Can we really find plastic in your blood?
Assessing the Efficacy of Pyrolysis–Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Nanoplastic and Microplastic Analysis in Human Blood
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Scientists tried to find tiny plastic bits in blood using a heat-and-smell test, but the test kept confusing fat in your blood for plastic.
No biological mechanisms were identified in this study. This may be an epidemiological, observational, or survey-based study that reports associations rather than proposing causal biological pathways.
Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
Max 100Randomized Controlled Trials
Max 90Cohort Studies
Max 72Case-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional Studies
Max 44Case Reports & Case Series
Max 30Expert Opinion & Narrative Reviews
Max 527 / 44
Evidence Score
A snapshot of a population at a single point in time. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine the direction of cause and effect.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Scientists tried to find tiny plastic bits in blood using a heat-and-smell test, but the test kept confusing fat in your blood for plastic.
No biological mechanisms were identified in this study. This may be an epidemiological, observational, or survey-based study that reports associations rather than proposing causal biological pathways.
Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
Max 100Randomized Controlled Trials
Max 90Cohort Studies
Max 72Case-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional Studies
Max 44Case Reports & Case Series
Max 30Expert Opinion & Narrative Reviews
Max 527 / 44
Evidence Score
A snapshot of a population at a single point in time. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine the direction of cause and effect.
Publication
Authors
Rauert C, Charlton N, Bagley A, Dunlop SA, Symeonides C, Thomas KV
Related Content
Claims (6)
Current methods using pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry cannot reliably identify microplastics like polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride in human blood because natural blood chemicals and heat-induced breakdown products create signals that mimic those of the plastics, and existing techniques cannot remove this interference.
Py-GC-MS testing sometimes identifies traces of plastics like polypropylene, polystyrene, and nylon in human blood, but these signals vary between tests and are more likely due to laboratory contamination than actual presence in the body.
When measuring plastic particles in human blood, the presence of blood components can interfere with the detection process, making it appear as though there is less plastic than there actually is. Adjusting for this interference shows that earlier measurements may have underestimated polymer levels by up to 20 times, suggesting many reported concentrations are too low to be realistic.
Nanoplastics with modified surfaces, like those coated with carboxyl groups, are detected in higher amounts in human blood than unmodified nanoplastics, suggesting that their surface properties influence how they behave and are measured in the body.
Current scientific methods for detecting tiny plastic particles in human blood cannot reliably find particles smaller than 300 nanometers because they are lost during testing, and the amounts reported would require people to be exposed to levels of plastic that are not possible in real life.