New Research Finds Microplastics In the Brain's Olfactory Bulb 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Scientists in Brazil found microplastics in the brain tissue of cadavers, according to a new study published Monday in the journal JAMA Network Open. Mounting research over the last few years has found microplastics in nearly every organ in the body, as well as in the bloodstream and in plaque that clogs arteries. Whether these ubiquitous pollutants can reach the human brain has been a primary concern for scientists. The latest research looked at a part of the brain called the olfactory bulb, which processes information about smell. Humans have two olfactory bulbs, one above each nasal cavity. Connecting the olfactory bulb and the nasal cavity is the olfactory nerve.
Some researchers worry the olfactory pathway may also be an entry point for microplastics getting into the brain, beyond the olfactory bulb. "Previous studies in humans and animals have shown that air pollution reaches the brain, and that particles have been found in the olfactory bulb, which is why we think the olfactory bulb is probably one of the first points for microplastics to reach the brain," said lead study author Dr. Thais Mauad, an associate professor of pathology at the University of Sao Paulo Medical School in Brazil.
Mauad and her team took samples of olfactory bulb tissue from 15 cadavers of people who died between the ages of 33 and 100. Samples from eight of the cadavers contained microplastics -- tiny bits of plastic that ranged from 5.5 micrometers to 26.4 micrometers in size. In total, the researchers found 16 plastic fibers and particles in the tissues. The smallest were slimmer than the diameter of a human red blood cell, which measures about 8 micrometers. The most common type of plastic they found was polypropylene, followed by polyamide, nylon and polyethylene vinyl acetate. "The nose is a major point of defense to keep particles and dust out of the lungs," Campen wrote in an email. "So seeing some plastics in the olfactory system, especially given how they are being found everywhere else in the body, is completely expected." [...] "There is evidence that very small airborne particles can move to the brain via the olfactory bulb, but this is not known to be a major route of trafficking material to the brain," Campen said. Campen notes it's more likely that nanoplastics enter the brain through the bloodstream, which picks up plastic bits from the lungs or digestive tract, rather than the olfactory bulb. "However, it's extremely difficult for particles, even those in pharmaceuticals, to enter the brain through the blood," notes NBC News. "That's because the brain is surrounded by a semipermeable membrane called the blood-brain barrier."
Some researchers worry the olfactory pathway may also be an entry point for microplastics getting into the brain, beyond the olfactory bulb. "Previous studies in humans and animals have shown that air pollution reaches the brain, and that particles have been found in the olfactory bulb, which is why we think the olfactory bulb is probably one of the first points for microplastics to reach the brain," said lead study author Dr. Thais Mauad, an associate professor of pathology at the University of Sao Paulo Medical School in Brazil.
Mauad and her team took samples of olfactory bulb tissue from 15 cadavers of people who died between the ages of 33 and 100. Samples from eight of the cadavers contained microplastics -- tiny bits of plastic that ranged from 5.5 micrometers to 26.4 micrometers in size. In total, the researchers found 16 plastic fibers and particles in the tissues. The smallest were slimmer than the diameter of a human red blood cell, which measures about 8 micrometers. The most common type of plastic they found was polypropylene, followed by polyamide, nylon and polyethylene vinyl acetate. "The nose is a major point of defense to keep particles and dust out of the lungs," Campen wrote in an email. "So seeing some plastics in the olfactory system, especially given how they are being found everywhere else in the body, is completely expected." [...] "There is evidence that very small airborne particles can move to the brain via the olfactory bulb, but this is not known to be a major route of trafficking material to the brain," Campen said. Campen notes it's more likely that nanoplastics enter the brain through the bloodstream, which picks up plastic bits from the lungs or digestive tract, rather than the olfactory bulb. "However, it's extremely difficult for particles, even those in pharmaceuticals, to enter the brain through the blood," notes NBC News. "That's because the brain is surrounded by a semipermeable membrane called the blood-brain barrier."
Is there evidence (Score:1)
Need citation or research on where and how much (Score:3)
Seems as though the EPA, FDA, CDC, NIST, etc. agencies at the federal level and state level environment and health agencies need to meet and come up with a 5 year plan to study this, find out the major sources of microplastics that average citizens are exposed to and push for a plan to reduce the amount of microplastics introduced into the environment.
And, where's the study on if microplastics get flushed from the body; or if they slowly accumulate from birth?
First place to look would be how many are in the
Like a slowly approaching tsunami (Score:2)
The concentration of microplastics, plastic based chemicals - endocrine disruptors - estrogen mimicking chemicals and pharmaceuticals in the food, water and environment is needed to be a priority research, cleanup and mitigation item.
Right now, it's on the edges of science and medical research and fails for the same reason as human growth and development risks fail. They take decades to show up from overexposure in the womb/early childhood until adulthood.
No one wants to reprioritize medical and science re
Re:Like a slowly approaching tsunami (Score:4, Informative)
The concentration of microplastics, plastic based chemicals - endocrine disruptors - estrogen mimicking chemicals and pharmaceuticals in the food, water and environment is needed to be a priority
It sounds like you are not talking about microplastics. Hormone-mimicking chemicals are a different issue. They get into us by dissolving into things, not because we eat particles of them. Though making fine particles of plasticizer-laden plastics certainly doesn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants to reprioritize medical and science research and give up their career building research in science X/disease X to focus on this issue.
I doubt that is problem. As far as your individual practitioners doing medical research you are in that field for helping people, glory, or a patent that will make you rich or some combination thereof. Sadly there are a lot of ghouls who are willing to commit crimes against humanity to further research. Probably a richer population of the truly wicked and despicable than most other fields.
However there would be plenty glory and recognition to be had for the researcher who conclusively proves this stuff is
Re: (Score:2)
And them we can enact robust legislation to reduce the harm, just like for Phthalates, PFAS, PFOS, Endocrine disruptors, etc.
At least we'll know that in 6 or 7 years time, it will get better. /end commentary on unfulfilled harm reductions/
Re: (Score:1)
Then microplastics in clothing ...
We would need to focus on this first. Clothes are producing about a third of the microplastics in the water. Checking those for any potential serious health risks (like how they physically interact with the body, if the microplastics or any potential dyes could be considered endocrine inhibitors) would get scientists the biggest band out of their buck.
I know there are some washing machines that handle / filter microplastics better, but I'm kind of surprised there isn't a bigger push or campaign to get the k
Re: (Score:2)
these microplastics are harmful?
That's the problem. There isn't a person on the planet without detectable levels.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem. There isn't a person on the planet without detectable levels.
But some people have far more than others.
People in the coastal regions of Southeast Asia have very high levels.
Trash pickers in India have the highest levels.
The lowest exposure is in the interior of Africa and South America. Paraguay has the lowest levels of any country tested.
So, we should be able to find correlations between microplastic levels and medical issues.
My prediction is that we'll find that some microplastics are far more harmful than others, and conflating them all under the single label "mic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Things in your body which have no business being there are considered harmful by default, until proven otherwise. Is there evidence that they're not harmful?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ABS is made of Acrylonitrile, Butadiene, Styrene; all three
Acronitrile, suspected of cancer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Buetidien, carcinogenic to humans, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Strene: known carcinogen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And in PETE and PVC plastic, there are Phthalates; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I guess I picked the wrong week (Score:2)
to give up sniffing microplastics.
Re: (Score:1)
They make you implement microservices when a fucking monolith works perfectly fine.
The new leaded gas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also why people seem to get more stupid and more aggressive. Or not.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps they are more scared?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But why?
Re: (Score:1)
My guess is the death of trust. We had the death of god. Now we've got the death of trust. For better or worse our ancestors created a bedrock of institutions and traditions that we generally relied upon or trusted. With the internet we've suddenly got access to a lot more information and debate in an anarchy that challenges the establishment. It is very disruptive to our status quo and we are rocking all over our worlds. I believe we will adapt , we'll get better at parsing fact from opinion, see words ar
Re: (Score:3)
I think we have to account for the internet in that, both in contributing to making some people crazy and just skewing perceptions.
Has the rate of this behavior increased or just our access to knowledge about it? I imagine there was still quite a few unrecorded "florida man" stories the 19th century and before.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to find out WTF is making so many believe stupidAss conspiracies. One could counter by pointing out Germany fell for them before plastics were common, but back then they didn't have an example to serve as a lesson and warning. We collectively should know the fock better by now!
Screen-time? Plastics? Pesticides? Radio waves? Additives? Fluoride? Too much porn? Insufficient real sex? Havana spy waves? Justin Bieber? Backward subliminals by Lady Gaga? Crocs? JavaScript? Systemd? Goatse? Lack of Unicode
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me what are your thoughts on lead, asbestos, arsenic, x-rays, radium, olestra, etc.
All of those things had use in household/personal products and medical applications, actually they still do but we use them differently or very sparingly. There is also a long history of governments and manufacturers understating or denying health risks.
People believe the conspiracies because they have analogous experience that makes them very plausible. The plausibility is what makes them good conspiracy theories but of
Re: (Score:2)
It might explain a lot of the bizarre and crazy behavior in people in recent years, the ones allegedly not doing drugs.
While plastics may have something to do with it, I'd lean more toward the constant yellow-orange hazes of smoke from forest fires, which also burn up any chemicals they happen to run into during their burn, spewing them into the air. Or perhaps the smogs around large cities. Or the millions of other ways we've let the atmosphere become a cesspool.
Everywhere we go, we make things filthy. It's what we do. We seem unable to come to grips with the fact that we know spewing toxicity into the environment is bad,
It's the chemicals (Score:2)
They found them in the brain? (Score:2)
I guess they figured it was time to branch out - looking for microplastics in women's sexual organs instead of just men's.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they figured it was time to branch out - looking for microplastics in women's sexual organs instead of just men's.
That might make their New Research Find a Brain Olfactory BLUB
Mutant will rise above us all (Score:2)
Plasticman
Just like how Kevin Costner's line evolved gills in Waterworld.
Is it coming from cosmetics? (Score:1)
What a shocker.
Looks like all/most of the mentioned polymers is used in cosmetics, and cosmetics are usually used in proximity to the nose!.
Re: Is it coming from cosmetics? (Score:2)
Yea. Plenty of cosmetics on every placenta, too.
Thank you for such genius insight! /s
"Microplastics Found in Every Human Placenta Tested, Study Finds"
https://www.sciencealert.com/m... [sciencealert.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the confirmation! It seems the cosmetics connection goes deeper.
https://www.clinikally.com/blo... [clinikally.com]
Re: Is it coming from cosmetics? (Score:2)
"microplastics, now found in more than 1,300 species"
https://english.elpais.com/cli... [elpais.com]
Due to their cosmetics use, ofc.
Cos they're worth it.
What about the other small stuff ? (Score:2)
E.g. Pollen at 10-70 micrometres, concrete dust 10-20 micrometres, is that making its way to my olfactory bulb too? Has illegal immigration into brains been going on for some time without bothering us and we only just noticed?
Any mechanism of action though? (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep hearing about microplastics but not about any mechanism that they can do anything biologically in polymer form. This is different from things like soluble endocrine disrupters. At worst they could act like dust.