, P. A., Relationship between tap water hardness, magnesium, and calcium concentration and mortality due to ischemic heart disease or stroke in The Netherlands. Health Perspect.2010, 118, 414-420.
  • Tziritis, E.; Tzamos, E.; Vogiatzis, P.; Matzari, C.; Kantiranis, N.; Filippidis, A.; Theodosiou, N.; Fytianos, K., Quality assessment and hydrogeochemical status of potable water resources in a suburban area of northern Greece (Thermi Municipality, central Macedonia). Water Treat.2015, 57, (25), 11462— 11471.
  • Moscow city website. https://www.mos.ru/en/news/ (accessed 2024-02-05).
  • Hardness of water. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science- school/science/hardness-water (accessed 2024-02-05).

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

  • Chowdhury, S.; Husain, T., Reducing the dimension of water quality parameters in source water: An assessment through multivariate analysis on the data from 441 supply systems. J. Manage.2020, 274, 111202.
  • Reyes-Toscano, C. A.; Alfaro-Cuevas-Villanueva, R.; Cortes-Martinez, R.; Morton- Bermea, O.; Hernandez-Alvarez, E.; Buenrostro-Delgado, O.; Avila-Olivera, J. A., Hydrogeochemical characteristics and assessment of drinking water quality in the urban area of Zamora, Mexico. Water2020, 12, 556.
  • Daessle, L. W.; Ruiz-Montoya, L.; Tobschall, H. J.; Chandrajith, R.; Camacho-Ibar, V. F.; Mendoza-Espinosa, L. G.; Quintanilla-Montoya, A. L.; Lugo-Ibarra, K. C., Fluoride, nitrate and water hardness in groundwater supplied to the rural communities of Ensenada County, Baja California, Mexico. Eng. 2008, 58, 419-429.
  • Scalize, P. S.; Gabriel, E. F. M.; Lima, F. S.; Arruda, P. N.; Lopes, H. T. L.; Paula Reis, Y.; Carneiro, L. C.; Bezerra, N. R.; Fiaccadori, F. S.; Baumann, L. R. F., Physicochemical, microbiological quality, and risk assessment of water consumed by a quilombola community in midwestern Brazil. Sci. Pollut. Res.2021, 28, 35941-35957.
  • Martinez-Gartia, J.; Jaramillo-Colorado, B. E.; Fernandez-Maestre, R., Water quality of five rural Caribbean towns in Colombia. Earth Sci.2019, 78, 575.
  • Rondano Gomez, K.; Lopez Pasquali, C. E.; Paniagua Gonzalez, G.; Fernandez Hernando, P.; Garcinuno Martinez, R. M., Statistical evaluation of fluoride contamination in groundwater resources of Santiago del Estero Province, Argentina. Front.2020, 11, 2197-2205.
  • Garcia-Avila, F.; Ramos-Fernandez, L.; Pauta, D.; Quezada, D., Evaluation of water quality and stability in the drinking water distribution network in the Azogues city, Ecuador. Data Brief2018, 18, 111-123.
  • Debels, P.; Figueroa, R.; Urrutia, R.; Barra, R.; Niell, X., Evaluation of water quality in the Chillan River (Central Chile) using physicochemical parameters and a modified water quality index. Monit. Assess.2005, 110, 301-322.
  • Monjerezi, M.; Ngongondo, C., Quality of groundwater resources in Chikhwawa, lower Shire valley, Malawi. Water Qual. Expo. Health2012, 4, 39—53.
  • Mandindi, W. Z.; Nyaba, L.; Mketo, N.; Nomngongo, P. N., Seasonal variation of drinking water quality and human health risk assessment: A case study in rural village of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Water2022, 14,
  • Awomeso, J. A.; Ahmad, S. M.; Taiwo, A. M., Multivariate assessment of groundwater quality in the basement rocks of Osun State, Southwest, Nigeria. Earth Sci.2020,

79, 108.

  • Adamou, H.; Ibrahim, B.; Salack, S.; Adamou, R.; Sanfo, S.; Liersch, S., Physico­chemical and bacteriological quality of groundwater in a rural area of Western Niger: A case study of Bonkoukou. Water Health2020, 18, 77—90.
  • Abdalla, F. A.; Scheytt, T., Hydrochemistry of surface water and groundwater from a fractured carbonate aquifer in the Helwan area, Egypt. Journal Of Earth System Science 2012, 121, 109-124.
  • Bahri, F.; Saibi, H.; Cherchali, M.-E.-H., Characterization, classification, and determination of drinkability of some Algerian thermal waters. J. Geosci.2010, 4, 207-219.

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026

  • Ako, A. A.; Shimada, J.; Hosono, T.; Ichiyanagi, K.; Nkeng, G. E.; Fantong, W. Y.; Eyong, G. E.; Roger, N. N., Evaluation of groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking, domestic, and agricultural uses in the Banana Plain (Mbanga, Njombe, Penja) of the Cameroon Volcanic Line. Geochem. Health2011, 33, 559—575.
  • Saana, S. B.; Fosu, S. A.; Sebiawu, G. E.; Jackson, N.; Karikari, T., Assessment of the quality of groundwater for drinking purposes in the Upper West and Northern regions of Ghana. Springerplus2016, 5, 2001.
  • Troudi, N.; Hamzaoui-Azaza, F.; Tzoraki, O.; Melki, F.; Zammouri, M., Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking purpose with special emphasis on salinity and nitrate contamination in the shallow aquifer of Guenniche (Northern Tunisia). Monit. Assess.2020, 192, 641.
  • Hamad, J. R. J.; Yaacob, W. Z.; Omran, A., Quality assessment of groundwater resources in the city of Al-Marj, Libya. Processes2021, 9, 154.
  • Abd El-Aziz, S. H., Evaluation of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes in the north-western area of Libya (Aligeelat). Earth Sci.2017, 76, 147.
  • Darwesh, N.; Naser, R. S. M.; Al-Qawati, M.; Raweh, S.; Kharrim, K. E.; Belghyti, D., Groundwater quality in Sidi Slimane, Morocco. Health Pollut.2020, 10, 25.
  • Gevera, P.; Mouri, H., Natural occurrence of potentially harmful fluoride contamination in groundwater: an example from Nakuru County, the Kenyan Rift Valley. Earth Sci.2018, 77, 365.
  • Yasin, S.; Adam, M.; Idris, A. M., Water Quality Index and water quality standards for the assessment of groundwater quality in great Kordufan States, Sudan. Environ.

Bull. 2022, 31, 157—165.

  • Misi, A.; Gumindoga, W.; Hoko, Z., An assessment of groundwater potential and vulnerability in the Upper Manyame Sub-Catchment of Zimbabwe. Chem. Earth.2018, 105, 72-83.
  • Shayo, N. B.; Chove, B. E.; Gidamis, A. B.; Ngoma, O. B., The quality of water in small community supplies of Kingolwira village, Morogoro, Tanzania. Health Res. Bull.2007, 9, 1.
  • Chilundo, M.; Kelderman, P.; O'keeffe, J. H., Design of a water quality monitoring network for the Limpopo River Basin in Mozambique. Chem. Earth.2008, 33, 655­665.
  • Minerals in water. https://thecleanwaterco.com.au/minerals-in-water/ (accessed 2024­02-05).
  • Cox, K. D.; Covernton, G. A.; Davies, H. L.; Dower, J. F.; Juanes, F.; Dudas, S. E., Human consumption of microplastics. Sci. Technol.2019, 53, 7068-7074.
  • World Health Organization Food safety collaborative platform. https://apps.who.int/foscollab/Dashboard/FoodConso (accessed 2024-02-05).

Downloaded from pubs.acs.org/estlcu/article-supplement/345760/pdf/ez4c00081_si_001/ by guest on 04 November 2026