High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns “a bombshell”.

Studies claiming to have revealed micro and nanoplastics in the brain, testes, placentas, arteries and elsewhere were reported by media across the world, including the Guardian. There is no doubt that plastic pollution of the natural world is ubiquitous, and present in the food and drink we consume and the air we breathe. But the health damage potentially caused by microplastics and the chemicals they contain is unclear, and an explosion of research has taken off in this area in recent years.

However, micro- and nanoplastic particles are tiny and at the limit of today’s analytical techniques, especially in human tissue. There is no suggestion of malpractice, but researchers told the Guardian of their concern that the race to publish results, in some cases by groups with limited analytical expertise, has led to rushed results and routine scientific checks sometimes being overlooked.

The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.

    • essell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      My understanding is it’s legit. The original studies included a Margin of error which was not included in the headlines, shockingly. This new figure is within those margins.

      The problem is with the testing method used to identify the plastic, it also detects a bunch of other stuff that’s supposed to be there.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    That was my impression for a long time. Microplastic everywhere, all at once, suddenly? Or just plastic from pipettes, probe containers, plastic tubes in test equipment?

    • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It seems it’s more like cells can naturally produce substances that are detected as microplastics.

      Also things like shredding from pipettes would almost certainly have been detected earlier given how ubiquitous they are in research.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I would not consider it unlikely that those one-use items like they are used in labs shred way more particles than those that have been used several times with cleaning cycles in between.

        • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I’d be curious what the values are. There’s a lot of variation based on how the plastic is formed and treated. E.g. abrasion causes a lot of shedding. It’s possible that heading and washing can also cause degradation.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If the pipettes, probe containers, and plastic tubes can shed microplastics easily enough to end up in test results, I think that’s pretty damning of other plastic products shedding garbage into our environment and what we consume.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        On the other hand it would basically destroy loads of test results and anything based on it.