I must admit I had never given the matter some thought before. After having read the term 'micropollutants" so often, it had become deeply ingrained in my mind. I had always assumed that micropollutants referred to pollutants present in the environment in the µg/L-range and below.

After having seen so many articles with the words "micropollutants" and "microplastics" in the same sentence, I do think you have a point though.

However despite many questioning the use of the term "heavy metals", it is still heavily in use today and shows no sign of being replaced (Pourret et al., 2021). So I doubt that the less controversial term "micropollutants" will drop in use in the foreseeable future for another term such as "trace pollutants'.

Pourret, Olivier, Jean-Claude Bollinger, and Andrew Hursthouse. 2021. ‘Heavy Metal: A Misused Term?’ Acta Geochimica 40 (3): 466–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11631-021-00468-0.

Nanopolutants term is a new trend)

Non it s reel

This is a matter of concentration. Not size.

Micropollutants are contaminants that make their way into the environment and can be detected in trace quantities (at or bellow microgram per liter) for example. There is where the name comes from.

I agree with Tiago Belé

If compounds present at trace quantities in the environment are considered as micropollutants, substances like nitrate and metals should also be included - for that matter, any chemical compound. In my experience, those referring to micropollutants in the literature typically have potentially hazardous organic compounds in mind such as non-metallic endocrine disruptors and/or contaminants of emerging concern such as PPCPs and nanoparticles.

Christoff Truter , and it is. Metals are included in the 'micropollutant' category. Please refer toArticle Assessment of 34 dissolved and particulate organic and metal...

and this Chapter Status of Remediation of Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater

Article Daily intake of essential minerals and metallic micropolluta...

Nitrate I'm not so sure because to be a contaminant one substance or compound needs 1- Not be natural to that environment or 2- Have a harmful effect in certain concentration. Usually, the nitrate pollution effect is related to ppm (mg per liter), so it might be out and defined simply as a pollutant.

Another thing to take into account is that is a very new term, also more related to new pollutants.

You may have the impression that the literature typically has those (non-metallic endocrine disruptors and/or contaminants of emerging concern) in mind because of your line of work, but the category also comprehends metals. Just check the articles above.

Now, I don't really see what is the big deal in all of this as it's a matter of definition or convention. Is a perspective of categories and sub-categories.

Next time, check out where the term really comes from and what comprehends. If you are so dissatisfied with word classification and etymology, write a paper proposing something different than the concentration perspective, and convince your peers to use the new term.

You asked and I've answered, but I realized just now that maybe you were not questioning and you just wanted to complain. Maybe this is a philosophical inquiry and you are making the question in the wrong field.

Tiago Belé thanks for sharing your thoughts and the papers. I simply wanted to start a discussion and hear the views of others on the use of the term micropollutants and to stimulate some thought in the regard.

Puarret and Hursthouse 2019

Article It’s Time to Replace the Term “Heavy Metals” with “Potential...

suggested that heavy metal should rather be referred to as "potentially toxic elements"

I wonder if the simple term "chemical pollutants" is not a better word to use than "micropollutants", and "potentially hazardous" or "potentially toxic" could also be included because it seems that those referring to micropollutants have potentially hazardous substances in mind.

Micropollutants are regarding to the concentration of pollutants. Therefore, I find that we could completely use the common term for any satisfactory case, it is not problem. The term of toxic heavy metals is belong to a other category.

Using the term “micropollutants” to define a pollutant concentration has always been the norm. Yes, it may not be the most appropriate terminology as it clashes with the use of the prefix “micro” to define the size in other terms such as “microplastics”. Nevertheless, as I have already written previously, I do not think the term “micropollutants” will be replaced in the foreseeable future. The recent use of the term “nanopollutants” to define a pollutant size is going to make things more confusing though… In one of the following articles for example, nanoplastics are classified as “micropollutants”, and in the other as “nanopollutants”.

Ding, Haojie, Jian Zhang, Huan He, Ying Zhu, Dionysios D. Dionysiou, Zhen Liu, and Chun Zhao. 2021. ‘Do Membrane Filtration Systems in Drinking Water Treatment Plants Release Nano/Microplastics?’ Science of The Total Environment 755 (February): 142658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142658.

Luo, Xing-ling, Ying-ting Wu, Ling-yan Zhang, Ke-xin Li, Tian-jiang Jia, Yi Chen, Li-hong Zhou, and Pei-li Huang. 2021. ‘An Effective Solution to Simultaneously Analyze Size, Mass and Number Concentration of Polydisperse Nanoplastics in a Biological Matrix: Asymmetrical Flow Field Fractionation Coupled with a Diode Array Detector and Multiangle Light Scattering’. RSC Advances 11 (21): 12902–6. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RA00450F.

Mineral micropollutants such as metals, metalloids and radioactive elements (lead, cadmium, ... The technologies employed to treat micropollutants.

I don't think even heavy metals are a figment of our imagination. In developing countries many people suffer from heavy metal pollution. However, emerging contaminants do not directly affect human beings as yet. But it has been known to significantly affect the microorganims

However, emerging contaminants do not directly affect human beings as yet.