Skip to main content

Packaging Microplastics Database

Every other product scanner reads the label. None of them read the container. Yuka's published food score is nutritional quality, additives and organic status. Bobby Approved scores the ingredient deck. Beat the Microbead screens plastic as an ingredient. Not one contains a term for packaging, which means none of them can tell you that the same yogurt in a plastic pot and a glass jar are different products.

This database covers that gap. 15 formats, ranked by what physically drives particle release into the contents, what makes each one worse, and the better option.

Why this matters, quantified. A May 2026 report by Earth Action with rePurpose Global estimated roughly 1,000 tonnes of microplastics migrate from packaging annually, about 130 mg per person per year, with PET bottles responsible for around a third of packaging-related exposure. It also found UV exposure can raise release up to 100×, and that food safety regulation largely does not account for packaging particle release at all.

PET plastic bottle

High release

Polyethylene terephthalate, PET (#1)

The single largest packaging source of microplastic exposure. Earth Action attributes roughly a third of all packaging-related exposure to PET bottles, and a 2024 PNAS study counted ~240,000 particles per litre in bottled water.

Better option: Glass bottle

Plastic film and cling wrap

High release

LDPE, PVC or PVDC film

The highest surface-area-per-gram contact in a kitchen. Film is pressed directly against food, often fatty food, for the entire storage period, and PVC film brings plasticiser questions on top.

Better option: Beeswax wrap

Plastic squeeze bottle

High release

LDPE or PET, flexible wall

The one format where you deliberately deform the container every single time you use it. Mechanical stress is an established driver of particle release, and squeeze bottles usually hold fatty or acidic contents for months.

Better option: Glass bottle with a pour spout

Polystyrene tray or cup

High release

Polystyrene / expanded polystyrene (#6)

Brittle, easily abraded and used mainly for raw meat trays and hot drinks. Research on packaged meat has specifically implicated polystyrene trays as a microplastic source, and it performs badly with heat.

Better option: Butcher paper from a counter

Flexible pouch or laminate sachet

High release

Multi-layer plastic and foil laminate

Worse than the can it often replaces. Food sits directly against a polymer layer and the whole sealed assembly is then heat-sterilised, combining direct contact with the most migration-favourable moment in production.

Better option: Glass jar

Coated paper cup

High release

Paperboard with a polyethylene or PLA inner lining

A paper cup is a plastic cup with a paper exterior. Research measured particle release from the polymer lining into hot liquid within about fifteen minutes, which is roughly how long a takeaway coffee lasts.

Better option: Ceramic mug in-store

Plastic mesh tea bag

High release

Nylon or PET mesh

The highest single-item release measured in the food literature. A 2019 McGill study found one nylon or PET pyramid bag released roughly 11.6 billion microplastic and 3.1 billion nanoplastic particles into a single cup at 95C.

Better option: Loose leaf with a stainless steel infuser

Plastic coffee pod

High release

Polypropylene or multi-layer plastic capsule

Pressurised hot water forced through a plastic capsule, which is close to a worst-case combination of heat, pressure and direct contact. Aluminium capsules are meaningfully better because only a thin inner liner touches the water.

Better option: Stainless steel refillable pod

HDPE bottle or jug

Moderate release

High-density polyethylene, HDPE (#2)

More chemically stable than PET and it does not carry PET’s antimony catalyst, but polyethylene is the exact polymer the EU microbead restriction names, and opaque jugs are usually large formats opened repeatedly over days.

Better option: Glass bottle

Tetra-style carton

Moderate release

Paperboard laminated with polyethylene and often aluminium foil

A genuine middle ground. Mostly paperboard by weight with a thin inner polyethylene layer that does contact the food, but no bottle wall to shed and full light protection.

Better option: Glass bottle

Polypropylene tub

Moderate release

Polypropylene, PP (#5)

One of the more thermally stable food plastics, which is why it is used for yogurt and microwave containers. Stability is relative though: PP is still a carbon-chain polymer, and it is usually the format people microwave.

Better option: Glass container

Plastic lid or cap

Moderate release

Polypropylene or LDPE closure

The most overlooked component, and the reason a stainless steel bottle is only as clean as its lid. Threads grind against each other at every open and close, generating particles directly above the contents.

Better option: All-stainless lid

Aluminium can

Low release

Aluminium with an epoxy or acrylic internal liner

Aluminium cannot shed microplastics, which removes the bottle problem entirely. The trade is a thin internal polymer liner, so a can swaps a particle question for a bisphenol question rather than eliminating both.

Better option: Glass jar

Metal tin

Low release

Tinplate or aluminium with a thin internal coating

One of the two best formats for anything fatty. Fully opaque so it blocks the light that degrades oils, and it has only a thin internal coating rather than a polymer wall.

Better option: Dark glass for daily use, decanting from the tin

Glass bottle or jar

Negligible

Soda-lime or borosilicate glass

The cleanest widely available format. No polymer touches the contents at all except the cap liner, which is a tiny sealing surface. If a product is sold in both glass and plastic, the glass version is the answer.

Better option: Already the best option — keep and reuse the jar

Scan the container, not just the label

MicroPlastics scores the packaging your product actually comes in, gives it a 0–100 exposure score, and names a lower-plastic version of the same thing.

Scan my packaging

Sources

  1. Earth Action with rePurpose Global (2026). Microplastic migration from food and beverage packaging (reported May 2026). Forbes.
  2. Qian N, Gao X, Lang X, et al. (2024). Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
  3. Winkler A, Santo N, Ortenzi MA, et al. (2022). Does mechanical stress cause microplastic release from plastic water bottles?. Water Research.
  4. Hernandez LM, Xu EG, Larsson HCE, et al. (2019). Plastic teabags release billions of microparticles and nanoparticles into tea. Environmental Science & Technology.

Related: microplastic ingredients database, cosmetics brand database, microplastics in water, and bottled water brand database.