The absorption of microplastics into various organs of the human body may impose serious and wide-ranging health issues, particularly in regard to neurological health and chronic disease risk. A recently published study found higher levels of microplastics in human brain tissue, than in liver and kidney tissues (Nihart, et al., 2025).1 And the amount of plastic particles in the brain has increased significantly over time (from 2016 to 2024). A significant portion of these plastics consisted of polyethylene, which was present in brain tissue at higher proportions than in the liver or kidney. Higher microplastics levels correlated with dementia. The researchers found that the brains of individuals with documented dementia had significantly higher levels of plastic micro-and nanoparticles. Microplastics were observed in cerebrovascular walls and immune cells, suggesting a possible role in inflammation or neurodegeneration. Systemic exposure is increasing over time. The concentration of microplastics in all three organs (brain, liver, kidney) has increased substantially over the past decade. This trend suggests that environmental exposure to microplastics is rising exponentially, making long-term health effects a growing concern. Previous microplastics toxicity studies have shown that: microplastics are linked with inflammation, oxidative stress, and potential cardiovascular risks (such as increased plaque buildup in arteries). Animal studies have shown that microplastics can disrupt cellular processes, leading to tissue damage. And researchers at Rutgers University have recently found more concerns. They discovered that micro- and nano-plastics (MNPs) increase the absorption of toxic pollutants in plants and human intestinal cells, raising serious food safety concerns (Rutgers University,2025, February 11).2 Lettuce exposed to both MNPs and pollutants (arsenic, and boscalid) absorbed significantly more toxins than plants exposed to pollutants alone (Bui, et al., 2025).3 Boscalid is a fungicide mostly used on some fruits. While it's labeled for use on vegetables, it's not often used on vegetables. By far, the most commonly used class of fungicides in the world, is the triazoles. Therefore, by choosing to use boscalid, the researchers may (or may not) have confounded the data. In the study, nanoscale plastics (20 nm) had a stronger effect than microscale plastics (1000 nm), increasing arsenic uptake into edible plant tissues nearly threefold. MNPs accumulated in both roots and leaves, implying that toxic pollutants could enter the food supply. A study using a human intestinal cell model found that nano-plastics increased arsenic absorption sixfold. The presence of arsenic or pesticides doubled plastic absorption by intestinal cells, suggesting a dangerous cycle of mutual toxicity enhancement. Smaller plastic particles are more likely to bypass biological barriers, increasing risks for toxicity and disease. Plastics and pollutants act synergistically. MNPs not only carry toxins, but they increase the bioavailability of toxins in both plants and human cells. Hydroponic and soil-based studies confirmed that MNPs help pollutants travel more efficiently from soil to edible crops, therefore amplifying potential health risks. MNPs create long-term concerns. Plastic pollution is persistent. Even if new plastic production were to stop, existing waste continues breaking down into micro- and nano-particles. Conventional agriculture (especially organic vegetable production), uses plastic mulch and other plastic-based materials, potentially introducing MNPs into the food chain. That said, soil-biodegradable plastic mulch (which breaks down into CO2, water, and microbial biomass) is available, although it's much more expensive than conventional plastic mulch. How widespread is the use of plastic mulch? Although exact numbers are unavailable, the greatest use of plastic mulch films occurs in China, where approximately 80% of the total plastic mulch use is found. But even in the US, plastic mulch is extensively utilized in commercial vegetable and fruit production in both conventional and organic operations. Because it prevents the growth of weeds, conserves water, and has other advantages, it's especially popular for organic production. Plastic mulch use varies by location and crop, but it's especially predominant in certain crops such as strawberry production, for example. In the U.S., certified organic standards currently permit the use of polyethylene (PE) plastic mulch, provided it is removed at the end of the growing season. Biodegradable plastic mulches are not yet approved for organic use in the U.S. due to concerns over their composition and environmental impact. How serious are the health risks associated with microplastics? While causality has not yet been established, the studies strongly suggest that microplastics:
This general trend couldn't be good. The risks associated with microplastics should not be underestimated. The fact that these particles accumulate in human tissues, especially in the brain, raises serious concerns about long-term health effects. While specific links to disease have not yet been established, the rising levels of plastic exposure and their presence in organs previously thought to be protected from such contamination (for example, the brain) highlight an urgent need for further study and stronger regulations. How can we limit our risk of exposure to microplastics? Complete avoidance may be impossible, but we can surely limit our exposure. Limiting exposure to microplastics is the responsibility of both government and individuals. Government regulatory agencies need to set and enforce realistic limits in manufacturing processes and materials used for packaging and food storage. Lakes, rivers, and other sources of drinking water need more careful regulation to exclude contamination by microplastics. And as is usually the case, it's incumbent upon us to set up our own safeguards to limit our exposure to microplastics. As most of us have learned, ultimately, we are all responsible for our own health. Many governments are beginning to regulate the use of plastics. Many countries, including the U.S., Canada, and the EU, have banned microplastics in cosmetics and personal care products. The EU, India, and Canada have enacted bans on single-use plastics (for example, plastic straws, cutlery, bags). Germany and South Korea require companies to take responsibility for plastic packaging disposal and recycling. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Protection Agency of the US (EPA) are evaluating regulations to set limits on microplastic contamination in tap water. The EU is developing regulations to limit microplastic emissions from tire wear, synthetic clothing, and packaging. The UN is pushing for a global treaty on plastic pollution. Some countries are investing in chemical recycling to break down plastics more efficiently. Purifying drinking water is important. Some cities are installing advanced filtration systems to capture plastic particles before they reach homes. High-quality home water filters can remove most microplastics from drinking water. Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration systems are the most effective at removing microplastics. Studies show that bottled water contains significantly more microplastics than tap water. Avoid plastic water bottles, especially when exposed to heat. Minimizing fiber shedding by clothing can help. Washing machine filters (like Guppyfriend bags or Lint LUV-R filters) can reduce microplastic shedding from synthetic fabrics. Research is advancing on non-synthetic fibers that break down naturally (for example, algae-based or cellulose-based materials). Clothing made from natural fibers like cotton, hemp, or wool obviously shed fewer plastic particles. Innovative packaging materials are being developed. Some companies are developing plastics made from cornstarch, seaweed, or mycelium that break down safely. Moving away from plastic food and drink containers can significantly reduce exposure. Some foods are contaminated. Processed foods are often contaminated with microplastics due to packaging. And most of us are well aware that eating whole foods is much healthier, anyway, so lowering the risk of microplastics exposure is a bonus. Store food in glass, silicone, or stainless steel containers. Heat releases plastic chemicals and microplastics into food. Even the air in our living spaces contains microplastics. Microplastics in household dust can be reduced with HEPA filtration systems. Keeping windows open and reducing synthetic materials in furniture and textiles can lower airborne plastic exposure. Summarizing: While the full extent of microplastic health risks remains under study, the evidence suggests that exposure levels are rising and may have long-term neurological, cardiovascular, and immune system effects. Prevention efforts should be a combination of policy changes, scientific innovation, and individual lifestyle changes to reduce exposure. References: 1. Nihart, A. J., Garcia, M. A., El Hayekm E., Liu, R., Olewinen M., Kingstonm J. D., . . . Campen, M. J. (2025). Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nature Medicine, Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1#citeas 2. Rutgers University. (2025, February 11). "Micro-nano plastics make other pollutants more dangerous to plants and intestinal cells." ScienceDaily, Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/02/250211190242.htm 3. Bui, T. H., Zuverza-Mena, N., Kendrick, E., Tamez, C.,. Yadav, M., Alotaibi, S., White, J. C. (2025). Micro-nanoscale polystyrene co-exposure impacts the uptake and translocation of arsenic and boscalid by lettuce (Lactuca sativa). NanoImpact, 37,100541, ISSN 2452-0748, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2025.100541
0 Comments
Plastics Were Initially Welcomed As a Great Innovation. Will They Eventually Destroy Our Health?8/15/2025
Humans have used materials that are similar to plastics for many years. Before synthetic plastics, humans used natural materials with plastic-like properties, such as rubber, amber, and tortoiseshell. These materials could be molded or shaped when heated, serving early purposes similar to modern plastics Celluloid was created in 1862. Parkesine (later called celluloid) was developed by Alexander Parkes in 1862. Made from cellulose (a plant material), it was considered the first semi-synthetic plastic and was showcased at the 1862 Great International Exhibition in London. Bakelite was developed in 1907. Created by Leo Baekeland, a Belgian-American chemist, Bakelite was the first fully synthetic plastic. It was made from phenol and formaldehyde, and unlike natural or semi-synthetic plastics, it wasn’t derived from natural substances like cellulose. Bakelite’s properties of durability, heat resistance, and electrical insulation, made it ideal for a variety of applications, including electrical insulators, radio casings, and jewelry. Modern plastics were quickly developed following the success of Bakelite.
After World War II, the production of plastics expanded rapidly. New types like polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polycarbonate were developed, leading to the rise of plastics in everyday life. Today, plastics are integral to nearly every industry but have raised environmental concerns due to their persistence and contribution to pollution. The first synthetic plastics, initially celebrated for their innovation, have now prompted movements toward biodegradable and sustainable alternatives. In recent years, ominous discoveries have been made. Microplastics (MPs) have been found in various organs of the human body, and recently they have been discovered in human brain tissue, specifically in the olfactory bulb (Brauser, 2024, November 27).1 MPs were detected in 8 out of 15 brain samples analyzed in a case series study. 44% of the detected particles were polypropylene, commonly used in food packaging and water bottles. Other polymers such as polyamide (nylon) and polyethylene vinyl acetate, were also found. In the study, 15 deceased individuals in São Paulo, Brazil, aged 33 to 100 years, underwent routine coroner autopsies. Tissues from the olfactory bulb were examined, excluding individuals with prior neurosurgical interventions. Microplastics were identified using micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR). A “plastic-free approach” was employed to avoid contamination, using aluminum-covered glassware and specialized filters. The particles found ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns, with widths of 3 to 25 microns. Fiber dimensions averaged 21 microns in length and 4 microns in width. For comparison, a human hair is ~70 microns in diameter. It's thought that microplastics may reach the brain through inhalation, crossing the nasal passages into the olfactory bulb. Other pathways, such as transport via the bloodstream, are also considered. The neurological implications may be worrisome. The study notes that microplastics in the brain could induce oxidative stress and neurotoxic effects. Similar exposures to particulate matter have been linked to conditions like dementia and neurodegenerative diseases, though this connection requires further investigation. And there are broader health implications. Microplastics have previously been found in other human tissues, such as the lungs, liver, blood, and placenta, raising concerns about their systemic impact. Key potential health effects include:
Are microplastics regulated? Most U.S. states lack criteria or standards for microplastics, with minimal monitoring. Existing regulations, such as the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, target specific types of plastic but do not address microplastics comprehensively. The United Nations Global Plastic Treaty aims to create legally binding international standards for plastic pollution but remains in negotiation. Microplastics are everywhere. Even teabags have been found to be associated with microplastics. Recent research published in Chemosphere showed that polymer-based tea bags release significant amounts of Micro/Nanoplastics (MNPLs) during typical use (Banaei et al., 2024).2 MNPLs are capable of interacting with and being internalized by human intestinal cells. In the study, mucus-producing cells showed the highest uptake of MNPLs. MNPLs entered the cell nucleus, suggesting potential for genetic and cellular disruptions. Differential internalization was observed depending on the polymer type and cell line. Nylon-6 particles were internalized more in enterocyte-like cells (Caco-2). Polypropylene and cellulose were internalized more in mucus-producing cells. And that brings us to Keurig K cups. Being naturally lazy, I love the convenience of Keurig K cups for my morning coffee. After breakfast I can get right to work because I don't lose any significant amount of time making coffee. But naturally, since the plastic shell of the K cup is usually made of polypropylene, and high temperatures (typically 190°F [88°C]) are involved in their use, they are a potential source of MNPLs. In addition, the aluminum foil lid that seals the pod may contribute to degradation of the plastic. The filter is usually made of synthetic fibers or plastics. While direct studies on K-Cups and MNPLs are limited, research has shown that prolonged exposure to hot liquids can cause plastics, including polypropylene, to release microplastics. And microplastics have been detected in beverages brewed with plastic-based filters and containers. Possible workarounds include:
MNPLs may increase the risk of IBD. The implications of these findings suggest that chronic exposure to MNPLs could lead to cellular and DNA damage due to internalization in intestinal cells. Disruption of mucus layers, could potentially compromise the protective barrier of the intestine. The preliminary evidence links MNPL exposure to inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), as IBD patients exhibit higher concentrations of MNPLs in their stool. The possibility exists that individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal conditions (such as IBD) may face increased risks from MNPL exposure. Of course tea bags aren't the only significant source of MNPL contamination. Other sources, such as bottled water and plastic cookware, contribute similarly to MNPL ingestion. Even some of our clothing is shedding MNPLs. Wearing clothing made of natural fibers (such as cotton, linen, silk, wool, hemp, or cashmere, fort example), rather than synthetic fibers (such as polyester or nylon), should cut down our exposure to MNPLs. Washing synthetic fabrics less frequently, and in cold water, will help to minimize microplastic shedding. And using laundry bags or filters designed to capture microfibers should help. What can we do to reduce the risks from MNPLs? Obviously, one of the simplest precautions to take would be to use nonplastic teabags, or use loose tea. Minimizing the use of single-use plastics, such as straws, utensils, bottles, and bags should help. Replacing cooking utensils, especially, with reusable items made of glass, metal, or biodegradable materials will greatly reduce our exposure to MNPLs. Home air purifiers can help to reduce exposure to MNPLs. In homes, MNPLs are released from sources such as synthetic textiles, carpets, plastic packaging, and household items. Indoor activities like vacuuming, cooking, and walking on carpets can resuspend MNPLs into the air so that they become airborne particulates that can be inhaled. Although air purifiers can help to reduce the concentration of MNPLs in indoor air, their effectiveness depends on the type of filter, its specifications, and how it is used.
Higher-grade HEPA filters with efficiency ratings (such as H13 or H14) are better at capturing smaller particles, including MNPLs. The air purifier should be appropriately sized for the room to ensure sufficient air exchange. Insufficient airflow or an undersized unit may not reduce MNPL concentrations effectively. Regular replacement or cleaning of filters is crucial to maintaining effectiveness. Air purifiers should be positioned where MNPL sources are most active (for example, near synthetic fabrics, high-traffic areas). Maintaining indoor humidity levels between 30-50% helps to reduce particle resuspension. While HEPA filters can capture many microplastics, they may be less effective for ultrafine nanoplastics (less than 0.3 microns). Small air purifiers only affect the air in a localized area, not the entire home. MNPLs can settle on surfaces and be resuspended, requiring additional measures like vacuuming with HEPA-equipped cleaners. The bottom line: Over the years, countless plastic products have brought great convenience into our lives, so that now, plastics are ubiquitous. And as most of us have learned in the school of hard knocks, nothing is perfect. Convenience comes at a cost, and the costs associated with the widespread use of plastics are coming into sharper focus. Many of us are becoming concerned that one of the costs associated with plastics may be our most precious possession; namely, our health. Maybe it's time for us to begin taking precautions before the risks become so obvious that we are forced to take precautions and countermeasures. References 1. Brauser, D. (2024, November 27). Microplastics Have Been Found in the Human Brain. Now What? Medscape, Retrieved from https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/microplastics-have-been-found-human-brain-now-what-2024a1000ln0 2. Banaei, G., Abass, D., Tavakolpournegari, A., Martín-Pérez, J., Gutiérrez, J., Peng, G., . . . García-Rodríguez, A. (2024). Teabag-derived micro/nanoplastics (true-to-life MNPLs) as a surrogate for real-life exposure scenarios. Chemosphere, 368(November 2024), 143736. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653524026377
A recently-published study led by the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia has revealed that the site of vaccine administration — specifically, which arm receives the shot, can significantly influence how quickly and effectively the immune system responds to a booster dose. The study was published in Cell on April 28, 2025, and it offers key insights that may shape future vaccine administration strategies (Dhenni, et al., 2025).1 The researchers discovered that administering a booster vaccine in the same arm as the initial dose leads to a faster and more robust immune response. This occurs because memory B cells (the immune cells responsible for producing antibodies) tend to remain in the lymph node closest to the original injection site. These cells are “primed” by local macrophages (a type of immune cell that captures antigens and alerts other immune cells), to create a small, localized environment ready to mount a rapid and robust antibody response when the same site is used for a booster injection. Using advanced intravital imaging in mice (a technique that allows scientists to visualize and study biological processes at a cellular level within living organisms), the researchers found that these primed macrophages efficiently captured vaccine antigens and reactivated memory B cells, to significantly enhance the immune response. This biological advantage was then confirmed in human trials. Their test trial involved patients receiving Covid 19 booster vaccines. In a clinical study involving 30 participants receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, researchers compared immune responses between those who received both doses in the same arm versus different arms. Within one week of the second dose, those in the “same-arm” group produced faster and more potent neutralizing antibodies, especially against variants such as Delta and Omicron. While both groups had similar antibody levels by four weeks, the early immunity observed in the same-arm group could offer critical protection during the most vulnerable window of infection during a pandemic, or other rapidly-spreading virus risk. This insight is particularly important for controlling outbreaks of fast-mutating viruses, where early herd immunity can reduce transmission rates. So the take home message is: If you’re getting a vaccine booster, choosing the same arm as your first dose could give your immune system a head start. While long-term protection will level out regardless of the injection site, those initial weeks of stronger immunity could make a significant difference, both for individuals and the “herd effect” that's so important for public health outc Reference 1. Dhenni, R., Hoppé, A. C., Reynaldi, A., Kyaw, W., Handoko, N. T., Grootveld, A. K., . . . Phan, T. G. (2025). Macrophages direct location-dependent recall of B cell memory to vaccination. Cell, Retrieved from https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(25)00407-6
|
AuthorWayne Persky Archives
November 2025
Categories |
Offices: 19242 Darrs Creek Rd, Bartlett, Texas 76511-4460
RSS Feed 
