<p>RE: &quot;we can let them continue to break down without harm&quot;, obviously not. Especially in fluids that should have a specific composition in order to fulfil their function and also to be able to flow through various narrow spaces without causing clogging, it should <strong>not</strong> be expected to be without consequence if we suddenly start thickening the fluid by contaminating it with particles that shouldn't be there, no matter how small.</p>
<p>Accordingly, a major focus of microplastic research in animals is turning out to be the cardiovascular system, where there are already worrying effects demonstrated such as the ~4x risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with vs. without microplastic found in their arterial plaques.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Polyethylene was detected in carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 21.7±24.5 μg per milligram of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 5.2±2.4 μg per milligram of plaque.</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>patients with carotid artery plaque in which MNPs were detected had a higher risk of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than those in whom MNPs were not detected.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events</em>, March 6, 2024, N Engl J Med 2024;390:900-910
<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2309822" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2309822</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-17T13:48:12.253Z
2024-04-17T13:48:12.253Z
Don Joe
<p>As an ordinary person without a science background, I did a bit of research into if microplastics are harmful. I've found 9 articles, and I've summarised my findings in my own words:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Microplastics are ubiquitous, but we don’t know much about their harm. We know they can be carriers of harmful chemicals that remain on the plastic, including carcinogenic chemicals. They can be microscopic and nanoscopic in scale, potentially entering cells on an atomic level. They are easily carried across food chains, persist in our environment, and will never biodegrade and only get smaller and smaller. If large enough, they can be ingested like bigger plastics and cause harm to organisms, in particular to marine life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some of the articles I read to produce this summary: <a href="https://earth.org/microplastics-pollution-in-the-marine-environment-and-its-climate-implications-how-to-overcome-the-impacts/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ref1</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ref2</a>, <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ref3</a>, <a href="https://earth.org/are-microplastics-harmful/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ref4</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020322297#:%7E:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20microplastics,Raman%20microspectroscopy%20in%20human%20placentas.&amp;text=Microplastics%20were%20found%20in%20all,maternal%2C%20fetal%20and%20amniochorial%20membranes.&amp;text=Microplastics%20carry%20with%20them%20substances,term%20effects%20on%20human%20health." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ref5</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014111361630112X" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ref6</a>.</p>
<p>If this is correct, I think the problem is not microplastics, but the chemicals on them. As long as microplastics are small enough to not cause any physical damage (suffocation, entanglement, laceration, internal injuries, usually caused by larger plastics), we can let them continue to break into smaller pieces without harm. Do you agree? Do you think there are much more harmful effects yet to be discovered?</p>
<p>NOTE: In the back of my mind, I am thinking about synthetic clothing / textiles. If my suggestion is correct, then synthetic clothing is potentially harmless as long as they are not treated with harmful chemicals – we do no need to worry about the shedding of microplastics.</p>
<p>NOTE: Apologies, I know there are many types of plastics out there. This is something I know little about. Please feel free to say more on this.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T05:09:33.443Z
This question appears to be off-topic here. It *may* fit on a medical or biology site. To my knowledge, microplastics have been found in various bodily fluids of both humans and animals, so *potential* consequences *could* include damage to the circulatory and reproductive systems, by both mechanical and chemical processes. Re "Do you agree? Do you think there are much more harmful effects yet to be discovered?" This seems to invite opinions and speculation, while this site is focused on factual data.
njuffa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T08:15:00.847Z
@njuffa Although an answer does require digging into medicine or ecology somewhat, I do think that, broadly speaking, it fits in an Earth Science context as well, insofar as the biosphere is a component of the Earth system.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T09:00:14.660Z
To me two of your statements contradict each other: "As long as microplastics are small enough to not cause any physical damage..." & "They can be microscopic and nanoscopic in scale, potentially entering cells on an atomic level". Do you think microparticles of plastic entering cells will leave them undamaged?
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T10:44:49.357Z
@gerrit Looking for further clarification: If I were to write an answer stating that microplastics *are* harmful by themselves, citing the following papers, that would be acceptable? Stefania D’Angelo and Rosaria Meccariello, "Microplastics: A Threat for Male Fertility".  *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, Vol. 18, No. 5, March 2021, p. 2392. Hayal Çobanoğlu, et al., "Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of polyethylene microplastics on human peripheral blood lymphocytes". *Chemosphere*, Vol. 272, June 2021, 129805.
njuffa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T11:44:48.863Z
@njuffa Maybe.  I'm not sure.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-22T12:46:29.470Z
In addition to asking how harmful microplastics are, it could also be asked how beneficial they are.
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-23T10:25:04.177Z
@Fred Good point, but that seems extremely unlikely, did you have suggestions?
Tian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-23T10:28:39.823Z
@Jean-MariePrival I'm not sure I could make that conclusion, that microplastic particles entering cells inherently mean that they are dangerous. Could there be particles that enter cells, but are not used in cellular function, but neither interfere, especially if they are small and inert.
Tian
<plastic>
Are microplastics harmful or just the chemicals on them?
Tian
# Are microplastics harmful or just the chemicals on them?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-02-21)

As an ordinary person without a science background, I did a bit of research into if microplastics are harmful. I've found 9 articles, and I've summarised my findings in my own words:

> Microplastics are ubiquitous, but we don’t know much about their harm. We know they can be carriers of harmful chemicals that remain on the plastic, including carcinogenic chemicals. They can be microscopic and nanoscopic in scale, potentially entering cells on an atomic level. They are easily carried across food chains, persist in our environment, and will never biodegrade and only get smaller and smaller. If large enough, they can be ingested like bigger plastics and cause harm to organisms, in particular to marine life.

Some of the articles I read to produce this summary: [Ref1](https://earth.org/microplastics-pollution-in-the-marine-environment-and-its-climate-implications-how-to-overcome-the-impacts/), [Ref2](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3), [Ref3](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics/), [Ref4](https://earth.org/are-microplastics-harmful/), [Ref5](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020322297#:%7E:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20microplastics,Raman%20microspectroscopy%20in%20human%20placentas.&text=Microplastics%20were%20found%20in%20all,maternal%2C%20fetal%20and%20amniochorial%20membranes.&text=Microplastics%20carry%20with%20them%20substances,term%20effects%20on%20human%20health.), [Ref6](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014111361630112X).

If this is correct, I think the problem is not microplastics, but the chemicals on them. As long as microplastics are small enough to not cause any physical damage (suffocation, entanglement, laceration, internal injuries, usually caused by larger plastics), we can let them continue to break into smaller pieces without harm. Do you agree? Do you think there are much more harmful effects yet to be discovered?

NOTE: In the back of my mind, I am thinking about synthetic clothing / textiles. If my suggestion is correct, then synthetic clothing is potentially harmless as long as they are not treated with harmful chemicals – we do no need to worry about the shedding of microplastics.

NOTE: Apologies, I know there are many types of plastics out there. This is something I know little about. Please feel free to say more on this.

**Tags:** plastic

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question appears to be off-topic here. It *may* fit on a medical or biology site. To my knowledge, microplastics have been found in various bodily fluids of both humans and animals, so *potential* consequences *could* include damage to the circulatory and reproductive systems, by both mechanical and chemical processes. Re "Do you agree? Do you think there are much more harmful effects yet to be discovered?" This seems to invite opinions and speculation, while this site is focused on factual data.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Although an answer does require digging into medicine or ecology somewhat, I do think that, broadly speaking, it fits in an Earth Science context as well, insofar as the biosphere is a component of the Earth system.  
> **username_3**: To me two of your statements contradict each other: "As long as microplastics are small enough to not cause any physical damage..." & "They can be microscopic and nanoscopic in scale, potentially entering cells on an atomic level". Do you think microparticles of plastic entering cells will leave them undamaged?  
> **username_1**: @username_2 Looking for further clarification: If I were to write an answer stating that microplastics *are* harmful by themselves, citing the following papers, that would be acceptable? Stefania D’Angelo and Rosaria Meccariello, "Microplastics: A Threat for Male Fertility".  *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, Vol. 18, No. 5, March 2021, p. 2392. Hayal Çobanoğlu, et al., "Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of polyethylene microplastics on human peripheral blood lymphocytes". *Chemosphere*, Vol. 272, June 2021, 129805.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Maybe.  I'm not sure.  
> **username_4**: In addition to asking how harmful microplastics are, it could also be asked how beneficial they are.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 Good point, but that seems extremely unlikely, did you have suggestions?  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I'm not sure I could make that conclusion, that microplastic particles entering cells inherently mean that they are dangerous. Could there be particles that enter cells, but are not used in cellular function, but neither interfere, especially if they are small and inert.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2024-04-17. Score: 1

RE: "we can let them continue to break down without harm", obviously not. Especially in fluids that should have a specific composition in order to fulfil their function and also to be able to flow through various narrow spaces without causing clogging, it should **not** be expected to be without consequence if we suddenly start thickening the fluid by contaminating it with particles that shouldn't be there, no matter how small.

Accordingly, a major focus of microplastic research in animals is turning out to be the cardiovascular system, where there are already worrying effects demonstrated such as the ~4x risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with vs. without microplastic found in their arterial plaques.

> Polyethylene was detected in carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 21.7±24.5 μg per milligram of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 5.2±2.4 μg per milligram of plaque.
>
> [...]
>
> patients with carotid artery plaque in which MNPs were detected had a higher risk of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause at 34 months of follow-up than those in whom MNPs were not detected.

*Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events*, March 6, 2024, N Engl J Med 2024;390:900-910
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2309822>


---

