Actor Orlando Bloom recently made headlines when it was reported that he was compensated a staggering £10,000 ($13,600) for the removal, separation, and filtration of his blood.
This dramatic treatment underscores the escalating concern surrounding a disquieting reality. It’s not solely about evading these minuscule particles.
Research indicates that microplastics are prevalent from the heights of Mount Everest to the depths of our brains. Their omnipresence, including in the media, raises pressing public scientific concerns regarding the safety of having microscopic plastic flakes adrift on our bodies.
Once thought of as harmless, microplastics are now linked to various illnesses. Should we be testing at this nascent stage and worrying about their impact on our bodies, especially considering the lack of scientific consensus? And are we really justifying lining up to “clean” our blood?
Plastic Proof
The term “microplastic” refers to plastic particles or fibers smaller than 5mm (0.19 inches). These particles are often minuscule, necessitating a microscope for proper observation.
Scientists also use the term “nanoplastic” for particles smaller than 0.001mm (39.4 microinches), which are difficult to detect even with advanced microscopy. Evidence suggests they can be released from plastic materials and disseminate into their environments.
My research group focuses on quantifying plastic and other particles in the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors. In London, we have observed that airborne microplastics can penetrate deep into our lungs.
read more:
To determine the presence of microplastics in the body, whole tissues or blood fragments are processed and filtered to concentrate the microplastic content. Analysis is conducted using chemical techniques that quantify plastic in a sample, or through physical and chemical methods, which count the number of plastic particles (along with their size and shape).
Each method has its merits, but they all share similar drawbacks. Modern laboratories are rife with microplastic pollution, laden with plastic consumables and the personnel that handle them.
This means that the very process of extracting and testing microplastic samples can lead to contamination. Consequently, samples often reveal microplastic particles that were previously considered too large to be absorbed and distributed throughout the body.
Generally, particles smaller than 0.001mm (39.4 microinches) can traverse the lungs and enter the bloodstream. This occurs through the thin alveolar tissue in the lungs that separates the air-filled alveolar sacs from the small surrounding capillary blood vessels.
In the intestines, these minute particles can enter the lymph system, the bodily waste removal network. From there, the tiniest particles may enter the bloodstream and become larger aggregates trapped in the intestinal lining.
Thus, lab contamination may account for the larger plastics detected within the body.
Another complication arises because some biological components within samples emit signals resembling those of plastic. Specifically, fat can distort the signals from polyelectrolytes and polychlorinated compounds. If samples are not meticulously processed, this could lead to exaggerated estimates of the plastics present.
Taking all of this into account, the assumed high levels of microplastics in our bodies may be overstated. Variations in estimates range from nanograms to milligrams, influenced by factors like study methodology, location, tissue type, and analysis techniques.
Recent stringent research suggests an estimated 0.15µg (0.00000015g) of plastic per milliliter in our blood, amounting to less than the weight of a single human hair.
Moreover, this study predominantly focuses on polystyrene, the easiest microplastic to analyze.
Plastic People
Considering these levels, it may be more critical to focus on where microplastics accumulate in our bodies rather than their sheer quantity.
Nonetheless, accurately measuring microplastic accumulation in various body parts presents challenges. A recent study posits that the brain is a notable accumulation point, averaging around 4.5 bottle caps.
Not only are these levels considerably high, but the detected plastics largely consist of polyethylene, which poses complications in measurement due to its interaction with fat.
Polyethylene is the most widely produced plastic globally, with approximately 120 million tons manufactured each year, representing 25% of all plastics. Thus, it’s logical to find a higher concentration of this type in our bodies. However, the brain is composed of adipose tissue, making false positives a potential concern.
Furthermore, the research suggests that plastic levels in the brain surpass those in the liver, an organ responsible for cleansing blood. Expecting a high concentration of plastic in the body’s filtration organ would be reasonable.
Most studies investigating microplastics in human tissues focus on broad tissue-wide samples. This results in a lack of critical context regarding whether microplastics are embedded within cells or merely passing through.
Plastic Pure
Regardless of the exact measurements, public anxiety about microplastics remains high. Around two-thirds of 30,000 survey respondents from 31 countries express concern about microplastics in their bodies.
If you aim to minimize exposure to microplastic contamination, consider adopting a few lifestyle changes. Opt for natural fiber-based textiles in your home and clothing, avoid plastic packaging whenever feasible (especially when heat is involved), and refrain from running along quiet streets to dodge tire wear particles from traffic.
However, projections indicate that microplastic releases may rise 1.5-2.5 times by 2040. It’s likely that technology will soon emerge, claiming to eradicate microplastic invaders from our bodies.
Therapeutic apheresis — a medical process that separates blood and selectively removes harmful substances before returning the cleaned blood to the patient — has recently been commercialized for the removal of microplastics from the bloodstream.
However, there is scant public documentation on this microplastic removal method. A German study indicated that “microplastic-like” particles were detected in a patient’s plasma following the procedure. Without adequate lab controls and details regarding detected particle sizes, interpreting the significance of these findings is challenging.
Additionally, our understanding of the specific behavior of microplastics within the body remains limited. We lack clarity on whether they circulate freely in our plasma, adhere to red blood cells, or are contained within immune cells in the bloodstream.
In the absence of concrete evidence on the types of microplastics in our bodies, their pathways, or their interactions within the body, evaluating the health implications of these “blood-cleaning” efforts becomes nearly impossible.
Moreover, additional concerns may arise during treatment. One study documented 558 microplastics released from the cannula over a 72-hour period.
With all this taken into account, I intend to steer clear of the SF blood washing service in Hollywood until further studies emerge to clarify the impact of microplastics on our bodies and provide insight into their locations and functions.
read more:
Source: www.sciencefocus.com
