What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/cassandra-rauert-interview

by speckx • 14 days ago

194 111 14 days ago

e360.yale.edu

tantalor• 14 days ago

tldr, not much because we can't measure it to begin with

Agrue8u• 14 days ago

did read, >e360: Do we really eat a credit card’s worth of plastic each week? >Rauert: That has absolutely been debunked

and >...we found is that lipids and fats will give you a false positive for polyethylene. Lipids are made up of the same building blocks as polyethylene, so when we analyze them, they look identical in our analysis instrument. >I know it is easy to say we don’t have enough information yet, but we do know about [the health risks from] these chemicals that are in all the plastics that your food is wrapped in.

culi2• 14 days ago

Not just because we can't measure it but because its hard to say what's due to the plastic and what's due to additives in the plastics

And while we know a lot about the impact of chemicals added to plastic — such as phthalates, which have been shown to impact fertility, or bisphenols, which have been linked to Type 2 diabetes — we know very little about what effect the plastic particles themselves might be having.

MarkusQ• 14 days ago

Very nice to see someone actually looking at the issue objectively instead of the unholy blend of clickbait, shoddy "science" and either fear mongering or blind denialism we usually see.

Getting to the point where we're actually able to measure something real is good progress.

radiusvector• 14 days ago

Did she debunk that article that was around microplastics in human testicles?

Kuraj• 14 days ago

Wait, there's more to this than a meme?

wxw• 14 days ago

Some stand out takeaways:

We assessed how reliable current measures are for trying to find microplastics in blood. And what we found is that lipids and fats will give you a false positive for polyethylene.
We worked with an architect, and we built the lab pretty much from scratch. [...] So we ended up going with stainless steel. It was the only way to not have any plastics.
I don’t think we’ve got really good evidence at all for what effects [microplastics particles on their own] might be having on human bodies. If we’re eating plastics, what size and what type of plastic can actually get into the bloodstream?

culi2• 14 days ago

This is a great interview, though I'd caution against reading it like a literature review. It's just the views and opinions of a single (relevant and qualified) expert

The_Blade• 14 days ago

one word: microplastics

pohl• 14 days ago

deep cut

cobbzilla5• 14 days ago

here’s to you mrs robinson

AyanamiKaine• 14 days ago

Microplastics have always fascinated me, because I keep seeing article after article about how much microplastic exists around us, but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. That is not to say there are no effects, of course. Maybe we just have not found them yet.

A friend of mine worked on her bachelor’s thesis about the effects of microplastics on the immune system, specifically T cells. Her result was that the microplastic particles she studied were too large to interact with T cells.

She probably will not publish this result because she thinks it is not interesting enough. Classic file-drawer problem in academic science.

While I encourage her to do it anyways as a negative results is also interesting but she wanted results that are worthing of headlines in magazines.

app13• 14 days ago

I participated in research from 2017-2022 that found similar results regarding bio-interactions, generally.

Learned a lot about making microfludic flow cells at least

codybontecou• 14 days ago

Can microplastics never get small enough to interact with T cells?

Retric• 14 days ago

There’s a transition point where things stop being micro plastics, then nano plastics, and become specific chemicals.

Those molecules may be toxic but the interactions are distinct from microplastics or nano plastics.

tristor2• 14 days ago

Unknown to me, but something useful to know is that there is something smaller than microplastics called nanoplastics. The distinguishing factor is that nanoplastics are particles smaller than 1 micron, while microplastics are particles between 1 micron and around 5 millimeters. As your other respondent notes, at some point you're talking about single molecules. As plastics is an entire category and not a single thing, there's no one size where that happens, but some polymers have chains that are as little as 0.01 (1/100th of a) micron in size.

As far as I am aware, we have yet to have effective, replicable research on what if any biointeractions exist with nanoplastic particles, including single polymer chains.

Borg3• 14 days ago

Once microplastics fall apart futher, to nano-plastic, it will start to get absorbed by T cells because they want to destroy any invaders. Once absorbed, T-Cell start to produce H2O2 to destroy anything they absorbed. Unfortunately, plastics are mostly chemically neutral and so, it cannot be destroyed like that. T-Cells produce more H2O2, eventually it leaks outside and start inflamation of surrunding tissue. There is research about it.

jagged-chisel• 14 days ago

... too large to interact with T cells.

Also, unfortunately, a result that industry and the anti-regulation crowd will use to say microplastics are harmless.

w10-1• 14 days ago

also, asbestos is too small to interact with T-cells, so it must be safe.

legitster• 14 days ago

She probably will not publish this result because she thinks it is not interesting enough. Classic file-drawer problem in academic science.

It's truly insane that everyone in the academic class understands the fundamental problems of herding and sampling bias and yet every incentive is in place to do this.

etrautmann• 14 days ago

Having lived this reality, people respond to incentives. Your have to very fundamentally re-architect the incentives and career progression in academia to make publication of null results more common. The other side of this is reducing the time and hassle of publication. Right now I’m unlikely to battle for 1.5-3 years to get something through peer review for a result that nobody will find interesting.

bee_rider• 14 days ago

I’m not sure who the academic class is (are grad students, postdocs, and tenured professors really in the same class?).

Anyway, the people setting the incentives are the ones handing out the grants.

dlcarrier5• 14 days ago

It's worse than that.

It wouldn't take much time for her to publish it then move on to something that looks good on a resumé, but it could actively work against her if she published something that doesn't substantiate the status quo. If you get labeled a science denier, because you published a negative result for a politically-charged subject, even when you agree with the overall cause, it'll be nearly impossible to get a job in the field, even with a flawless resumé.

schiffern• 14 days ago

I expect many researchers are using fresh lab-made microplastics, which are indeed mostly harmless. However part of the problem is that real-world plastics are chemical sponges that absorb toxins (heavy metals, PCBs, etc) from the environment and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923529

gruez2• 14 days ago

However part of the problem is that real-world plastics are chemical sponges that absorb toxins (heavy metals, PCBs, etc) from the environment and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923529

But your linked study only talks about biofilms and E.coli?

magicalist2• 14 days ago

Her result was that the microplastic particles she studied were too large to interact with T cells.

Her "result" of what? Was there an actual experiment and what was its scope or was this by surveying literature?

Microplastics are of a pretty large range of size, and then there are nanoplastics below that.

I'm also not an expert, but a quick search shows a number of results of microplastics affecting T cells, some directly and some in terms of immune signaling, so this negative result doesn't seem that definitive.

(as usual, the difficulty is in teasing out in vivo effects)

vitally3643• 14 days ago

I'm not an expert but I'm going to condescend about an expert's "results" anyway.

Very informative, thank you for your comment. You have truly contributed to the conversation. Good job.

zug_zug4• 14 days ago

but far less strong evidence about its actual effects.

Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The fact is that it's just really really hard to establish a causal relationship, even if it's there, because of all the cofounders. Heck even if you constructed a study with a known poison, like lead, and you might not see the results in a single study. You could give 50 participants water with flint levels of lead in it for a month, and you might not get scientifically significant result just due to the wide variance in a population.

Or another example is just thinking how hard it would be construct a study with a control, when every single construction material has plastics in it and they are floating in the air around us all the time (as mentioned in the article). Could it affect mental or reproductive wellbeing? Certainly. Can we construct a study to establish either way? Not easily.

And one of the plasticizers they talk about, pthalates, are known to be endocrine disruptors (i.e. mess with hormones).

marcosdumay2• 14 days ago

Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

That's wrong. Yes, we should.

Each and every study that doesn't find evidence for what they are looking for is evidence for its absence.

NoImmatureAdHom• 14 days ago

She should at least put it on https://www.biorxiv.org/ !

guelo2• 14 days ago

One thing I learned from this article is that even though the plastic particles themselves are poorly studied the chemical additives, such as phthalates and bisphenols, are very well studied and are known toxins. So even if the tiniest plastic particles (smaller than the ones your friend studied, that can cross from your gut into your bloodstream), don't affect your health at all, you still don't want to ingest these things because of the other chemicals in them.

andrenotgiant• 14 days ago

I think hate of plastics is an emergent form of elitism.

Upwardly mobile middle/upper class people who've sort of "maxed out" the amount of personal identity they can buy with regular plastic things can unlock a new level of identity by deciding that plastics are bad for them and eliminating plastics from their life, a process which conveniently requires buying a whole new set of things that distinguish them from their peers.

This is the only way I can explain how irrational and inconsistent plastic-haters behavior is. There is so much invisible plastic in their life that they don't seem to care about.

ButlerianJihad2• 14 days ago

Even more so: plastics are not a specific chemical and they are not a specific material. Plastic is a category of materials that is very broad and very wide. You can make plastics out of almost anything. Therefore, to hate on plastics is to basically hate on an entire category of engineering and material design but not to actually know what a plastic is... sheer ignorance.

estearum4• 14 days ago

Yes, it's a category of materials that is overwhelmingly populated by a much more specific, ultra-cheap and therefore ultra-pervasive, set of chemicals which are shown in study after study to have worrying characteristics.

Anything that shows evidence of omnipresence, endocrine disruption, bioaccumulation, and inter-generational transmission should be extremely, extremely closely scrutinized.

To think otherwise is absolute braindead contrarianism, full-stop.

cobbzilla5• 14 days ago

requires buying a whole new set of things that distinguish them from their peers

No, it requires buying a whole new set of things to fit in with and be accepted by their peers, to distinguish themselves from the outgroup, the plastic users.

I don’t necessarily believe this is some emergent elitism; I see it more as a modern religion with many many rules about eating and consumption (using plastic is now a sin).

Like any religion, sinners (for example plastic users) are mostly pitied because they are ignorant, but those who know and choose to use plastic anyway, well, it’s OK to hate them.

Apocryphon6• 14 days ago

I've addressed this idea in a sibling comment. I think at least some superstition is inevitable in any subculture. Consider how many tech 'holy wars' might involve baseless beliefs about how a text editor or programming language or whatever being not only superior because of personal preference but because it's inherently more optimized. Treating anti-micro-plastics as a "religion" rather than a subculture based on a meme deserves a bit more nuance.

1. Is it based on inherently irrational, unfactual beliefs, e.g. anti-vaccination or anti-5G myths?

2. If we consider religion as a way to explain complex phenomena using just-so stories (the pop anthropology / layman idea of primitive man inventing Zeus to explain lightning), then what intellectual or emotional need does anti-microplastics belief validate?

beej712• 14 days ago

I don't get this whole attitude. Moving away from plastics in our kitchen was basically zero extra cost. Something busted, and we replaced it with non-plastic. Even bamboo scrubbers don't cost more than plastic (maybe even a little less) and I can't see any particular longevity difference.

I think the fact that I volunteer to clean up trash on public lands and know that weathered plastic is the period worst period to remove makes me move away from plastic in general.

Plus, a solid $3 wooden spoon is just a joy to cook with. They outlast the plastic ones, too.

Microplastic ingestion? Well, I'm not sure the effects or the relative quantity compared to tire shed and other industrial factors. But if I were forced by some diety to bet my life on if plastics in the kitchen or on clothing had a negative health effect, I'd make that bet.

But the main thing I don't get about the attitude stems from the fact that I don't really care what other people use in their kitchens. I recommend it.

Just please don't litter. :)

gwerbin2• 13 days ago

Oh give it a rest.

First of all, yes, performatively following health fads has always been a thing for people with money.

But do you honestly believe this is what's going on at a large scale? What an absurd reaction to other people doing something that you don't like or don't understand. Nobody who isn't a paid influencer is sneering at you for using the wrong materials in your kitchen.

If you feel sneered that, that's your problem and not anyone else's. Are you going to start plasticmaxing, like rolling coal but for food containers?

I think you're doing the thing that you are accusing other people of doing. Creating an artificial distinction between "us" and "them", so that you can feel like you are part of the "us". It's just that in this case you want to feel like some kind of rational rebel, one of the final chosen few with common sense, in an increasingly irrational world.

Der_Einzige• 14 days ago

Every plastic object replaced with a metal, or similarly strong/more solid material is an upgrade.

Apocryphon6• 14 days ago

You could just liken it to any pop health, dietary, or environmental fad instead of trying to portray a banal "people turn consumer choices into personal identity/lifestyle" trend as a whole new class of phenomenon. Crunchy hippies shop organic and audiophiles buy gold-plated premium wires; every subculture has at least a little bit of superstition.

estearum4• 14 days ago

There is so much invisible plastic in their life that they don't seem to care about.

Huh? You think it's hypocritical for people not to "seem to care about" things that, by your own definition, they are ignorant of?

globular-toast• 14 days ago

Are you sure it's all irrational? I, for one, prefer other materials for many things because they are more durable, hygenic or simply feels nicer. Seems perfectly rational to me. An irrational choice would be something like carrying a heavy canvas tent with wooden poles just because you hate plastic. Do you know anyone who does that?

dlcarrier5• 14 days ago

Health in general has always worked like this, from supplements, to organic food, to avoiding ultra-processed foods, to gluten-free diets, pretty much every popular health fad has no provable causative effect on health.

Most of human behavior is irrational. If we were all perfectly rational, we would have healthy diet and exercise habits from the get go, and we'd have plenty of time to prepare food and exercise, because we wouldn't waste any time on entertainment.

gruez2• 14 days ago

pretty much every popular health fad has no provable causative effect on health.

Isn't this almost true by definition? If it actually works, it's not a "fad", just "science" or whatever. Advice like "eat more vegetables" and "don't drink alcohol" probably do work, but they're ingrained enough that nobody thinks they're "fads".

green_wheel2• 14 days ago

You might want to rethink your position on avoiding ultra processed foods not having any positive health effects...

reducesuffering• 14 days ago

Interesting theory but doesn't really coincide with on the ground facts. We know there has been an increase in hormonal issues. We can barely even get anyone to stop heating up and microwaving plastic to be ingested, which we know causes issues. The European Food Safety Authority completed a re-evaluation into the risks of BPA in 2023, concluding that its tolerable daily intake should be greatly reduced. BPA was everywhere, every can and receipt. Just because people can't identify all the ways plastic is ubiquitously ingested in their life, it means they're hypocritical and don't care about the unknowns?

guelo2• 14 days ago

Why was that we used to be able to ban environmental toxins such as leaded gasoline without this weird psycho-social-political analysis that has become the fashion in some circles?

titzer• 14 days ago

I've picked up enough plastics off the beaches of the world already. Plastic ruins ecosystems and is a scourge on this planet. It's too late to fix, it's everywhere. 8 million tonnes of plastics enter the oceans every year, and it just keeps accumulating. We're ruining marine ecosystems.

skyq• 14 days ago

I have grown to accept it. It is part of me now

danteocualesjr• 14 days ago

we have recently transitioned to only using glass bottles in our family.

mrpeek• 14 days ago

We’re going to find out at an autopsy.

odyssey7• 14 days ago

We don’t fully understand even some of the most obvious pathologies. If a disease isn’t glaringly obvious and coupled with profit incentive, God help you. The question of what microplastics do to us is simply beyond the capabilities of both modern medicine and academic research institutions.

skaushik92• 14 days ago

When there's such a large and obvious profit disincentive, we should probably question whether its a capabilities problem or a willful ignorance problem.

mrkn1• 14 days ago

fwiw kimchi-derived probiotic bacterium (Leuconostoc mesenteroides CBA3656) was shown to bind nanoplastics and help mice excrete more of them. But it’s not yet proven that eating kimchi removes microplastics from humans

mcmcmc• 14 days ago

It is proven that it tastes hella good though

1970-01-012• 14 days ago

Would have loved to see the effects broken down by plastic, as the term "plastics" is as non-specific as "metals" and "organic"

1970-01-012• 14 days ago

Even when you put a glass panel in the window, you have silicon holding the glass in. We tested all these different brands of silicon to try to find ones that had low levels of phthalates. It was a crazy amount of detail that we went to, but it was really worth it.

Silicone holds the glass panel. Silicon is the glass itself. Yale editors, do your job. She worked "a crazy amount of details", and so can you!

zug_zug4• 14 days ago

" We tested about 30 different construction materials trying to find some that didn’t contain plastics, but also didn’t contain plastic [additives] such as phthalates, but we couldn’t find any. Everything had either plastics or phthalates in them."

neptvn• 13 days ago

So the article seems to pose more questions than it answers. I was expecting some observations from the plastic-free lab they built, and at least some evidence of the comparative impact vs. other labs that use plastic to study blood and other fluids (besides the 100-times-plastic/phthalates concentration in the air).

What exactly are they studying in the lab? The biggest takeaway from all this is that "we [still] don’t have enough information yet".

Fedot• 13 days ago

The latest studies I read suggested that while microplastics are found in our bodies, there's still no clear evidence of how harmful they are. So I don't think it's as scary as it's often portrayed.

tsoukase• 13 days ago

Microplastics are even suspected for the low sperm count and power of men after the 70's. We can attribute to them any effect we observe today. It's insane. Let's accept that we cannot causaly link MPs with anything because we do not control the exposure and cannot perform a randomised trial. That is more scientific and sincere.

What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?

Related Stories