{"id":119,"date":"2026-08-24T05:00:22","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T05:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/water-quality-month-microplastics"},"modified":"2026-08-24T05:00:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T05:00:22","slug":"water-quality-month-microplastics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/water-quality-month-microplastics","title":{"rendered":"Microplastics Testing Limits and How to Judge the Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"key-takeaways\">Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Current validated laboratory methods for microplastics in drinking water reliably detect particles above 20\u201350 \u00b5m. Smaller particles and nanoplastics sit outside today\u2019s measurable range.<\/li>\n<li>\u201cNone detected\u201d results show that particles were not found above the method\u2019s detection limit for the polymers screened. They do not prove the absence of microplastics.<\/li>\n<li>Independent review of laboratory data by a party with no commercial interest is required to turn raw test results into defensible market claims.<\/li>\n<li>Extending single-lot test results to an entire product line or company creates legal and reputational risk because of lot-to-lot variability and method limitations.<\/li>\n<li>The Wellness Quality Institute reviews existing third-party microplastics data against defined standards so brands can develop claims that withstand scrutiny.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>How Microplastics Form and Why They Are Hard to Measure<\/h2>\n<p>Plastic does not disappear, it fragments. A bottle, a synthetic fiber, or an agricultural film breaks down under sunlight, heat, and mechanical stress into progressively smaller pieces that keep their chemical identity as polymers long after they stop resembling the original object. The field sorts these fragments by size. Microplastics are particles smaller than 5 millimeters, including fragments, fibers, films, and beads large enough for current laboratory methods to count and chemically identify at the upper end of the size range. Nanoplastics are particles smaller than 1 micrometer, roughly a thousandth of a millimeter, and they remain below the reliable reach of commercially available analytical methods.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1784829388732-c6255482b477.webp\" alt=\"Fragments of plastic suspended in blue water below the surface.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Plastic doesn&#039;t disappear \u2014 it fragments. These secondary microplastics are the breakdown products of everyday objects, and independent research now detects them across the water supply. Detection, though, establishes presence, not absence.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>A further distinction clarifies where these particles come from. Primary microplastics are manufactured small, such as microbeads in personal-care products and industrial pellets. Secondary microplastics form the far larger category and arise as breakdown products of ordinary plastic objects. Global plastics production roughly doubled from 234 million tonnes in 2000 to approximately 460 million tonnes in 2019, according to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/en\/publications\/global-plastics-outlook_de747aef-en.html\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Global Plastics Outlook<\/em> from the OECD<\/a>, with production, use, and waste projected to rise a further 70% by 2040 on current trajectories. Everything produced eventually degrades somewhere, which makes the regulatory response a central part of the story.<\/p>\n<p>There is no U.S. federal maximum contaminant level for microplastics in drinking water. As of 2026, the EPA added microplastics to its <a href=\"https:\/\/jdsupra.com\/legalnews\/epa-adds-microplastics-and-5100367\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6)<\/a>, a research and consideration step that does not create enforceable limits. The agency also <a href=\"https:\/\/cen.acs.org\/policy\/regulation\/epa-microplastics-pfas-drinking-water-contaminants-ucmr\/104\/web\/2026\/07\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">declined to include microplastics in the proposed Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 6<\/a>, citing the absence of a validated drinking-water test method. Some states, such as California, have moved ahead. California defines microplastics in drinking water as solid polymeric material with particles having at least three dimensions greater than 1 nanometer and less than 5,000 micrometers, and has published two analytical methods: SWB-MP1-rev1 (infrared spectroscopy, validated for particles greater than 50 \u00b5m through 5,000 \u00b5m) and SWB-MP2-rev1 (Raman spectroscopy, validated for particles greater than 20 \u00b5m through 5,000 \u00b5m). California has also begun monitoring microplastics in drinking water.<\/p>\n<h2>Core Limits of Current Microplastics Testing<\/h2>\n<p>The central concept in this field is the gap between what regulations define and what any method can measure. California\u2019s definition reaches down to 1 nanometer. The best validated methods, SWB-MP1-rev1 and SWB-MP2-rev1, begin at 50 \u00b5m and 20 \u00b5m respectively, which are thousands of times larger. The 1\u201320 \u00b5m fraction is not validated under either method. Everything below 1 \u00b5m currently sits beyond reliable commercial measurement. A <a href=\"https:\/\/mdpi.com\/1420-3049\/31\/15\/2675\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">2026 PRISMA-guided review of 22 studies on nanoplastics in drinking water<\/a> concluded that nanoplastics are especially likely to be missed by conventional monitoring workflows because no single method can resolve size, shape, polymer identity, and mass concentration at the same time.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1784829410323-fb401fc7b1e4.webp\" alt=\"Colorful plastic fragments in water inside a laboratory petri dish.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Microplastics are particles smaller than five millimeters. Current methods can count and identify them at the upper end of that range, but reliable measurement falls away as particles get smaller \u2014 a limit that shapes every honest claim.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Detection can establish presence, but it cannot establish absence. Finding a particle is comparatively straightforward. A lab isolates it, confirms chemically that it is a polymer, and reports it. Proving that no plastic is present is a fundamentally different and far harder claim. That claim would require ruling out everything the method cannot see, including every particle below the detection floor, every polymer outside the tested panel, and every production lot that was not sampled. In practice, \u201cnone detected\u201d means only that the analyte was not found above the method\u2019s detection or quantification limit. It does not mean the sample contains zero microplastics.<\/p>\n<p>Many people assume some plastics are automatically safer. Recycled plastic is not automatically the safer or lower-exposure choice. Reprocessing and the mechanical stress of manufacturing can make plastic more likely to shed particles. Deeply colored containers can also use color to mask imperfections in recycled feedstock. Recycling matters for waste and resource use. It does not reliably signal how much plastic a consumer might ingest from a given product.<\/p>\n<h2>How to Judge Microplastics Evidence and Claims<\/h2>\n<p>Laboratory qualification is the starting point for any credible result. The most defensible tier is a laboratory accredited for the applicable state water board method. ISO\/IEC 17025-accredited laboratories, meaning they meet internationally recognized standards for testing and calibration competence, are also accepted when the specific microplastics method and the product matrix, or type of liquid being tested, fall explicitly within the accredited scope. Other laboratories may be conditionally acceptable when a documented method-equivalence review supports that conclusion.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1784829434095-0fc8fbcf29fa.webp\" alt=\"Scientists in white coats working with samples and microscopes in a laboratory.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Only a small number of laboratories can genuinely test for microplastics, and capability varies by instrument and method. WQI reviews a company&#039;s existing third-party laboratory data against a defined standard \u2014 it does not run the tests itself.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Method suitability for the matrix matters as much as the method name. Raman spectroscopy often works better than FTIR, or Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, for characterizing smaller particles, including those approaching 20 \u00b5m. However, <a href=\"https:\/\/repository.soilwise-he.eu\/cat\/collections\/metadata:main\/items\/10.5281\/zenodo.6572473\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">a standardized protocol for micro- and nanoplastics analysis in drinking water by Raman microscopy is still lacking<\/a>. Advanced approaches such as AFM-IR, which combines atomic force microscopy with infrared spectroscopy, optical photothermal infrared spectroscopy, and pyrolysis-GC\/MS, which breaks polymers down by heat and identifies the resulting gases, offer complementary strengths. They still face major limitations in throughput or quantification.<\/p>\n<p>Four elements usually define what a reported result actually means: reporting limits, blanks, the polymer panel, and scope lock. Reporting limits define the floor below which a result is not quantifiable, which sets the boundary for any \u201cnone detected\u201d statement. Blanks, which are samples processed through the entire method without the target substance, establish whether the laboratory itself introduced contamination. The polymer panel specifies which plastic types were screened, so a result covers only the polymers tested. Scope lock ties these together by stating that a finding applies only to the specific product, production lot, particle-size range, and polymer panel reviewed. It cannot be extended to a product line or a company as a whole.<\/p>\n<p>A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pnas.org\/doi\/10.1073\/pnas.2300582121\" target=\"_blank\">2024 PNAS study from Columbia University<\/a> reported an average of roughly 240,000 plastic particles per liter in bottled water, with about 90% of them nanoplastics smaller than 1 micrometer, using stimulated Raman scattering microscopy. That figure is striking and widely cited. It must be cited with its context. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pnas.org\/doi\/10.1073\/pnas.2411099121\" target=\"_blank\">A subsequent PNAS commentary found the study\u2019s procedural blanks appeared contaminated and its quality control inadequate<\/a>. The critique turns on blank controls, the same contamination controls that any defensible dataset requires. The number is not just a statistic to handle carefully. It also illustrates why method review matters as much as the result itself.<\/p>\n<h2>How Brands Are Handling Microplastics Claims Today<\/h2>\n<p>Self-reported laboratory data and independently reviewed data function very differently in the market. A brand that publishes its own test results is, structurally, grading its own homework, no matter how rigorous the underlying testing was. Buyers, retailers, and procurement teams discount self-reported results for that reason. Independent review by a party with no commercial interest in the outcome, and no role in the testing, changes that perception.<\/p>\n<p>Legal and reputational pressure is rising. A growing ecosystem of class-action litigation now targets companies whose plastic-related claims cannot be substantiated. Some states, such as California, have laws <a href=\"https:\/\/nixonpeabody.com\/insights\/alerts\/2026\/04\/06\/californias-sb-343-restricts-common-recyclability-claims-on-products-and-packaging\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">effective for products manufactured on or after October 4, 2026, that restrict recyclability claims<\/a>. The broader regulatory direction at both state and federal levels points toward greater scrutiny of environmental claims, not less.<\/p>\n<p>Many companies already hold genuinely useful laboratory data. They have commissioned independent testing, spent real money on it, and acted on the results. They often lack a trusted way to use that data in public claims. A lab report alone does not become a defensible market claim. Without independent review, even rigorous data is perceived as marketing.<\/p>\n<h2>Checklist for Reviewing a Microplastics Dataset<\/h2>\n<p>The following considerations apply when deciding whether a laboratory dataset can support a market claim. They are organized across four dimensions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Technical considerations:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Confirm that the laboratory is accredited for the specific method and matrix being tested.<\/li>\n<li>Check that the method\u2019s validated size range covers the particle fractions relevant to the product.<\/li>\n<li>Review procedural blanks and confirm they show the laboratory did not introduce contamination.<\/li>\n<li>Verify that the polymer panel covers the plastics most likely to be present given the product\u2019s packaging and processing.<\/li>\n<li>Confirm that reporting limits are documented and adequate to support any claim being considered.<\/li>\n<li>Look for particle counts reported by size fraction rather than a single aggregate figure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Operational considerations:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Confirm that the dataset reflects current production and that the production period has not changed since sampling.<\/li>\n<li>Check that chain of custody is documented from sample collection through laboratory analysis.<\/li>\n<li>Define the product scope precisely enough to prevent a single-lot result being extended across a line.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Regulatory considerations:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Keep claim language within what the reviewed data actually supports.<\/li>\n<li>Attach any required disclaimers to public-facing claims.<\/li>\n<li>Document claim substantiation so it is retrievable if challenged.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Reputational considerations:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Use an independent reviewer with no commercial interest in the outcome.<\/li>\n<li>Rely on a standard that is published and publicly accessible.<\/li>\n<li>Ensure that a buyer, retailer, or journalist can independently verify the scope of the claim.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Common Microplastics Claim Mistakes<\/h2>\n<p>\u201cNone detected\u201d is the most frequently misread result in this field. A result of none detected means none were found above that instrument\u2019s detection floor, for the polymers it screened, in the lot it tested. A method validated above the 50 \u00b5m floor, the limit for California\u2019s infrared method, cannot see anything smaller, so a none-detected result can coexist with particles being present below that size. The <a href=\"https:\/\/mdpi.com\/1420-3049\/31\/13\/2237\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">method detection limit encompasses both size and concentration thresholds<\/a>. A result is only interpretable in light of both.<\/p>\n<p>Extending one-lot results to a product line or a company is the second most common error and the one most likely to create legal exposure. Lot-to-lot variability is real. A clean result on one production run does not guarantee the next. Any claim that extends beyond the specific product, production period, and tested scope reviewed is a claim the data cannot carry.<\/p>\n<p>Conflating the evidence base for plastic additives with the evidence base for microplastic particles themselves is a third persistent misinterpretation. The chemical additives carried by plastics, including phthalates and bisphenols, are <a href=\"https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC2726844\/\" target=\"_blank\">well established as endocrine-disrupting compounds<\/a>, with evidence spanning animal models, human clinical observation, and epidemiology. The physical microplastic particles themselves represent a newer and far less settled question. A <a href=\"https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC13021847\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">2026 review by Liu et al. in <em>Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology<\/em><\/a> distinguishes these as two distinct pathways, direct physical effects of the particles and chemical-mediated effects from manufacturing additives. The review emphasizes that associations with reproductive, developmental, and aging-related outcomes remain emerging rather than established causal conclusions. Borrowing the confidence of the additive evidence to make claims about particle effects is the most common overreach in this field.<\/p>\n<p>Researchers have now detected plastic particles throughout the human body. A 2019 case series led by Philipp Schwabl, published in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.acpjournals.org\/doi\/10.7326\/M19-0618\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Annals of Internal Medicine<\/em><\/a>, found microplastics in the stool of every one of its healthy volunteers. Ragusa and colleagues reported the first evidence of microplastics in human placenta in <a href=\"https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/33395930\/\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Environment International<\/em><\/a> in 2021. A 2025 study led by Alexander Nihart, published in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41591-024-03453-1\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Nature Medicine<\/em><\/a>, reported microplastic and nanoplastic accumulation in human brain, liver, and kidney tissue, with the highest concentrations in brain samples and predominantly polyethylene present as nanoscale shard-like fragments. That study has drawn <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41591-025-04045-3\" target=\"_blank\">methodological criticism within the scientific literature<\/a> regarding contamination controls and validation. These findings establish presence and warrant serious attention. They do not establish causation, and the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.who.int\/publications\/i\/item\/9789241516198\" target=\"_blank\">World Health Organization\u2019s 2019 assessment, <em>Microplastics in Drinking-Water<\/em><\/a>, remains the clearest statement of where the evidence stands: low concern on limited evidence, with more research urgently needed.<\/p>\n<h2>Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3>What does \u201cnone detected\u201d actually mean on a microplastics lab report?<\/h3>\n<p>\u201cNone detected\u201d means no plastic particles were found above that specific instrument\u2019s detection floor for the polymer types it was set up to screen in the particular lot that was sampled. A method validated above its detection floor, as discussed earlier for the 50 micrometer infrared approach, cannot see anything smaller, so a none-detected result can coexist with particles being present below that size threshold. The result is bounded entirely by the method\u2019s limits, not by the product. This distinction often separates a defensible claim from one that collapses under scrutiny.<\/p>\n<h3>Is bottled water worse than tap water for microplastics?<\/h3>\n<p>Research has generally found higher particle concentrations in bottled water than in tap water. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/journals\/chemistry\/articles\/10.3389\/fchem.2018.00407\/full\" target=\"_blank\">2018 Mason et al. study in <em>Frontiers in Chemistry<\/em><\/a> found roughly twice the particle concentration in bottled water compared to tap water, with polypropylene, the material used in many bottle caps, as the most common polymer. That pattern points to the packaging itself as a contamination route. Tap water is not free of microplastics. The <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosone\/article?id=10.1371\/journal.pone.0194970\" target=\"_blank\">2018 Kosuth et al. study in <em>PLOS ONE<\/em><\/a> found anthropogenic particles in 81% of tap water samples tested across five continents. Both sources contain detectable particles. The packaging and filling process appear to add to the burden in bottled water.<\/p>\n<h3>Are microplastics in drinking water harmful to health?<\/h3>\n<p>The science remains genuinely unsettled. Laboratory and animal studies suggest potential mechanisms of concern, with oxidative stress and systemic inflammation as the two most consistently described pathways across the literature. The chemical additives in some plastics, such as phthalates and bisphenols, are well-established endocrine disruptors with a mature evidence base. The physical microplastic particles themselves represent a newer and less settled question, often studied in smaller samples and sometimes with contested methods. The WHO\u2019s 2019 assessment found no indication of health risk at current levels in drinking water based on available data, while stressing that the evidence is limited and more research is urgently needed. Anyone claiming certainty in either direction is ahead of the evidence.<\/p>\n<h3>Can water filters remove microplastics?<\/h3>\n<p>Some filtration technologies reduce particle counts substantially. Reverse osmosis systems, which use membrane pore sizes below 1 nanometer, achieve among the highest removal rates. One 2023 review by Acarer confirmed removal rates approaching 99.8% in some drinking water treatment settings. Ultrafiltration systems with 0.01 \u00b5m membranes also provide strong removal through physical barrier action. Standard activated-carbon pitcher filters show inconsistent performance and carry no certification for microplastics removal. A 2023 study by Cherian et al. in <em>Polymers<\/em> found that a granular activated carbon and ion-exchange device without a physical membrane actually added particles to the effluent under some conditions. For any filter, independent before-and-after testing of the specific unit in its current condition provides more reliable information than manufacturer claims alone.<\/p>\n<h3>What should a brand do if it has existing microplastics lab data but cannot figure out what claim it supports?<\/h3>\n<p>The first step is clarifying what the data actually covers. That means confirming which particle-size range was tested, which polymers were screened, whether blanks were run, what the reporting limits are, and whether the laboratory is accredited for the specific method and matrix. Most brands discover their existing data supports a narrower, or sometimes a stronger, claim than they assumed once those parameters are examined. A lab report and a defensible market claim are not the same thing. Independent review of the dataset against a defined standard converts one into the other and provides the only reliable path to a claim that survives retailer diligence, legal review, or public scrutiny.<\/p>\n<h2>How the Wellness Quality Institute Supports Brands<\/h2>\n<p>The core principles running through this guide, evidence quality, claim scope, and testing methodology, converge on a single conclusion. Microplastics are present and effectively unavoidable. Detection can establish presence but cannot establish absence. The gap between what regulation defines and what any method can measure remains the defining technical reality of this field. No laboratory today can confirm the complete absence of plastic across every particle size, polymer type, and production lot. That limitation reflects a hard technical boundary, not a lack of diligence.<\/p>\n<p>For brands, the practical consequence is clear. A raw lab report is not a market claim. Self-reported results carry less weight than independently reviewed data. Without independent review, even rigorous data is perceived as marketing. The claim that survives scrutiny is not the strongest-sounding one. It is the one that stays inside what the reviewed evidence actually supports.<\/p>\n<p>The Wellness Quality Institute (WQI) is an independent verification body that reviews companies\u2019 existing third-party laboratory data on plastic and microplastic content against a defined standard, WQI-CS-01, aligned with the California State Water Board\u2019s drinking-water microplastics reference framework. California serves as a technical reference point, not a geographic boundary, and verification is available to U.S. companies nationally. The Wellness Quality Institute does not run laboratory tests and does not verify that any product is free of plastic. The organization reviews a dataset, method, product scope, and supporting controls against defined criteria and issues a verification decision, Standard Met or Standard Not Met, with approved claim language tied to the specific reviewed evidence. Every Standard Met product receives a public registry entry that any buyer, retailer, or journalist can check independently. A Standard Not Met outcome remains private and carries no public downside risk.<\/p>\n<p>The verification period is 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. After that point, continued claim use requires re-verification with current data. A single assessment fee covers review, verification decision, and registry listing, with no separate mark-license or registry fee. Independent laboratory testing is arranged and billed separately.<\/p>\n<p><em>WQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verification does not certify that a product contains zero plastic, microplastics, or nanoplastics. It shows that the company is on a verified pathway toward plastic-free standards. Verification applies only to the reviewed products, submitted datasets, tested ranges, polymer panels, production or sampling periods, and supporting controls. WQI verification is not a California approval, government certification, or health or safety certification.<\/em><\/p>\n<p> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Talk to the Wellness Quality Institute about turning your real lab data into a claim you can support and securing a plastic-free pathway verification for your company.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Wellness Quality Institute helps brands turn microplastics lab data into accurate, defensible claims. Avoid costly mistakes \u2014 get expert help.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":117,"featured_media":118,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-water-quality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/118"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}