It’s Official, Microplastics Were Found Circulating in Human Blood For The First Time
Mike McRae 4 hrs ago

Many of us have plastic dust flowing through our veins.

The results of the latest study looking for microplastic pollutants in human tissues shouldn’t come as a surprise by now. Virtually no place on Earth is free of the polymer fog, after all, from the highest of mountains down to our most intimate organs.

Yet knowing it permeates our very blood brings a new awareness of just how much plastic waste has become an expanding ecological issue.

Researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center analyzed blood samples taken from 22 healthy anonymous donors for traces of common synthetic polymers larger than 700 nanometers across.

After the team went to great lengths to keep their equipment free of contaminants and test for background levels of plastics, two different methods for identifying the chemical make-up and masses of particles uncovered evidence of several plastic species across 17 of the samples.

Though the exact combinations varied between samples, the microplastics included polyethylene terephthalate (PET) – commonly used in clothing and drink bottles – and polymers of styrene, often used in vehicle parts, carpets, and food containers.

On average, 1.6 micrograms of plastic material were measured for every milliliter of blood, with the highest concentration being just over 7 micrograms.

The researchers couldn’t give a precise breakdown of the particle sizes due to the limitations of the testing methods. It’s safe to presume, however, that smaller particles closer to the 700 nanometer limit of the analysis would be easier for the body to take in than larger particles exceeding 100 micrometers.

Precisely what all of this means for our health and wellbeing in the long term isn’t fully clear.

On one hand, there’s still so much we just don’t know about the chemical and physical effects of tiny plastic materials nestled among our cells. Animal studies hint at some seriously concerning effects, but interpreting their results within a human health context is far from straight forward.

Nonetheless, the problem is a growing one, with plastic waste entering our oceans set to double by 2040. As all of those discarded shoes, forks, bread tags, steering wheels and chocolate wrappers break up, a greater concentration of microplastics will gradually find its way into our bloodstream.

If it’s the dose that makes a poison, it’s possible we might cross a line at some point where relatively harmless traces of styrene and PET could start to have some alarming effects on the way our cells grow. Especially during development.

“We also know in general that babies and young children are more vulnerable to chemical and particle exposure,” Dick Vethaak, an ecotoxicologist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, told The Guardian’s Damian Carrington.

“That worries me a lot.”

Keeping the small number of volunteers in mind, it’s further evidence that the dust produced by our synthetic world isn’t completely filtered by our lungs and gut.

There’s also the question of whether the plastics are free-floating in the plasma, or have been gobbled up by white blood cells. Each scenario would have ramifications on how particles move about and what bodily systems they might affect most.

A lot more research will be needed on larger, more diverse groups to map just how and where microplastics spread and accumulate in humans, and how our body eventually discards them.

How, though?

dv said:

How, though?

Plastics from IV lines? Most people have plastics involved if they have an IV in hospital or go under anaesthetic with a butterfly canular type thing.

monkey skipper said:

It’s Official, Microplastics Were Found Circulating in Human Blood For The First Time
Mike McRae 4 hrs ago

Many of us have plastic dust flowing through our veins.

The results of the latest study looking for microplastic pollutants in human tissues shouldn’t come as a surprise by now. Virtually no place on Earth is free of the polymer fog, after all, from the highest of mountains down to our most intimate organs.

Yet knowing it permeates our very blood brings a new awareness of just how much plastic waste has become an expanding ecological issue.

Researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center analyzed blood samples taken from 22 healthy anonymous donors for traces of common synthetic polymers larger than 700 nanometers across.

After the team went to great lengths to keep their equipment free of contaminants and test for background levels of plastics, two different methods for identifying the chemical make-up and masses of particles uncovered evidence of several plastic species across 17 of the samples.

Though the exact combinations varied between samples, the microplastics included polyethylene terephthalate (PET) – commonly used in clothing and drink bottles – and polymers of styrene, often used in vehicle parts, carpets, and food containers.

On average, 1.6 micrograms of plastic material were measured for every milliliter of blood, with the highest concentration being just over 7 micrograms.

The researchers couldn’t give a precise breakdown of the particle sizes due to the limitations of the testing methods. It’s safe to presume, however, that smaller particles closer to the 700 nanometer limit of the analysis would be easier for the body to take in than larger particles exceeding 100 micrometers.

Precisely what all of this means for our health and wellbeing in the long term isn’t fully clear.

On one hand, there’s still so much we just don’t know about the chemical and physical effects of tiny plastic materials nestled among our cells. Animal studies hint at some seriously concerning effects, but interpreting their results within a human health context is far from straight forward.

Nonetheless, the problem is a growing one, with plastic waste entering our oceans set to double by 2040. As all of those discarded shoes, forks, bread tags, steering wheels and chocolate wrappers break up, a greater concentration of microplastics will gradually find its way into our bloodstream.

If it’s the dose that makes a poison, it’s possible we might cross a line at some point where relatively harmless traces of styrene and PET could start to have some alarming effects on the way our cells grow. Especially during development.

“We also know in general that babies and young children are more vulnerable to chemical and particle exposure,” Dick Vethaak, an ecotoxicologist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, told The Guardian’s Damian Carrington.

“That worries me a lot.”

Keeping the small number of volunteers in mind, it’s further evidence that the dust produced by our synthetic world isn’t completely filtered by our lungs and gut.

There’s also the question of whether the plastics are free-floating in the plasma, or have been gobbled up by white blood cells. Each scenario would have ramifications on how particles move about and what bodily systems they might affect most.

A lot more research will be needed on larger, more diverse groups to map just how and where microplastics spread and accumulate in humans, and how our body eventually discards them.

CO2 increases were once considered inconsequential, after all it represented only a very small potion of the atmosphere.

Well, so long as they don’t find pieces of glass in my blood, I’m happy.

mollwollfumble said:

Well, so long as they don’t find pieces of glass in my blood, I’m happy.

https://wikilivre.org/culture/how-does-blaine-eat-glass/

The plasticisers used in plastics are not usually nice to living organisms, but by the time the plastic has degraded to the microplastic stage, I doubt there would be many of them left and it would be pretty inert.

So are inert microplastics in organisms necessarily a bad thing for that organism?

Dark Orange said:

The plasticisers used in plastics are not usually nice to living organisms, but by the time the plastic has degraded to the microplastic stage, I doubt there would be many of them left and it would be pretty inert.

So are inert microplastics in organisms necessarily a bad thing for that organism?

On the way to becoming inert they cause us to put on fat cells that can’t be removed.

Dark Orange said:

The plasticisers used in plastics are not usually nice to living organisms, but by the time the plastic has degraded to the microplastic stage, I doubt there would be many of them left and it would be pretty inert.

So are inert microplastics in organisms necessarily a bad thing for that organism?

Microplastics can be ingested by various animals, ranging in size from tiny creatures like zooplankton to sharks and whales. The likelihood of microplastics being eaten is influenced by the amount in the environment and how closely they resemble food. Laboratory studies indicate that microplastics can potentially transfer through the food web when marine, terrestrial and freshwater species that have previously ingested microplastics are preyed on by other animals.

Microplastics eaten by larger marine animals will generally pass through their bodies. However, research does show that microplastics can be retained in the gut for extended periods where they may cause abrasion and damage to internal tissues. Nanoplastics can pass through the gut wall and travel to different parts of the body, such as the lungs and liver, where they can cause damage. Further research is required to understand the potential health implications from ingesting microplastics.

Microplastics are pieces less than 5 mm in size and are significantly more difficult to remove from the environment. Ingesting plastic pieces has been shown to reduce nutritional intake from tiny zooplankton up to large bivalves like oysters. These tiny fragments absorb harmful chemicals and other pollutants, which accumulate within larger species. This accumulation of plastic and toxins can also put human health at risk.

Various chemicals incorporated into plastics as raw materials or additives during manufacture can leach from plastics into the environment. Humans and other animals are also exposed to these chemicals when they ingest plastics or when these chemicals leach into food or are released into the atmosphere when plastics are burned. Some chemicals directly associated with plastics have been detected in humans and wildlife including birds and various marine species.

While plastics can remove some persistent organic pollutants (POPs) from the surrounding water, there is concern about what happens when plastics containing these adsorbed pollutants are ingested by animals. The ability of some POPs to bind to plastics is particularly concerning due to their toxicity at low doses. These toxic and persistent chemicals are widely distributed in the marine environment and are readily concentrated onto plastic surfaces at up to 1 million times the concentration than in the surrounding water. Studies have shown that these chemicals can transfer from ingested plastics to animal tissue where they can become concentrated within the animal and transfer through the food chain.

There are some knowledge gaps on microplastics:

Where, how, how much and what types of plastic (particularly microplastic) enter the environment including into air, freshwater and terrestrial systems?
How much leaching takes place from plastics (particularly absorbed chemicals) into animals and humans compared with other routes of chemical exposure?
What level of microplastics do we encounter daily through our diet or airborne sources, and what are the potential health risks associated with these exposure rates?
To what extent does the ingestion of microplastics actually harm individuals and populations in the real environment?

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2809-how-harmful-are-microplastics

So microplastics are not to be ignored or discarded as the potential for harm to animals (all animals) is very high.