New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Scientists just calculated how many microplastics are in our atmosphere. The number is absolutely shocking

A new estimate suggests land sources eject 600 quadrillion pieces of microplastic into the atmosphere every year

A figure pours microplastics and nurdles out onto a tarp at the beach during cleanup

Microplastics travel by air and sea, turning up even in remote areas.

Ben Stansall/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Microplastics are pervasive, found everywhere on Earth, from the Sahara Desert to patches of Arctic sea ice. Yet despite these plastic particles’ ubiquity, scientists have struggled to determine exactly how many of them are in our atmosphere.

Now a new estimate published in Nature suggests that land sources release about 600 quadrillion (600,000,000,000,000,000) microplastic particles into the atmosphere every year, about 20 times more than the number of particles contributed by oceans (about 26 quadrillion).

The median concentration of microplastics is 0.08 particle per cubic meter (m3) over land and 0.003 particle per m3 over sea, the study found.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


These estimates are between 100 and 10,000 times lower than previous accountings of atmospheric microplastics—a discrepancy that the researchers behind the new study say underscores the need for better global measures of these pollutants.

“We knew that uncertainties of existing emission estimates were very large,” says Andreas Stohl, senior author of the study and an atmospheric scientist at the University of Vienna. “They are even still large after our study, but we could at least narrow down the uncertainty range, especially when it comes to the importance of land-based versus ocean-based emissions.”

A microplastic is any plastic particle sized between one micron and five millimeters. Easily swept up by wind and carried long distances by water, these tiny motes are also exceedingly difficult to detect and almost impossible to remove from the environment.

Past estimates have focused on accounting for microplastics generated by human activity or directly measuring their concentration in the air in any given area. But these measures are highly variable: along the southeastern coast of China, for example, atmospheric microplastic estimates have ranged from 0.004 to 190 particles per m3. To try and get at a more global estimate, Stohl and his team compiled 2,782 measurements collected at 283 locations worldwide.

The researchers hope the findings will act as a baseline for future studies of global microplastic levels, including new measures that will be able to account for even smaller particles than they did.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe