INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

“Microplastics and Polymers in Construction Materials: Sources,

Fate, and Structural/Environmental Impacts”

Nwanze Tobechukwu Joseph¹, David Chinonso Anih²*, Uguru Chukwudi Clement³, Asogwa

Chikaodili Dorothy⁴, Adamu Kamaliddeen Salisu⁵, Ebikonboere Mary Tekeme⁶, Hussein Omokehinde

Oniyangi⁷

¹Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos State,

Nigeria

²Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Biosciences, Federal University Wukari, Taraba, Nigeria

³Engineering Department, Esut Business School, Nigeria

⁴Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.

⁵Geoscience Department, Faculty of Science, Management & Computing, University Teknologi

Petronas, Nigeria

⁶Department of Evironmental Management and Pollution, Faculty of Environmental Management,

Nigerian Maritime University, Okerenkoko, Delta State, Nigeria.

⁷Nigerian Army Engineers, 24 Support Engineer Regiment, Nkwagwu Military Cantonment

Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.10100000166

Received: 28 October 2025; Accepted: 05 November 2025; Published: 20 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Construction practices increasingly rely on polymer additives and recycled plastics to enhance durability and

reduce material footprints, but these benefits carry environmental and structural tradeoffs. This review

synthesizes evidence that polymer fragments and fibers generated during manufacturing, placement,

maintenance, and demolition rapidly produce microplastic particles that partition among airborne dust, surface

deposits, and stormwater runoff. We present a practical sampling framework and compare extraction and

spectroscopic identification methods, highlighting strengths and limitations of density separation, controlled

digestion, μ FTIR, Raman, and microscopy approaches for size classes and matrices common to building sites.

Combining field studies and modeling, we map fate and transport pathways from site scale emission hotspots

to downstream retention basins and sediments, showing how particle size, density, and biofouling control

whether fragments remain airborne, move with surface flow, or deposit in soils and sediments. We summarize

structural consequences of intentional and unintentional polymer inclusion, noting that well engineered fiber

additions can improve flexural behavior while heterogeneous plastic fragments often increase porosity and

reduce compressive strength and durability under freeze thaw and chemical exposure. We review evidence for

additive leaching, documenting that plasticizers, stabilizers, and some flame retardants can mobilize into

stormwater and porewater at concentrations that are environmentally relevant in poorly flushed settings.

Human and ecological exposure pathways are evaluated: occupational airborne loads during cutting and

demolition are high, community downwind exposures are measurable, and aquatic organisms show adverse

responses to particle and chemical mixtures in laboratory tests. Life cycle assessments paired with durability

Page 1881

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

metrics reveal context dependent tradeoffs between embodied carbon benefits and pollution risks when plastics

are incorporated into materials. Finally, we offer a tiered mitigation strategy: source control, enclosed

handling, targeted sampling, engineered on site controls, and procurement standards to reduce emissions and

protect workers and receiving ecosystems. The synthesis provides practical research priorities, monitoring

guidance, and policy considerations to make construction practices both resilient and environmentally

responsible. We recommend standardized reporting, recovery testing, combined particle and chemical

monitoring, and interdisciplinary collaboration to close knowledge gaps and guide regulation. Adopting these

measures will reduce environmental loads and enhance material longevity. and public health.

Keywords: Microplastics; Construction materials; Polymer additives; Fiber reinforcement; Fate and transport;

Sampling and analysis; Spectroscopic identification; Chemical leaching; Occupational exposure

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the drive to construct longer lasting, more resilient buildings has led the industry to embrace

synthetic polymers such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), and polyvinyl chloride

(PVC), to enhance concrete mixes, waterproof coatings, and composite panels for lightweight structures [1]. At

first glance, these materials promise improved workability and extended service life. Yet beneath their benefits

lies an emerging dilemma: when subjected to the stresses of mixing, placement, and weather, a notable fraction

of these polymers breaks down into micro and nanoplastic fragments. Current estimates indicate that up to

15% of polymer additives in common construction formulations can degrade into microscopic particles during

production, mechanical handling, and exposure to environmental cycles [2].Field and laboratory investigations

reveal that ultraviolet radiation, freeze thaw variations, and mechanical abrasion act in concert to fragment

embedded macro scale polymers, generating secondary microplastics over surprisingly short timescales [3].

Once liberated, their fate diverges: lighter fragments can become airborne during demolition or surface

cleaning, while denser particles collect in stormwater runoff, sediment beds, and soils adjacent to active

construction zones. Recent surveys of urban drainage systems have recorded concentrations exceeding 2,000

particles • L⁻¹ in runoff associated with high rise developments, underscoring the magnitude of unseen plastic

discharge from building sites [4Beyond posing risks to ecosystems, these microplastics also compromise the

very structures they originate from. In durability tests, researchers have found that microfibers and microbeads

embedded within polymer modified concretes serve as points of weakness, accelerating microcrack formation

and reducing compressive strength by up to 12% after repeated freeze thaw cycles [5]. Simultaneously,

weathering of these polymers releases plasticizers, stabilizers, and flame retardants into percolating waters,

introducing potential endocrine disrupting compounds into groundwater and raising fresh concerns for public

health.Faced with these intertwined challenges; environmental contamination, material degradation, and

human exposure, a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge is urgently needed. This review collates the

latest analytical methods for isolating and identifying microplastics in construction matrices, maps their

pathways through the built environment, and evaluates structural and ecological consequences. Finally, we

highlight innovations in polymer selection, encapsulation technologies, and on-site treatment approaches to

chart a path toward construction practices that are both robust and plastic resilient [6].

METHODS

2.1 Sampling strategy and site selection

A robust sampling design for construction-related microplastics (MPs) should aim to capture the diversity of

materials, activities, and pathways that create or mobilize particles. Begin by classifying construction projects

by type (e.g., demolition, new-build residential, roadworks, roofing replacement, façade maintenance) and by

dominant materials used (concrete, bitumen, synthetic membranes, paints/coatings, insulation, synthetic textile

finishes). For each project type choose monitoring points that represent (1) direct material sources (stockpiles,

cut/waste areas, exposed membranes), (2) likely emission points (demolition dust plumes, washout/tank

overflows, runoff collection points), and (3) receiving environments (adjacent soil, drainage inlets, stormwater

outfalls, nearby vegetated strips). This multiscale approach is motivated by recent urban catchment and runoff

Page 1882

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

studies showing that urban and construction areas act as both sources and conduits for MPs into stormwater

and receiving systems [7].

Temporal coverage must reflect activity cycles: sample during active construction/demolition, immediately

after rain events (to capture entrained runoff), and during quiescent periods to estimate background loading.

Spatial replication within sites (triplicate grab samples of runoff, surface dust, and topsoil) reduces site

heterogeneity and supports statistical comparisons. Field blanks and airborne contamination controls

(procedural blank filters set on site) are essential because construction sites are fiber-rich and prone to airborne

contamination. Empirical evidence across urban runoff studies indicates that storm event sampling often

records orders of magnitude higher discharge loads than dry-period sampling; design your frequency to capture

both event and baseflow dynamics [8].

Construction and built environment studies are increasingly pointing to specific management points that matter

— e.g., demolition staging areas, road resurfacing zones, and on-site concrete cuttings — so site selection

should prioritize those hotspots while retaining representative background sites for comparison. Recent

reviews focused on construction materials and built environment exposures underline that some construction

activities (demolition, abrasive cutting, sanding/shot blasting) are particularly important MP sources and

should be prioritized for intensive sampling [9].

Table 1 is a practical inventory linking common construction project types to where sampling should occur. It

lists sample matrices and suggested collection frequency so teams can plan field campaigns consistently.

Table 1: List of construction project types, sampling locations, sample matrices, and frequency of

collection.

Project type

Sampling

locations (on site)

Sample matrix

Frequency

(example)

Citation(s)

Demolition

(concrete/brick)

staging area; dust

plume edge;

surface dust,

runoff, topsoil

pre-demolition,

during, post

[9]

runoff inlet

Road resurfacing

roadway edge;

storm drain

road-deposited

sediment, runoff

before, during,

after rainy events

[8]

[7]

[9]

Roofing/insulation

works

gutters; downpipe

outfall

gutter sediment,

runoff

monthly; event

triggered

Paint/finish work

washout pits;

waste storage

wash water,

sediment

weekly during

activity

Shows project types, recommended on site sampling locations, sample matrices (for example surface dust,

runoff, topsoil) and example sampling frequency.

2.2 Extraction and isolation of microplastics and polymer fragments

Extraction protocols must balance recovery, cost, and preservation of particle properties. Three widely

employed families of methods are (a) density separation with brines (NaCl, NaI, ZnCl₂), (b) chemical digestion

of organics (alkaline KOH, oxidative H₂O₂/Fenton), and (c) hybrid approaches that combine sieving, flotation,

and controlled digestion. Comparative recovery experiments show that using only saturated NaCl (density ≈1.2

g·cm⁻³) underestimates higher-density polymers (PET, PVC); denser solutions such as NaI or zinc chloride

give higher recovery but at increased cost and toxicity considerations. For fine, organic-rich matrices (topsoil,

sediment) digestion steps (e.g., mild KOH or enzymatic approaches) followed by density separation often

provide the best compromise of recovery and sample cleanliness for spectroscopic analysis [10].

Chemical digestion reagents can alter polymer spectral signatures if overly aggressive. Controlled studies that

compared KOH, NaOH, H₂O₂ and strong acids on polystyrene and other plastics found that nitric acid and

other aggressive oxidants can degrade or chemically alter susceptible polymers, biasing identification and

quantification. Use validated, mild digestion when polymer identification (FTIR/Raman) is required, include

reagent blanks, and whenever possible check treated MPs with spectroscopy to confirm no spectral damage

[11].

Page 1883

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Method selection should be informed by recovery testing (spike-and-recovery with size/shape classes of

standard MPs) and contamination controls. Recent comprehensive guides summarize methods across matrices

and recommend reporting recovery percentages by polymer type and size class to allow interstudy

comparability and meta-analysis. Where possible, include centrifugation, multi-step density separations, and

filtration steps adapted to minimize fiber loss, and report recovery and detection limits explicitly [12].

Table 2 is a Side-by-side comparison of the main extraction approaches used for microplastics, with practical

notes for lab choice. It lists typical reagents, recovery ranges and the main limitations to watch for during

processing.

Table 2: Comparison of extraction protocols (density separation, chemical digestion), recovery rates,

and limitations.

Method

Typical reagents /

media

NaCl (1.2 g·cm⁻³),

NaI (1.6–1.8 g·cm⁻³), 95% for larger fragments; Cost, toxicity, fine

ZnCl₂

Typical recovery (range) / Key limitations

Citation

(s)

Density

separation

(NaCl →

NaCl low for dense MP; NaI/ZnCl₂ up to ~80–

[10]

[11]

[12]

sediment cosuspension

NaI/ZnCl₂)

Chemical

digestion

10% KOH; H₂O₂ +

Fe²⁺

Good organic removal; recovery depends on

polymer and size; Can damage susceptible

polymers if too strong; fiber loss risk

(KOH, H₂O₂,

Fenton)

Hybrid (sieving +

digestion +

Sequential sieving

+ KOH + NaI

High reproducibility when optimized; Multiple

steps increase contamination risk; cost

flotation)

Compares method families (density separation, chemical digestion, hybrid) with example reagents and media,

reported recovery ranges and key limitations for each approach. Abbreviations expanded: NaCl = sodium

chloride; NaI = sodium iodide; ZnCl₂ = zinc chloride; KOH = potassium hydroxide; H₂O₂ = hydrogen

peroxide; Fenton = Fenton reaction (hydrogen peroxide combined with an iron catalyst); g·cm⁻³ = grams per

cubic centimeter. The table focuses only on method components, recovery behavior and practical constraints.

2.3 Analytical characterization techniques

Polymer identification and morphological characterization typically combine spectroscopic and microscopic

tools. μ-FTIR imaging (FPA-FTIR) and Raman microspectroscopy remain the workhorse methods for polymer

ID; FTIR excels for particles 20 µm (practical lower limit often ~10–20 µm depending on optics) while

Raman can resolve down to single micron scales but is more prone to fluorescence interference from pigments

and additives. FTIR spectral libraries, automated matching, and machine-assisted classification have improved

throughput, but particle size, color, and morphology still strongly affect identification accuracy [13].

Interlaboratory assessments find that both FTIR and Raman deliver high accuracy when protocols and spectral

libraries are harmonized, but identification accuracy falls for fibers, very small particles, and heavily

weathered polymers. Studies recommending best practice emphasize reporting instrument settings (spectral

range, resolution, acquisition mode), match thresholds, and the percentage of visually counted particles that

were chemically confirmed. For microscopy, SEM (with EDS) is useful to examine particle morphology,

surface weathering, and inorganic coatings; novel pairings such as SEM + cathodoluminescence show promise

for classifying even dark/black MPs that challenge vibrational spectroscopy [14] [15].

For quantitation, report detection limits by particle number and by mass when possible, and describe

subsampling or automated imaging strategies (e.g., FPA-FTIR imaging, Nile-Red fluorescence pre-screening)

so data are reproducible and comparable. Where machine learning or automated spectral matching is used,

provide validation statistics (confusion matrices, precision/recall) for polymer classes [13].

Page 1884

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Table 3 is a compact summary of the spectroscopy and microscopy tools commonly used to identify

microplastics. It lists practical size detection limits, main strengths and weaknesses, and a citation column for

each technique.

Table 3: Summary of spectroscopy and microscopy methods (FTIR, Raman, SEM), detection limits, and

polymer identification accuracy.

Technique

Practical size

limit

Strengths

Weaknesses

Citati

on

μ-FTIR (FPA

imaging)

≈10–20 µm

(instrument

dependent)

High chemical

specificity; automated

imaging

Limited for <10 µm; issues

with black/opaque particles

[13]

Raman

microscopy

≈1 µm

High spatial resolution;

small particle

ID

Fluorescence interference;

longer acquisition

[13]

[15]

SEM (+EDS /

CL)

<1 µm

(morphology)

High morphological

detail; CL can

classify dark

MPs

Not inherently chemical

fingerprinting; sample prep

Compares μ-FTIR imaging, Raman microscopy, and SEM with typical practical size detection and method

pros and cons. Abbreviations expanded: μ-FTIR = micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; FTIR =

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; FPA = focal plane array; Raman = Raman microspectroscopy; SEM =

scanning electron microscopy; EDS = energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy; CL = cathodoluminescence; µm

= micrometer. The table is limited to instrumentation performance and detection considerations.

2.4 Fate and transport modeling approaches

Modeling MP fate from construction sources into receiving environments links field observations to

mechanistic understanding and management. Modeling approaches vary from process-based hydrodynamic

and particle-tracking models, to statistical mass-balance and machine learning frameworks. Recent

comparative reviews classify models into hydrodynamic (advection–dispersion / CFD), particle-tracking

(Lagrangian), mass-balance box models, and data-driven approaches; each has trade-offs between realism, data

needs, and computational cost. Choose the model class to match the spatial scale and policy question e.g.,

catchment-scale Lagrangian particle tracking for runoff transport; local hydrodynamic models for retention

pond behavior [16].

Particle attributes (size, density, shape) and processes (biofouling, aggregation with natural particles,

resuspension, burial) exert strong control on transport mode and residence time. Recent modeling work shows

that small differences in effective density and shape can shift particles between surface transport, suspended

transport, and bedload behavior, so parameterize the model with measured size- and polymer-specific

distributions wherever possible. Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification are essential because

emissions and transformation rates remain highly uncertain for many construction-derived MPs [17].

At the construction-site scale, coupling simple mass-balance estimates (source strength per activity × runoff

capture efficiency) with a routing model for stormwater conveyance and retention systems allows rapid

evaluation of mitigation options (settling basins, silt fences, on-site capture). For regional assessments, couple

source inventories with hydrological and particle transport models to estimate loads to receiving waters and

potential accumulation hotspots. Recent marine and riverine modeling reviews give practical workflows and

highlight the need to validate models with targeted field campaigns that follow the sampling strategy described

above [18].

Schematic flow diagram mapping construction material sources → on-site pathways → transport vectors →

receiving environmental compartments. Arrow widths indicate illustrative relative fluxes (low–medium–high)

and major transfer routes; callouts list recommended sample types and monitoring/collection points. The

Page 1885

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

diagram supports the Methods/modeling discussion in section 2.4 by summarizing likely release pathways and

monitoring targets for construction-related microplastic transport.

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of microplastic and polymer-particle pathways associated with construction activities

(Self-generated).

Columns A–D show (A) material sources, (B) on-site generation pathways, (C) transport vectors, and (D)

receiving compartments; colored arrows trace dominant transfer routes. Arrow key: thin = low flux, medium =

moderate flux, thick = high flux; shaded callout boxes indicate recommended sample types (e.g., surface dust

triplicates; runoff event grab/composite) and monitoring points (stockpile, washout pit, gutter outfall, storm

inlet). Abbreviations: MPs = microplastics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Source characterization in construction materials

Construction materials and construction activities produce a complex and evolving mix of primary and

secondary microplastics (MPs). Primary MPs, such as industrial pellets used in polymer processing and

intentionally added synthetic fibers are usually localized in stockpiles, waste streams, and manufacturing

slurries. Secondary MPs result from mechanical weathering and wear of polymer-containing materials used on

site: paint and coating flakes, abrasion of synthetic membranes, fragmentation of insulation and textile

geotextiles, and particles derived from binder and asphalt wear during roadworks [19]. Field and

materialspecific investigations increasingly show that the relative contribution of primary versus secondary

MPs is strongly material dependent: textile and insulation products tend to shed higher fractions of primary

Page 1886

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

fibers, while composite surfaces and cured polymer-modified materials more commonly produce secondary

fragments through weathering and abrasion [20].

Quantification studies that targeted construction waste and runoff highlight that sources can be highly localized

and episodic. For instance, demolition staging areas and abrasive cutting operations are hotspots for particle

generation; stockpiles and washout pits concentrate pellets and small fragments; road resurfacing tends to

produce abundant mineral-backed polymer fragments and tyre-derived particles that appear across adjacent

drainage networks [21]. Taken together, this evidence suggests that a pragmatic sampling and mitigation

strategy should combine targeted hotspot monitoring (to capture peak emissions) with background site

sampling to assess cumulative loads across the construction phase.

Table 4 quantifies the relative contributions of primary versus secondary microplastics across material types. It

pairs percent ranges with representative sample matrices so readers can see where particles were measured.

Table 4: Quantified contributions of primary and secondary microplastics by material type

Material type

Primary (%

contribution)

Secondary (%

contribution)

Representative

sample matrix

Citation

(s)

Concrete (normal mixes)

5–15

85–95

75–90

65–85

30–60

surface dust,

washwater, cores

[19]

[20]

[21]

[19]

Polymer-modified asphalt /

composites

10–25

15–35

40–70

road runoff, binder

residues

Coatings, paints, sealants

paint chips, gutter

sediment

Insulation and textile

products (geotextiles)

airborne fibers, top

surface dust

Lists material types, reported percent ranges for primary and secondary microplastic contributions, and

representative sample matrices used for those measurements. Percent values are shown as percent contribution.

No abbreviations appear in this table.

3.2 Distribution and fate within the built environment

Once generated, microplastic particles partition quickly among several on-site compartments: airborne dust

and fibers, settled surface dust, construction runoff and conveyance systems, and site waste streams. Shortterm

behavior is driven by local deposition and entrainment: wind, vehicle and equipment movement, and

construction activity resuspend fine fibers and fragments that then redeposit across surfaces, into gutters, or are

entrained in runoff during rainfall events [22]. Stormwater monitoring across urban catchments has repeatedly

shown that rainfall events and particularly first-flush conditions act as major episodic pulses that mobilize

accumulated MPs from paved and exposed surfaces into drains and receiving waters [23].

Spatially, the partitioning is scale dependent. On small sites, most particles remain localized unless active

conveyance (e.g., site drainage) exports them. In larger catchments the cumulative effect of many local

generation points leads to non-trivial offsite transport and downstream accumulation. Hydrodynamic behavior

is determined by particle attributes (size, density, shape) and the transport vectors present: windborne dust

favors fibers and sub-100 µm fragments, surface runoff preferentially transports particles that are easily

entrained in flow, and sedimentation processes eventually sort particles into depositional sinks such as

retention ponds and downstream sediments [24]. Understanding this partitioning is essential to design

monitoring programs and to select targeted mitigation measures for example, installing sediment traps at key

conveyance nodes or combining airborne controls with runoff treatment for sites with both strong aerial and

wash-off sources.

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution and fate of construction-generated microplastics (MPs) as discussed in

Section 3.2. It visualizes how MPs are partitioned among on-site sinks such as structural matrix retention,

onsite runoff, suspended dust, and waste streams. The flow widths represent typical transfer fractions derived

from field studies, emphasizing the dynamic transport processes described in the text.

Page 1887

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Sankey diagram showing the flow of generated microplastics (MPs) from source to multiple pathways,

including retention in construction materials, runoff, airborne dust, and waste streams. Arrows indicate relative

flow proportions, and annotated percentages reflect illustrative transfer ranges based on representative studies.

Abbreviations: MPs = Microplastics.

3.3 Structural impacts on mechanical performance

The inclusion of polymers, whether as engineered fibers or unintentional contamination from recycled polymer

fragments, can modify mechanical properties of construction materials in multiple ways. When engineered

synthetic fibers are deliberately added in small, controlled doses they can improve crack bridging, ductility,

and post-crack behavior, often enhancing flexural capacity and toughness without substantial loss in

compressive strength. However, uncontrolled incorporation of heterogeneous plastic fragments, particularly

when they are poorly bonded to the cementitious matrix, frequently increases porosity and creates weak

interfacial transition zones that reduce compressive strength and can accelerate durability problems [25].

Experimental studies show a nuanced picture: modest fiber dosages (properly dispersed and often surface

treated) can provide performance gains in tension and flexure, while coarse fragments or high replacement

fractions commonly lead to strength reductions. For example, several bench-scale and pilot studies report

compressive strength decreases ranging from 5% to 30% depending on fragment size, content, and surface

treatment, while flexural improvements of up to 10–20% have been observed for well-designed fiber additions

[26]. Long-term durability is similarly mixed. The presence of polymers can reduce chloride ingress if they

block pore pathways, but they can also modify water retention and freeze–thaw response, depending on

particle morphology and compatibility with the matrix [27].

Practical note: If using recycled plastic fragments as aggregate replacements, optimize particle size distribution

and surface treatments, and perform durability tests (chloride penetration, freeze–thaw, carbonation) under

simulated field conditions.

Table 5 summarizes reported effects of polymer inclusion or microplastic contamination on standard

mechanical tests. It gives the observed direction of change, typical magnitude ranges and source citations for

each reported property.

Table 5: Effects of polymer inclusion and microplastic contamination on structural performance

Tested property

Observed effect

Typical

magnitude

Citation

(s)

(reported ranges)

Compressive

Often reduced at moderate to high replacement

−5 to −40%

[25]

strength

fractions

Flexural capacity

Can improve with well-dispersed fibers at low dosages

Mixed outcomes; dependent on particle type and

bonding

+5 to +20%

[26]

[27]

Long-term

durability

Variable;

sitespecific

Page 1888

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

Shows tested properties (for example compressive strength, flexural capacity, and durability), the reported

direction of effect and typical magnitude ranges. Positive or negative percent ranges indicate gains or

reductions in performance respectively. No technical abbreviations appear in the table.

3.4 Environmental release and exposure pathways

Exposure pathways for construction-derived microplastics include inhalation of resuspended dust and fibers,

incidental ingestion (hand-to-mouth transfer of settled dust), and dermal contact. Occupational monitoring near

demolition, cutting, and abrasive operations often records elevated airborne particle counts and fiber loads

compared with background urban levels; these occupational exposures can be many times higher during active

operations and localized tasks [28]. Ambient downwind concentrations for residents near major construction

zones are generally lower than on-site exposures but can still be measurable, especially for fine fibers that

remain suspended for longer periods [29].

Runoff monitoring provides evidence for substantial episodic export of MPs during rainfall. Event-based

sampling commonly yields orders-of-magnitude increases in particle number and mass during storm events

versus baseflow, indicating that surface wash-off is a dominant vector for offsite transfer of

constructiongenerated MPs into receiving waters [30]. Taken together, the exposure evidence points to two

practical conclusions: (1) control measures should address both airborne and wash-off pathways

simultaneously; and (2) worker protection measures (respiratory protection, dust suppression, enclosure)

remain critical while on-site controls reduce community exposures via runoff reduction.

Table 6 Collates measured concentration ranges for air, runoff and soil near construction activities for easy

comparison. It shows numeric ranges and the units used for each matrix so readers can compare exposure

magnitudes across studies.

Table 6: Measured concentrations of microplastics in air, water runoff, and soil adjacent to construction

activities

Matrix

Typical

range

concentration

Units

Citation

(s)

Air

demolition)

(near

10 – 10^3

particles m⁻³

particles L⁻¹

particles kg⁻¹

[28]

Runoff

samples)

(event

10^0 – 10^3

10^2 – 10^5

[22][23]

[24][30]

Soil (top 1 cm)

dry

Reports concentration ranges by matrix and the units used. Abbreviations and units expanded: particles m⁻³ =

particles per cubic meter; particles L⁻¹ = particles per liter; particles kg⁻¹ dry = particles per kilogram dry

weight; m³ = cubic meter; L = liter; kg = kilogram; dry = dry weight basis. The table focuses only on observed

concentration ranges and units.

3.5 Chemical leaching from polymer additives

Microplastic particles and polymer-modified products can act as both physical pollutants and secondary

sources of chemical additives. Additives of concern in construction contexts include phthalate plasticizers,

non-halogenated and halogenated flame retardants, stabilizers, and UV absorbers. Laboratory leaching

experiments and field weathering studies indicate that additive release is a function of polymer matrix, additive

chemistry, particle size, and environmental conditions such as pH, ionic strength, and temperature [31].

Weathering processes mechanical abrasion, UV photodegradation, thermal cycling can increase additive

mobility by increasing polymer surface area and creating microcracks that facilitate leachate diffusion.

Quantitatively, leaching rates reported in recent studies span orders of magnitude depending on the compound

and test conditions: phthalates and some low molecular weight additives can be detected in stormwater and

porewater at ng L⁻¹ to low µg L⁻¹ levels after months of exposure in highly impacted sites [32]. The ecological

relevance of these concentrations depends on local toxicity benchmarks. In heavily contaminated scenarios,

leachate concentrations have approached or exceeded conservative effect thresholds for benthic organisms in

laboratory bioassays, particularly where stormwater accumulates in shallow retention basins with limited

Page 1889

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

flushing [33]. This underscores the need to pair particle monitoring with targeted chemical screening for

commonly used additives when characterizing construction-related pollution.

Table 7 is an example measured leaching ranges for common additive classes found in polymer modified

materials, with the matrices where they were detected. It gives an at-a-glance view of which additives show

measurable release and in which environmental media.

Table 7: Leaching rates of common additives from polymer-modified materials

Additive

Measured leaching

(example)

Matrix

Citation

(s)

Phthalates (e.g., DEHP)

ng – µg L⁻¹ over months

ng – µg L⁻¹

stormwater, sediment

porewater

[31]

[32]

[33]

Flame retardants (some brominated

and organophosphate types)

leachate, runoff

Stabilizers / antioxidants

soil porewater, standing water

Lists additive classes (for example phthalates, flame retardants, stabilizers), example measured leaching ranges

and the sampled environmental matrices. Abbreviations expanded: DEHP = di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; ng =

nanogram; µg = microgram; L = liter. The table reports concentration ranges observed over months and the

matrices (stormwater, sediment porewater, leachate) where they were measured.

3.6 Life-cycle and environmental impact assessment

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) provides a structured framework to compare conventional construction materials

with polymer-augmented or plastic-waste-reinforced alternatives. Recent LCA work shows trade-offs that

depend on whether polymer inclusion displaces a high-impact material (for example, substituting recycled

plastic for virgin aggregate) and on changes in service life and maintenance needs [34]. When plastic waste

successfully replaces high carbon intensity inputs without compromising structural performance, the net

embodied carbon can drop. Yet if polymer addition reduces material life or necessitates more frequent repairs,

those gains can be eroded or reversed.

To fairly assess benefits and risks, coupled LCA–durability frameworks are recommended: these combine

standard impact categories (global warming potential, energy use, resource depletion) with site-specific

durability projections and potential environmental costs from additive leaching or increased microplastic

emissions. Sensitivity analyses show that the allocation method for recycled inputs and assumptions about

service life are often the dominant drivers of net benefit or harm [35]. Scenario analyses and uncertainty

quantification are therefore essential when making procurement or policy recommendations about polymer use

in construction [36].

Table 8 is a side-by-side life cycle impact metrics comparing conventional materials with polymer augmented

or waste substituted alternatives. It highlights where polymer use typically lowers impacts and where it can

raise potential pollution risk.

Table 8: Life-cycle assessment comparison of conventional versus polymer-augmented construction

materials

Impact metric

Conventional

Polymeraugmented (with waste

substitution)

Citation

(s)

Global warming potential (kg CO₂e

per functional unit)

Baseline high

Lower when waste displaces virgin

aggregate

[34]

Energy use (MJ)

High

Often lower, depending on processing

Potentially higher if additives leach

[35]

[36]

Pollution (additive leaching risk)

Low to moderate

Shows impact metrics such as global warming potential, energy use and pollution risk compared between

conventional and polymer augmented materials. Abbreviations expanded: kg CO₂e = kilograms of carbon

Page 1890

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

dioxide equivalent; MJ = megajoule. The table focuses on relative trends and direction of change for each

metric.

Key point: LCA results are context specific. Procurement decisions should be informed by site-level durability

testing and a precautionary assessment of additive release.

3.7 Human health and ecosystem implications

Evidence on human health effects of environmental microplastics is still maturing but is sufficient to justify

precautionary measures at construction sites. Inhalation studies in animal models and in vitro systems suggest

that microplastic fibers can induce inflammatory responses in respiratory tissues and, depending on size and

composition, may translocate across biological barriers [37]. Occupational epidemiology is emergent, but

available studies point to higher exposure levels and potentially increased respiratory symptomatology among

workers in sectors with heavy dust and fiber exposures.

Ecosystem impacts are better documented for aquatic systems: benthic invertebrates, filter feeders, and small

fish show altered feeding behavior, reduced growth, or reproductive effects at elevated particle and additive

concentrations in controlled experiments; additive-laden particles can exacerbate these effects through

chemical toxicity or by acting as vectors for co-contaminants [38]. Terrestrial toxicity data are less abundant

but indicate potential effects on soil invertebrates and microbial community function at high localized

concentrations [39]. Given these uncertainties and the potential for chronic low-dose exposures, it is prudent to

minimize emissions from source and to implement worker protection measures and community exposure

reduction strategies.

Table 9 Summarizes exposure routes (inhalation, ingestion, dermal) and compares typical exposure magnitudes

for workers and nearby residents. It lists the toxicity endpoints reported in the cited literature alongside each

exposure route.

Table 9: Summary of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure levels and toxicity endpoints

Route

Workers

Nearby

residents

Toxicity endpoints

Citation

(s)

Inhalati

High on-site

during active work

Moderate

downwind

Respiratory inflammation, potential particle

translocation

[37]

on

Ingesti

on

Dermal

Gut microbiome

alteration, trophic transfer

Moderate (hand-

tomouth, dust)

Low to

moderate

[28][39]

[37]

Low

Limited compared with inhalation /

ingestion

Lists exposure routes, typical exposure magnitude for onsite workers and for nearby residents, and the main

toxicity endpoints reported (for example respiratory inflammation, gut microbiome alteration). No technical

abbreviations appear in the table beyond plain route names.

3.8 Mitigation and management strategies

Practical mitigation for construction-related microplastic emissions combines prevention at source, engineering

controls on site, and end-of-pipe or receiving water treatments. Source reduction includes minimizing

quantities of loose polymer stockpiles, specifying materials with lower prone-to-abrade formulations, and

adopting closed handling systems for cutting, sawing, and washing operations. On-site operational controls

enclosed cutting, local extraction, water capture and staged washout greatly reduce both airborne and runoff

pathways when properly implemented [40].

Engineered on-site measures such as silt fences, sediment traps, and bioretention systems capture the majority

of coarser MPs in runoff, while advanced filtration (membrane filtration, cartridge filters) and chemical

coagulation/settling systems target finer fractions at higher operational cost [41]. Procurement and regulatory

levers, specifying product formulations with reduced leachable additives, minimum recycled-content standards

that ensure compatibility, and clear construction best practice requirements, can drive long-term reductions in

emissions. The combined evidence suggests that a tiered approach (source control → site containment →

Page 1891

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

treatment → procurement/regulation) is the most effective and cost-efficient pathway to reduce both near-term

exposures and cumulative environmental loadings [42].

Table 10 evaluates practical management measures from source control to advanced treatment, with notes on

relative effectiveness and implementation constraints. It is organized so practitioners can compare options by

expected performance and operational impact.

Table 10: Evaluation of best management practices, treatment technologies, and regulatory measures

Strategy

Effectiveness

Costs / limitations

Citation

(s)

Source control (enclosed handling,

materials spec)

High

Operational cost, training

required

[40]

[41]

[42]

Sediment traps and bioretention

Moderate to high for

coarse MPs

Land take, maintenance needs

Advanced filtration (membranes,

cartridge)

High for fine MPs

High capital & O&M cost,

fouling risk

Compares strategies (for example source control, sediment traps and bioretention, advanced filtration) with

relative effectiveness and notes on costs or limitations. Abbreviations expanded: O&M = operation and

maintenance. The table concentrates on implementation tradeoffs and expected performance only.

CONCLUSION

Construction and maintenance of polymer containing materials generate microplastic fragments and fibers that

disperse across air, soil, and water, creating persistent environmental loads. Accurate assessment depends on

harmonized sampling and spectroscopic workflows tailored to matrices and particle size classes to ensure

reliable detection and comparability. Fate and transport are controlled by particle size, density, and biofouling,

producing distinct airborne, runoff, and sedimentary pathways with different retention and exposure profiles.

Intentional fiber reinforcement can enhance specific mechanical properties, whereas heterogeneous plastic

contamination often increases porosity and reduces compressive strength and long term durability. Leaching of

additives such as plasticizers and stabilizers can mobilize into stormwater and porewater, posing ecological

and human health concerns in poorly flushed or high exposure settings. Occupational activities including

cutting, placement, and demolition generate elevated airborne loads, so engineering controls and enclosed

handling are essential to protect workers and nearby communities. Life cycle comparisons highlight tradeoffs

between embodied carbon benefits and pollution risks, arguing for procurement standards and design choices

that balance resilience with environmental safety. We recommend source control, targeted monitoring,

standardized reporting, engineered site controls, and interdisciplinary research to close knowledge gaps and

guide policy toward safer, more sustainable construction practices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are grateful to our collaborating institutions for their technical assistance, insightful discussions, and access

to laboratory and analytical resources.

We thank the anonymous reviewers and colleagues for their constructive feedback, which substantially

improved the clarity and rigor of this manuscript, Microplastics and Polymers in Construction Materials:

Sources, Fate, and Structural and Environmental Impacts.

We appreciate the contributions of all individuals and organizations who supported this research.

Abbreviations

MPs - microplastics μ-FTIR - micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

FTIR - Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

Page 1892

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

FPA - focal plane array

FPA-FTIR - focal plane array FTIR (imaging)

Raman - Raman microspectroscopy

SEM - scanning electron microscopy

EDS - energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy

CL - cathodoluminescence

µm (or μm) - micrometer m³ - cubic meter L - liter kg - kilogram g·cm⁻³ - grams per cubic centimeter

NaCl - sodium chloride

NaI - sodium iodide

ZnCl₂ - zinc chloride

KOH - potassium hydroxide

H₂O₂ - hydrogen peroxide

Fenton - Fenton reaction (H₂O₂ with an iron catalyst) DEHP - di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ng - nanogram µg

microgram

PET - polyethylene terephthalate

PP - polypropylene

PVC - polyvinyl chloride

LCA - life-cycle assessment

CFD - computational fluid dynamics O&M - operation and maintenance ng L⁻¹ - nanogram per liter µg L⁻¹ -

microgram per liter

Competing Interests

Authors have declared that they have no known competing financial interests or non-financial interests or

personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Funding

The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or non-profit

sectors.

REFERENCE

1. Bekturganova NY, Kolesnikova IV. Effect of polymer additives on improvement of concrete properties.

Adv Polym Technol. 2025; 2025:6235216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2025/6235216

2. Zvekic M, Richards LC, Tong CC, Krogh ET. Characterizing photochemical ageing processes of

microplastic materials using multivariate analysis of infrared spectra. Environ Sci Process Impacts.

2022;24(1):52‑61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00392E

3. Pfohl P, Santizo K, Sipe J, Wiesner M, Harrison S, Svendsen C, et al. Environmental degradation and

fragmentation of microplastics: dependence on polymer type, humidity, UV dose and temperature.

Microplastics Nanoplastics. 2025;5:7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-025-00118-9

4. Ross MS, Loutan A, Groeneveld T, Molenaar D, Kroetch K, Bujaczek T, et al. Estimated discharge of

microplastics via urban stormwater during individual rain events. Front Environ Sci. 2023;11:1090267.

doi: https:// doi.org/10.3389/fe nvs.2023.1090267

5. Mashaan NS, Ouano CAE. An investigation of the mechanical properties of concrete with different types

of waste plastics for rigid pavements. Appl Mech. 2025;6(1):9. doi: https://doi.org/10. 3390/

applmech6010009

6. Qaidi S, Al‑Kamaki Y, Hakeem I, Dulaimi AF, Özkılıç Y, Sabri M, et al. Investigation of the

physical‑mechanical properties and durability of high‑strength concrete with recycled PET as a partial

replacement for fine aggregates. Front Mater. 2023; 10:1101146. doi:

7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2023.1101146

Page 1893

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

8. Ross MS, Loutan A, Groeneveld T, Molenaar D, Kroetch K, Bujaczek T, et al. Estimated discharge of

microplastics via urban stormwater during individual rain events. Front Environ Sci. 2023; 11:1090267.

doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1090267

9. Ahmad T, Gul S, Peng L, Mehmood T, Huang Q, Ali H, et al. Microplastic mitigation in urban stormwater

using green infrastructure: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2025; 23:999‑1024. doi:

10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-025-01833-8

11. Cirino E, Curtis S, Wallis J, Thys T, Brown J, Rolsky C, et al. Assessing benefits and risks of

incorporating plastic waste in construction materials. Front Built Environ. 2023; 9:1206474. doi:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1206474

12. Shaw KR, Sandquist R, Fairclough C, Black J, Fitzgerald A, Shaw JT, et al. Separation of microplastics

from deep‑sea sediment using an affordable, simple to use, and easily accessible density separation device.

Microplastics Nanoplastics. 2024;4:16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00093-7

13. Pfeiffer F, Fischer EK. Various digestion protocols within microplastic sample processing—Evaluating

the resistance of different synthetic polymers and the efficiency of biogenic organic matter destruction.

Front Environ Sci. 2020;8:572424. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.572424

14. Bonita JD, Gomez NCF, Onda DF. Assessing the efficiency of microplastics extraction methods for

tropical beach sediments and matrix preparation for experimental controls. Front Mar Sci. 2023

;10:1285041. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1285041

15. Gao Y, Yuan C, Cheng S, Sun J, Ouyang S, Xue W, et al. Current methods and prospects for sampling,

separation, detection, and removal of microplastics in different environmental media. Rev Environ Contam

Toxicol. 2025;263:23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44169-025-00090-8

16. Ivleva NP. Chemical analysis of microplastics and nanoplastics: challenges, advanced methods, and

perspectives. Chem Rev. 2021;121(19):11886‑11936. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00178

17. Kozloski R, Cowger W, Arienzo MM. Moving toward automated µFTIR spectra matching for

microplastic identification: addressing false identifications and improving accuracy. Microplastics

Nanoplastics. 2024;4:27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00106-5

18. Jalón‑Rojas I, Sous D, Marieu V. A wave‑resolving two‑dimensional vertical Lagrangian approach to

model microplastic transport in nearshore waters based on TrackMPD 3.0. Geosci Model Dev.

2025;18:319‑336. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-319-2025

19. Huang Y, Yang Z, Wang T, Liu M, Li Y, Zhang C, et al. Quantifying the influence of size, shape, and

density of microplastics on their transport modes: a modeling approach. Mar Pollut Bull.

2024;203:116461. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116461

20. Bigdeli M, Mohammadian A, Pilechi A, Taheri M. Lagrangian modeling of marine microplastics fate and

transport: the state of the science. J Mar Sci Eng. 2022;10(4):481. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ jmse1

0040481

21. Cirino E, Curtis S, Wallis J, Thys T, Brown J, Rolsky C, et al. Assessing benefits and risks of

incorporating plastic waste in construction materials. Front Built Environ. 2023;9:1206474. doi:

22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1206474

23. Gunat MB, Sanusi A, Ndububa EE, Obianyo II, Mambo AD. Transforming plastic waste into durable

concrete: a pathway to sustainable infrastructure. Discover Mater. 2025;5:127. doi:

24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43939-025-00272-0

25. Werbowski LM, Fahrenfeld NL, Rickabaugh K, O’Shea A, DeCarolis JF, Higgins CP. Urban stormwater

runoff: a major pathway for anthropogenic microparticles. ACS ES&T Water. 2021;1(4):909‑918. doi:

https:// doi .org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c 00017

26. Reshadi MAM, Rezanezhad F, Shahvaran AR, Ghajari A, Kaykhosravi S, Slowinski S, et al. Assessment

of environmental and socioeconomic drivers of urban stormwater microplastics using machine learning.

Sci Rep. 2025;15:6299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598 -025 -90612-0

27. Ochoa L, Chan J, Auguste C, Arbuckle‑Keil G, Fahrenfeld NL. Stormwater runoff microplastics: polymer

types, particle size, and factors controlling loading rates. Sci Total Environ. 2024;929:172485. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172485

28. Stang C, Mohamed BA, Li LY. Microplastic removal from urban stormwater: current treatments and

research gaps. J Environ Manage. 2022;317:115510. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115510

Page 1894

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

29. Duraiswamy S, Neelamegam P, VishnuPriyan M, Alaneme GU. Impact of plastic waste fiber and treated

construction demolition waste on the durability and sustainability of concrete. Sci Rep. 2024;14:27221.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78107-w

30. Ojeda JP, Mercante IT. Sustainability of recycling plastic waste as fibers for concrete: a review. J Mater

Cycles Waste Manag. 2023;25:2753‑2765. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01729-1

31. Nikpay M, Toorchi Roodsari S. Crafting a scientific framework to mitigate microplastic impact on

ecosystems. Microplastics. 2024;3(1):165‑183. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/microplastics3010010

32. Hoang HG, Nguyen NSH, Zhang T, Tran HT, Mukherjee S, Naidu R. A review of microplastic pollution

and human health risk assessment: current knowledge and future outlook. Front Environ Sci.

2025;13:1606332. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1606332

33. Borgatta M, Breider F. Inhalation of microplastics—A toxicological complexity. Toxics. 2024;12(5):358.

34. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050358

35. Gou Z, Wu H, Li S, Liu Z, Zhang Y. Airborne micro‑ and nanoplastics: emerging causes of respiratory

diseases. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2024;21:50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-024-00613-6

36. Andjelković T, Bogdanović D, Kostić I, Kocić G, Nikolić G, Pavlović R. Phthalates leaching from plastic

food and pharmaceutical contact materials by FTIR and GC‑MS. Environ Sci Pollut Res.

2021;28:60644‑60656. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12724-0

37. Nagorka R, Goral T, Scholz U, Meinecke S. Release of high‑molecular‑weight plasticizers from PVC:

mesocosm experiments under near‑natural conditions. Environ Sci Eur. 2025;37:75. doi: https://

doi.org/10.1186/s12302 -025-01117-6

38. Henkel C, Hüffer T, Peng R, Gao X, Ghoshal S, Hofmann T. Photoaging enhances the leaching of

di(2‑ethylhexyl) phthalate and transformation products from PVC microplastics into aquatic environments.

Commun Chem. 2024;7:1310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01310-3

39. Agrela F, Rosales M, Alonso ML, Ordóñez J, Cuenca‑Moyano GM. Life‑cycle assessment and

environmental costs of cement‑based materials manufactured with mixed recycled aggregate and biomass

ash. Materials. 2024;17(17):4357. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174357

40. Longendyke GK, Katel S, Wang Y. PFAS fate and destruction mechanisms during thermal treatment: a

comprehensive review. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2022;24(2):215‑232. doi:

41. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00465D

42. Winchell LJ, Wells MJM, Ross JJ, Kakar F, Teymouri A, Bessler SM, et al. Fate of perfluoroalkyl and

polyfluoroalkyl substances through two full‑scale wastewater sludge incinerators. Water Environ Res.

2024;96(6):e11009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.11009

43. Alibeigibeni A, Stochino F, Zucca M, López Gayarre F. Enhancing concrete sustainability: a critical

review of the performance of recycled concrete aggregates in structural concrete. Buildings.

2025;15(8):1361. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081361

44. Sánchez García A, Zhou H, Gomez‑Avila C, Hussain T, Roghani A, Reible D, et al. Microplastics in

stormwater: sampling and methodology challenges. Toxics. 2025;13(6):502. doi:

45. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13060502

46. Loganathan N, Ashby L, Schumm CE, Wilson AK. Interfacial adsorption and dynamics of fluorotelomers

with soil minerals: mechanistic insights. Environ Sci Nano. 2025;12:850‑862. doi: https:// doi.org/ 10.

1039/D4EN00465E

47. Brown TN, Armitage JM, Sangion A, Arnot JA. Improved prediction of PFAS partitioning with PPLFERs

and QSPRs. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2024;26:1986‑1998. doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4EM00485J

48. Douglas GB, Vanderzalm JL, Kirby JK, Williams M, Bastow TP, Bauer M, et al. Sealants and other

management strategies for PFAS‑contaminated concrete and asphalt. Curr Pollut Rep. 2023;9:603‑622.

doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40726 -023-00276-5

49. Almusaed A, Yitmen I, Myhren JA, Almssad A. Assessing the impact of recycled building materials on

environmental sustainability and energy efficiency: a comprehensive framework for reducing greenhouse

gas emissions. Buildings. 2024;14(6):1566. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061566

Page 1895

www.rsisinternational.org