Microplastics Found In Multiple Human Organ Tissues Correlated With Lesions 30
Research from Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University reveals a concerning correlation between micro and nanoplastic (MNP) concentrations in damaged human tissues and various health conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, thrombosis, and cancer. Phys.Org reports: In the study, "Mapping micro(nano)plastics in various organ systems: Their emerging links to human diseases?" published in TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, investigators collected 61 available research articles for MNP detection in human tissues, plus 840 articles on MNP toxicological mechanisms. Data came from spectroscopy, microscopy, and pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry investigations to identify polymer types in different tissues. Toxicological studies employed cell models and animal experiments to examine oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, and related signaling pathways.
The studies documented particles detected in skin, arteries, veins, thrombi, bone marrow, testes, semen, uterus, and placenta. MNPs were found in the digestive system, from saliva to feces, liver, and gallstones. Within the respiratory system, MNPs were everywhere, including lung tissue, with microscopic fibers common in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and sputum. Positive correlations emerged between particle abundance and specific disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease, thrombosis, cervical cancer, and uterine fibroids. Toxicological tests showed possible MNP-triggered oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammatory responses, and apoptosis in various cell types, along with organ-level concerns like neurodegenerative disease onset when crossing the blood-brain barrier.
A critically important signal in the metadata discovered by the researchers was that measured levels of MNPs tended to be higher in tissues with lesions than in non-lesioned tissues. These included inflamed intestines, fibrotic lungs, or cancerous growths, suggesting a potential link between MNP buildup and local pathology. There is an intriguing "what came first, the chicken or the egg" problem with lesions having higher concentrations of MNPs. [...] In the case of "what came first, the lesion or the microplastic," it is possible that MNPs contribute to inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular damage, which can cause or worsen tissue lesions. But it is also possible that these lesions accumulate more MNPs in already damaged tissue areas. While the current findings do not provide a direct cause-and-effect relationship, they offer good targets for further study.
The studies documented particles detected in skin, arteries, veins, thrombi, bone marrow, testes, semen, uterus, and placenta. MNPs were found in the digestive system, from saliva to feces, liver, and gallstones. Within the respiratory system, MNPs were everywhere, including lung tissue, with microscopic fibers common in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and sputum. Positive correlations emerged between particle abundance and specific disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease, thrombosis, cervical cancer, and uterine fibroids. Toxicological tests showed possible MNP-triggered oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammatory responses, and apoptosis in various cell types, along with organ-level concerns like neurodegenerative disease onset when crossing the blood-brain barrier.
A critically important signal in the metadata discovered by the researchers was that measured levels of MNPs tended to be higher in tissues with lesions than in non-lesioned tissues. These included inflamed intestines, fibrotic lungs, or cancerous growths, suggesting a potential link between MNP buildup and local pathology. There is an intriguing "what came first, the chicken or the egg" problem with lesions having higher concentrations of MNPs. [...] In the case of "what came first, the lesion or the microplastic," it is possible that MNPs contribute to inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular damage, which can cause or worsen tissue lesions. But it is also possible that these lesions accumulate more MNPs in already damaged tissue areas. While the current findings do not provide a direct cause-and-effect relationship, they offer good targets for further study.
Filter your water (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any other sources of microplastics, or is it just water?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Are there any other sources of microplastics, or is it just water?
yes, think your body as observing material. Then you have to avoid synthetic clothes, plastic bottles and so on.
Good advice but no excretory pathway identified. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much of a surprise. The human body has not evolved to deal with microplastics as they were not present until recently. The whole thing is a medical experiment on the whole human race.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to go into debt. A Brita pitcher works great, and costs less than $20. Yes, of course, the Brita is made of plastic, and therefore sheds microplastics. But if thoroughly cleaned and rinsed, this will be minimized. And with a whole-house system of any kind, the water still has to pass through numerous plastic parts before it reaches you, such as the faucet's aerator. So one way or another some plastic will get into the water.
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have plastic no matter what, and especially these days even most house piping including hot water lines is plastic. First there was CPVC (PVC didn't handle the temperatures well enough but it does, kinda) and now PEX has become popular as it's cheaper to install and usually more reliable. Rodents will chew through either of them, though, welcome to the future.
A Brita is just some cotton balls and aquarium charcoal in a plastic shaker, plus a pitcher to go with it. If you want the lowest-plas
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there are studies of the impact of charcoal particles in filtered water...
Brita web site. Removing lead from your water. (Score:2)
Brita Brita water filters to reduce lead [brita.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's already too late. There isn't a person on the planet without detectable levels. That makes getting a control group quite difficult.
How does this compare to other contaminants? (Score:2)
I don't doubt that microplastics are in everything, and even that they cause damage to some cells. But how does the level of damage compare to other contaminants, such as ordinary dirt particles, or microscopic metal fragments from cookware?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there actual studies to show this? Or are you making assumptions?
Before last year, when microplastics started hitting the news, people made the same assumptions about microplastics. People assumed that plastic was inert and harmless. Why would we assume that other contaminants are less problematic, if we haven't studied them to the degree that we've now studied microplastics?
Re: (Score:3)
In the best case, they are persistent irritants by virtue of being foreign bodies, but they don't particularly leach toxins into the surrounding tissues.
But I'd be astounded if that were actually true, since plastic containers leach compounds into their contents [nih.gov] including when they are filled with water, why should this be any different if the plastics are in you, and you are the container?
So then the best case is that the levels are too low to cause significant harm, do you feel lucky? It's worth studying
Re: (Score:3)
Toxicity is always subject to thresholds. Too much of *anything* is poisonous, even water. The question is, is the level of leached chemicals, or the level of microplastic particles, high enough to pose a health risk? Yes of course, if you look at these things at a microscopic level, they undoubtedly do cause problems for individual cells. But is that level more, or less, than what would be expected from other types of contaminants if we never used plastic? Were people healthier before the age of plastic? T
Re: (Score:3)
Since you ask what we should do, in my opinion we should evaluate the plastics for leaching, health impact, and ecological impact, and decide which of them we really want to keep and what kind of standards we want to have for them. But we also need to stop using them anywhere we don't need them, and we especially need to stop making clothes out of them — and though nobody wants to hear this, we need to stop making tires out of them. There is no control group, so we should be as precautionary as possib
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you that we should study the impact of plastic, both on health and on the environment, as you said. I don't agree that we should stop using it "anywhere we don't need them." It doesn't make sense to make sweeping changes based on a vague idea that there "might" be some harm that we can't quantify. If the harm is severe enough to warrant drastic action, we would definitely be able to measure the impact, just as we can measure the impact of lead pipes and lead paint and asbestos. We might not hav
Time to go digital (Score:2)
AI won't have to worry about pollution.
Re: Time to go digital (Score:1)
Say no to plastic wrappers or paper cups (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
contamination starts at the meat factory
In actual reality, it starts much earlier.
Why is China always the source (Score:3)
I want to see Western sources in these plastic studies and see them replicated. These studies usually come from China, and I don't trust them.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest giveaway that it is a shit study is that they went for a title with a question mark at the end, like some stupid clickbait news article.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not trying to downplay microplastics, I said nothing of the sort. You are using ad homenim arguments. I don't agree with microplastics. I am concerned that they are coming from a non reputable source, I want to see replication.