Microplastics are tiny polymer fragments that range from less than 0.2 inch to 1/25,000th of an inch. Smaller particles are called nanoplastics and are measured in billionths of a metre. Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are emerging as a potential risk factor for human health and for cardiovascular disease in particular. However, direct evidence that this risk extends to humans has so far been lacking. This investigation is a first step towards filling the gap.
The researchers conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study involving patients who were undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. The excised carotid plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of MNPs with the use of pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, stable isotope analysis, and electron microscopy. Inflammatory biomarkers were assessed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunohistochemical assay. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause among patients who had evidence of MNPs in plaque as compared with patients with plaque that showed no evidence of MNPs.
A total of 304 patients were enrolled in the study, and 257 completed a mean (±SD) follow-up of 33.7±6.9 months. 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. Electron microscopy revealed visible, jagged-edged foreign particles among plaque macrophages and scattered in the external debris. Radiographic examination showed that some of these particles included chlorine. Patients in whom MNPs were detected within the atheroma were at higher risk for a primary end-point event than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 10.27; P<0.001).
The authors concluded that, in this study, 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.
This is an impressive study – so much so that I report it here even though it has no connection to so-called alternative medicine, the focus of my blog. The fact that 58% of all plaques contained MNPs seems alarming. The finding that the presence of these MNPs is associated with a poor cardiovascular prognosis seems even more concerning.
MNPs have been found in every environmental compartment on earth. They are ingested not just by humans but by most animals as well. Even though research into these issues is most active, their effects are so far still under-researched and not fully understood.
The authors of the new investigation are rightly cautious: “Our data must be confirmed by other studies and on larger populations,” said Marfella, professor of internal medicine and director of the department of medical and surgical sciences at the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Naples, Italy. “However, our study convincingly highlights the presence of plastics and their association with cardiovascular events in a representative population affected by atherosclerosis.”
Of course, many questions are as yet unanswered but the subject is as worrying as it is important, e.g.:
- Should exposure to MNPs be considered a cardiovascular risk factor?
- What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk?
- How can we reduce exposure?”
I wish I knew the ansers.
25 Responses to Micro/Nanoplastics in Human Atheromas and their Association to Cardiovascular Events
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“This is an impressive study – so much so that I report it here even though it has no connection to so-called alternative medicine, the focus of my blog.”
I beg to differ.
Ever heard of the “leaky gut syndrome”?
The question is: How the particles could get into the bloodstream? They were outside, now they are in it. But how? Did they enter via the lung and/or via the gut? There must be an entrance.
So the question is: How and where did the particles get into the body?
The “leaky gut” merchandisers will cry out loud. They have said it all for so long.
So the question is: Is this study valid? Was everything researched perfectly well, or was there some flaw in it? Acknowledging the momentary result of the study will cause a big turbulence in the SCAM arena. Will we be able to handle that?
Hard times ahead, this way or other.
Here we have the next hammer:
https://www.scinexx.de/news/medizin/unsere-zellen-vererben-ihr-nanoplastik/
This is indeed impressive as well as alarming. And unfortunately, most studies in this area appear to confirm at least some level of risk from ingested micro- and nanoplastics; I haven’t encountered any study that found these materials completely harmless.
This almost sounds like a challenge to come up with such a connection.
Ah yes, I got it: according to the Ullman nanobabble theory, we only have to shake those nanoplastics to produce an effective remedy for the damage caused by microplastics. Problem solved.
I could list here numerous studies that have identified significant numbers of micro and nano particles of plastic and man-made fibres in bottled water (especially) plus many other beverages and consumables – including oven and microwaved foods.
These indigestible particles enter the stomach, intestines and possibly the blood-stream, via the mouth – that should be obvious to anyone with at least a few brain cells. Therefore it is highly likely that if the body cannot get rid of these particles, they will get trapped and begin to cause irritation and possibly inflammation in soft tissue and cells. And some of these nano-particles may even cross the blood-brain and blood-retina barrier.
I appreciate that many readers of this thread will probably consider the notion of filtering tap water (for example) to be just another SCAM idea, so I look forward to the usual dismissive responses from others when they read this post.
it would be very easy to see whether a commercially available filter takes out nanoplastics; I don’t think they do – please convince me otherwise.
Thanks for your question Edzard. I used the word ‘filter’ as a general description. I would be happy to provide you with a free consultation together with lab test results that compare different technologies proven to remove most if not all contaminants found in tap and bottled water.
I’m sure your time is far too valuable to spend an hour or so engaging with me off-line, so I do recommend you conduct your own research. Best in Health!
thanks – please link me to the evidence.
“… remove most if not all contaminants found in tap and bottled water.”
I am not sure that this includes nano plastics.
Edzard, I repeat: I would be happy to provide you with a free consultation together with lab test results that compare different technologies proven to remove most if not all contaminants found in tap and bottled water.
For those who claim that water purification removes important minerals, they need to understand that the level of minerals contained in tap water varies significantly around the UK (for example) from very soft water to very hard water. Obviously, soft water contains relatively low levels of minerals. However, the vast majority of beneficial-to-health minerals are obtained from FOOD, not tap water. It seems some folks just don’t know that.
I don’t send ‘links’ when offering to help someone better understand a particular topic. Instead I suggest a one-on-one, face-to-face meeting so mis-understandings can be avoided. I have no intention of providing any detailed data on this blog as it will no doubt attract mindless criticism from some of your ‘academic’ contributors.
thanks – but I was hoping for something in writing that looks like evidence.
Filtering tap water? You are talking tosh Mikey!
Unless you been living under a rock, raw water is all the rage these days.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/fear-tap-water-is-a-toxic-plot-to-control-your-mind-heres-the-water-for-you/
Hello ‘Talker’ whoever – or whatever – you are. I hadn’t heard of this raw/live water fad before, so thanks for enlightening me. I’ll certainly avoid it if I’m offered it!
@Mikey The Grant
You were pretty close with your guess. I am not a who, but a what. I am a pair of lips speaking words and my minions I like to call Fingers type my words into a computer.
I do love to enlighten people, you are welcome! I could also list numerous studies on the benefits of raw water but a consortium of water filter companies (big-filter) suppressed those studies. They don’t want people to know that it is okay to drink raw unfiltered water. Otherwise how would they make big bucks selling us unnecessary filters that strip out essential nutrients and vital microbes that train our immune systems. Before big-filter came along people used to drink raw water routinely and lived healthy lives, to a ripe old age of 40.
@Talker
You make it sound as if all tap water is equal, it is not. Every municipality has its different water sources and treatment.
I for one am not interested in drinking nor showering with water that contains fluoride and chlorine…. among other nasties (lead).
Perhaps you could give me a list of these “essential nutrients” missing from filtered water that cannot be replaced.
I know people that drink distilled water, they simply replace the “missing” nutrients with nutrients they choose with supplements.
I prefer tap water because plastic bottles are both unhealthy and bad for our natural habitat. Tap water is much less costly. And another thing, when the water that leaves the water treatment plant, even if it was perfectly healthy, there is no guarantee that the pipes that carry the water to the home or building are not contaminating the water. At the home I lived for years, I discovered after about eighteen years that the underground pipe that carried the water from my meter to the home was a type of pipe (lead containing PVC) that was not approved for this service due to the lead. Had I filtered my water all that time, I would have removed such contaminants. From that point on I double filtered my drinking and cooking water, because who knows what other pipes further upstream from the home might be bad also. I used one filter for removing fluoride, and another filter for chlorine and other unwanted contaminants.
Your milage may vary. I now live where fluoride is not added to the tap water.
@John
I take it you don’t understand what sarcasm is. Therefore, allow me to enlighten you!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm
@Talker
Excellent, it’s great to know you agree with me.
Absolutely Johnny! We agree on a lot of things, including vaccines.
@Talker
I take it you don’t understand what sarcasm is.
@Johnny
You have no idea what you are talking about. You should stick to the topics you are familiar with i.e. antivaxerism, chemtrails, big-foot, UFO etc.
So, let’s buy filters for tap water because ‘Michael Grant’ can list numerous studies identifying problems with bottled water.
Pete, your sarcasm has reduced my comment on this subject to infantile ridicule. I am not expecting you to take my advice or suggestions, so perhaps we can move on?
@ Michael ‘FUD-monger’ Grant,
Please remember: if you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.
On Friday 08 March 2024 at 15:44 you claimed several things, including: “significant numbers of micro and nano particles of plastic and man-made fibres in bottled water (especially) plus many other beverages and consumables – including oven and microwaved foods”.
Your phrase “micro and nano particles” encompasses six orders of magnitude of size. Your claim is utterly meaningless without data showing, at the very least, the frequency distribution of the “particles of plastic and man-made fibres in bottled water…”.
FUD-monger: a dealer or trader in FUD.
Pete, if that is your real name? I don’t have to justify anything to you. Nano size, micro size and various other size indigestible particles exist in bottled water and many other consumables – that is beyond doubt!
There are numerous published laboratory studies that are available for your consideration – but I’m sure you know that?
You are welcome to write to me and I will provide you with all the data I have collected. Simply give me your email address, but I know you won’t do that.
Your reference to ‘FUD’ is very childish and not worthy of serious debate in the context of my post.
@ Michael ‘FUD-monger’ Grant,
You wrote: “Nano size, micro size and various other size indigestible particles exist in bottled water and many other consumables – that is beyond doubt!”
Which is precisely the reason I wrote [bolding added]:
“Your phrase “micro and nano particles” encompasses six orders of magnitude of size. Your claim is utterly meaningless without data showing, at the very least, the frequency distribution of the “particles of plastic and man-made fibres in bottled water…”.
You claimed on Wednesday 12 October 2022 at 16:38: “I am a Doctor of Engineering”. If that is true then you know very well that, without the frequency distribution of the particles, your claim is not just utterly meaningless, it is also misdirection: FUD‑mongering.
Also in your comments on the same article, Live blood analysis, another SCAM to avoid, you said to me:
Isn’t the million-particle question: What is being measured here?
Has anyone showed that the micro- and nanoscopic particles of polymers that are being found in our bodies are indeed originated from the plastics industry? What evidence is there that these micro-/nano-particles aren’t some byproduct of atherosclerotic process.
I am not claiming to know the answer, but did anyone look for this stuff before the “plastics age”?
interesting idea!
can our bodies produce nano-plastics? and where do the nano-plastics ubiquitously found in nature really come from?