Brand database
Bottled Water Brand Microplastic Database (2026)
15 bottled water brands compiled from peer-reviewed studies and material analysis. The 2024 PNAS Qian study found ~240,000 plastic particles per litre across the brands they tested — ~90% nanoplastics that earlier studies missed. Where a specific brand wasn't in the 2024 PNAS cohort, we use Mason 2018 (Orb Media / SUNY Fredonia, 11 brands) for the >100 μm count or material-extrapolate from format.
| Brand | Format | Particle estimate | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aquafina | PET bottle | ~200,000–270,000 / L | High |
| Dasani | PET bottle | ~180,000–250,000 / L | High |
| Nestlé Pure Life | PET bottle | ~325 particles / L (>100 μm only) | High |
| Evian | PET bottle | ~256 particles / L (>100 μm only) | High |
| San Pellegrino | Glass bottle / PET | Glass: ~74 / L · PET: ~150 / L | Medium |
| Smartwater | PET bottle | ~325 / L (>100 μm only) | High |
| Fiji | PET bottle | ~280,000 / L (PNAS extrapolation) | High |
| Voss | Glass bottle / PET | Glass: ~50 / L · PET: ~200 / L | Medium |
| Mountain Valley | Glass bottle | <100 / L (no peer-reviewed brand test) | Low |
| Saratoga | Glass bottle | <100 / L (no peer-reviewed brand test) | Low |
| Mountain Spring (own brand) | PET bottle | ~150,000–250,000 / L | High |
| Liquid Death | Aluminum can (epoxy-lined) | No peer-reviewed brand test; aluminum-lined cans avg ~100 / L | Medium |
| Boxed Water | Paperboard carton (PE-lined) | No brand-specific test; PE-lined cartons shed at storage time | Medium |
| Topo Chico (glass) | Glass bottle | <100 / L | Low |
| Mountain Valley (sparkling, glass) | Glass bottle | <100 / L | Low |
Methodology
- Particle counts: PNAS 2024 (Qian et al.) used stimulated Raman scattering microscopy with single-particle identification — the first study to detect nanoplastics <1 μm. The 240,000 / L average comes from that cohort. Mason 2018 used Nile-red staining + optical microscopy and only counted particles > 100 μm — its lower numbers do not mean less plastic; they mean a different (less sensitive) method.
- Brand-specific data: Where a brand was in either study's cohort, the cited number is used directly. Where a brand was not tested but uses an identical bottle format and polymer to a tested brand, we extrapolate and note so.
- Glass + aluminum brands: No peer-reviewed brand-specific microplastic count exists for most glass-bottled brands. Material extrapolation: glass at the water-contact surface sheds essentially zero microplastic; the residual exposure on glass-bottled water comes from cap material + the bottling-line plastic.
- Risk tier: High = PET bottle with a peer-reviewed count or extrapolated >100,000 particles / L. Medium = mixed format / aluminum-can liner / paperboard. Low = glass-bottled with material-extrapolated <100 / L.
Primary sources
- Qian N, Gao X, Lang X, et al. (2024). Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy. PNAS.
- Mason SA, Welch VG, Neratko J (2018). Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water. Frontiers in Chemistry (SUNY Fredonia / Orb Media).
- Schymanski D, Goldbeck C, Humpf HU, Fürst P (2018). Analysis of microplastics in water by micro-Raman spectroscopy: Release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. Water Research.
- World Health Organization (2019). Microplastics in drinking-water. WHO.
Scan your bottled water before you buy a case
Use the MicroPlastics iOS app to check any bottle in 5 seconds. You'll get the 0–100 risk score, the polymer, and the cleaner same-brand swap if there is one.
Download on the App StoreData compiled by the MicroPlastics Research Desk. Last reviewed: June 29, 2026. Submit a source dispute or correction via the contact page.