Microplastics in the Body: What Studies Show So Far and How You Can Reduce Your Intake
Microplastics and nanoplastics have been found in blood, placentas, arterial plaques and brain tissue. Whether and to what extent they make people ill is still an open question. There is no evidence that they can be flushed out. But you can reduce your daily intake.
I don't want to sell you fear. And I don't want to play down your concern either. Plastic in the body is a finding, not yet a verdict. What you can influence today is not the way out. It is the way in.
Maybe you know this moment. A brief flash of disgust, then a sense of powerlessness. Plastic is everywhere anyway. What could I possibly do about it?
I understand both reactions, the panic and the shrug. Both are human. But both miss what research can say today. And what is within your own control.
In this article, we will sort through it together. What has been detected? What has only been observed? What has been proven? How reliable are the measurement methods? What should you make of offers to flush plastic out of your body? And which everyday levers may make the biggest difference according to current knowledge?
How to read the study boxes
- Human Measurements in people or their surroundings: blood, tissue, stool, homes, observational studies
- Lab Release experiments, method validation, cell cultures
- Clinical Randomised studies in humans. To my knowledge, there are none on the health effects of microplastics. That, too, says something about the state of research.
Where in the body have microplastics been found so far?
The short answer: Plastic particles have been found in many human tissues. Exactly how much is there can only be roughly estimated so far.
Have you ever wondered how a plastic bottle turns into something that shows up in a blood sample?
The answer is breakdown. Plastic doesn't disappear, it crumbles. Sun, friction, heat and time turn large pieces into ever smaller ones. Particles under five millimetres count as microplastics. Nanoplastics are smaller than one micrometre, in other words finer than a thousandth of a millimetre.
Imagine microplastics as sand on a beach and nanoplastics as flour dust in a bakery. You feel the sand between your toes. The flour dust you breathe in without noticing. It is precisely these finest particles that are the hardest to measure.
Heather Leslie, Marja Lamoree and their team at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam developed a method to measure plastic particles of 700 nanometres and larger in whole blood. In 22 healthy volunteers, they mainly found PET, polyethylene and styrene polymers, and the mean of the quantifiable total was 1.6 micrograms per millilitre of blood. For you, this means: plastic particles can enter the bloodstream, but what they do there was not examined in this study.
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199Antonio Ragusa and a team from Rome examined six placentas from uncomplicated pregnancies using Raman microspectroscopy, a method that makes individual particles visible. In four placentas, they found twelve pigmented particles measuring 5 to 10 micrometres, on the maternal side, on the fetal side and in the membranes, and three of them could be identified as polypropylene. The sample is very small, but it shows that even the organ that nourishes an unborn child is not a plastic-free space.
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274The key sites in the body at a glance
Blood
1.6 µg/mlMean in 22 healthy volunteers, measured with a pyrolysis method (Source 1)
Placenta
4 of 6Placentas with twelve particles in total, made visible by Raman microscopy (Source 2)
Lung
13 of 20Autopsy tissue samples with particles or fibres, mainly polyethylene and polypropylene (Source 3)
Stool
8 of 8Samples from healthy volunteers positive, a median of 20 particles per 10 grams of stool (Source 4)
Carotid artery
150 of 257Arterial plaques containing polyethylene, complemented by electron microscope images (Source 5)
Brain, liver, kidney
2016 → 2024Tissue from deceased people, mainly polyethylene, higher levels in the 2024 samples (Source 6)
What stands out: the studies use very different methods. Some count individual particles under the microscope. Others heat the sample and estimate the mass. So you can't simply line these numbers up side by side. We will come back to this in the third section.
Detection answers the question: is it there? It does not yet answer: how much is there? And certainly not: does it do harm? If you keep these three questions apart, the headline loses its terror without the topic becoming any smaller.
What does this mean for you? For now, only this: you can take the finding seriously without falling into alarm. Taking it seriously here means looking closely at where the particles come from. We will get to that in the fifth section.
And now you know why the phrase “plastic in the body” is true but, on its own, says little about your health.
What do the studies on the carotid artery and the brain show?
The short answer: The strongest hints of health effects so far come from observational studies. They show associations, not cause.
In 2024, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine read like a crime thriller. Plastic in the blood vessels, more heart attacks, more strokes. Anyone who reads something like that immediately wonders: and what about me?
An Italian team led by Raffaele Marfella of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli examined plaque from the carotid arteries of people who had surgery for a narrowing without symptoms, and followed 257 of them for an average of 33.7 months. Polyethylene was found in the plaques of 150 people (58.4 percent), with PVC as well in 31 of them, and electron microscopy revealed jagged foreign particles among the scavenger cells of the plaque. People with particles in their plaque had a heart attack or stroke or died more often during this period (hazard ratio 4.53, 95 percent confidence interval 2.00 to 10.27).
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309822That is a clear signal. The researchers' conclusion describes a higher risk, not a proven cause. And there are good reasons for that.
Detection
It is in the body.
shown repeatedly, amounts uncertainAssociation
It occurs alongside disease.
first observational studiesCause
It makes you ill.
open in humansWhy is an association not yet proof? Imagine you count where fire engines are parked. You will notice: where there are many fire engines, there is often a fire. Yet they don't start the fire. In observational studies, a third factor can be behind both. People with more plastic in their plaque might also differ in where they live, their diet, their job or other environmental exposures.
And sometimes the direction is even reversed. An example from the gut makes this tangible.
Zehua Yan and a team from Nanjing compared the stool of people with inflammatory bowel disease with that of healthy people. In those with the disease, they found 41.8 particles per gram of dry matter, in healthy people 28.0, and the more severe the disease, the more particles. The researchers themselves name two interpretations: microplastics might be involved in the disease process, or the inflammation might cause more particles to remain in the gut.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03924This same chicken-and-egg question also arises with the brain. And this is where it gets particularly emotional, because it concerns the organ that makes us who we are.
A team led by Alexander Nihart and Matthew Campen at the University of New Mexico examined the liver, kidney and brain of deceased people using three complementary methods. They mainly found polyethylene, in the brain as tiny, shard-like fragments; levels in the liver and brain were higher in 2024 than in 2016; and the brains of people with documented dementia contained even more, including in vessel walls and immune cells. Whether the particles contribute to dementia, or whether a diseased brain is less able to get rid of them, is something a study like this cannot answer.
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1How do experts assess the overall picture? A recent review gives an honest answer.
In 2025, Marja Lamoree and a team in Amsterdam summarised in Nature Medicine what is known about the health effects. In experiments, particles can cross cell barriers in the lungs and gut; first clinical findings point to associations with immune responses, reproduction and the cardiovascular system; and studies in animals and cells broadly support these hints. At the same time, they stress that human studies mostly have few participants and inadequate measurement of exposure, which has so far prevented a genuine risk assessment.
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-03902-5What does this mean for your blood vessels? The well established levers remain in the foreground: blood pressure, not smoking, exercise, blood sugar and blood lipids. Microplastics are an open question that comes on top of these basics. It does not take their place.
An association is a lead, not a verdict. Leads deserve attention. But you can build neither panic nor a promise on a lead alone.
And now you know why the plaque study matters but does not automatically turn your carotid artery into a ticking time bomb.
Why are microplastics in tissue so hard to measure?
The short answer: Measuring plastic in tissue is prone to false alarms. This mainly affects polyethylene and PVC, which are exactly the materials from the big headlines.
Maybe you are now thinking: if the measurement is so uncertain, is it all not that bad after all? Unfortunately, it isn't that simple in either direction.
Many of the major studies use a technique called pyrolysis gas chromatography with mass spectrometry, Py-GC/MS for short. The principle is simpler than the name sounds. The sample is heated strongly without oxygen and breaks down into fragments. These fragments are sorted and weighed. It is as if you burned a substance and recognised it by the fingerprint of its smoke.
The catch: when heated, body fat sometimes leaves fingerprints very similar to those of polyethylene. And the brain is one of the fattiest organs in the body.
Cassandra Rauert and a team at the University of Queensland tested how reliably Py-GC/MS detects plastic in human blood. Realistic detection limits were up to 20 times higher than for measurements in ultrapure water; interference signals for polyethylene could be reduced but not entirely suppressed; and in a pilot measurement, no other plastic was above the detection limit. Their conclusion: the method is currently not suitable for polyethylene and PVC in biological samples.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c12599An international team led by Fazel Monikh of the University of Padua, including researchers from Leipzig, Berlin and Potsdam, publicly questioned the brain study in Nature Medicine. They point to limited controls against contamination and missing validation steps, which could affect the reliability of the reported concentrations. Matthew Campen's team replied in the same issue, so the debate is taking place where it belongs: openly, in the scientific literature.
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04045-3On top of that, there is a very practical problem. Plastic is everywhere, including in the lab. In gloves, tubing, pipette tips, clothing and room air. Think of glitter after a children's birthday party. Weeks later, you still find it in places where nobody ever did any crafts. Careful studies therefore run blank samples without tissue through the entire lab process alongside the real ones. This shows how much plastic is added from outside.
So what still holds up? Particles have been found with different methods in different tissues, some of them directly visible under the microscope. What is uncertain above all are the exact amounts, especially for polyethylene.
Three questions to ask of every headline
- Which method was used to measure? Counting particles and estimating mass are two different things.
- Were there controls against contamination? Blank samples show how much plastic comes from the lab.
- What was shown? Detection, an association or a cause. These are three very different statements.
Take the findings seriously and the exact numbers with caution. Holding both thoughts at once is not a contradiction. It is the core of an honest assessment.
And now you know why dramatic figures about plastic in the brain should be read with caution, while the finding itself has not been taken off the table.
Can microplastics be flushed out of the body?
The short answer: Flushing microplastics out of tissues has not been shown in humans. Based on current knowledge, taking in less is the more sensible path.
As soon as a worry becomes big, the offers are never far away. Detox programmes, powders, binders, infusions, blood washing. The wish behind them is deeply understandable: I want to get rid of this.
Your body has exits. Some of what you swallow ends up in your stool again. A small study from Vienna shows this.
Philipp Schwabl and a team at the Medical University of Vienna asked eight healthy volunteers from Europe and Asia to provide stool samples and keep a food diary. All eight samples contained microplastics, a median of 20 particles between 50 and 500 micrometres per ten grams of stool, from nine different types of plastic. So some of the particles leave the body naturally, but how large this share is and what stays in the body was not examined in the study.
DOI: 10.7326/M19-0618The approaches that go furthest are procedures in which blood is filtered outside the body. In medicine this is called apheresis, often colloquially known as blood washing. Two papers have looked at this in relation to microplastics.
A team led by Stefan Bornstein of TU Dresden examined, in 21 people with postinfectious fatigue syndrome, the fluid that is separated out during double filtration apheresis. It contained particles whose spectra resembled plastics, but the measurement was only qualitative, without blood levels before and after and without health outcomes. Several of the authors work at a centre in Cham that offers apheresis as a treatment.
DOI: 10.61373/bm025l.0056Robert Weinstein and a team from the USA measured plastic particles in the blood of 114 people before and after 174 plasma exchange treatments. Blood levels fell, but at low starting levels the effect was masked by particles that entered the blood from the device's plastic tubing. Most of the authors work for a provider of such treatments, and only the blood was measured, not the tissues and not health.
DOI: 10.1002/jca.70135In both cases, it remains open whether a lower blood level changes anything about your health. Tissues were not examined. Apheresis procedures are medical interventions with their own risks and high costs. As prevention against microplastics, they have so far shown no evidence of benefit.
And the sauna, binders, detox teas? For none of these approaches have I found a controlled human study showing that they make microplastics disappear from tissues. You can read more about the limits of such promises in the articles on sauna and sweating for detox and on detox programmes and juice cleanses.
Imagine a bathtub that is slowly filling up. You can frantically bail it out with a cup. Or you can turn off the tap first. With microplastics, we don't even know exactly how full the tub is. But we do know some of the taps.
The question “How do I get it out again?” is understandable. A more fruitful question is: “How do I let less in?” This second question has answers you can put into practice today.
And now you know why, instead of a detox programme, I would rather show you where the taps are.
How can you reduce your intake? Everyday levers ranked by their possible effect
The short answer: Particle release rises most clearly when plastic gets hot. That is why this lever comes first.
Back to your morning with the paper cup. What actually happens between the hot coffee and the cup?
An honest note up front. The following figures come from very different methods. Some count particles above a certain size, others capture nanoparticles, and others again extrapolate. That is why you can't add them up or set them directly against each other. The ranking follows from two questions: how consistent is the signal across several studies? And how easy is the lever to put into practice?
- Keep heat and plastic apart
- Tap water instead of plastic bottles
- Dust and air in your home
- Less packaging, different storage
- Detox treatments as prevention
Lever 1: Keep heat and plastic apart
Heat loosens the structure of plastic. Think of an old fleece jumper that sheds more fluff with every hot wash. In a similar way, coatings, containers and bags release more particles when they get hot.
Christopher Zangmeister and a team at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology poured water into hot drink cups with a polyethylene lining and into nylon food bags. The hotter the water was at the start, the more nanoparticles passed into it, on average 30 to 80 nanometres in size and trillions per litre in total. By calculation, the particles from a single 300 millilitre cup corresponded to one particle for roughly every seven cells in the body, and at a size that cells can take up.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06768A team at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur arrived at a similar picture using a different method. In 100 millilitres of hot water at 85 to 90 °C, the researchers counted around 25,000 microplastic particles from the inner coating of paper cups after 15 minutes. Both studies examined the coated inside of the cups, not the lids.
Kazi Albab Hussain and a team at the University of Nebraska tested plastic containers and reusable squeeze pouches under various everyday conditions. Microwave heating released the most, up to 4.22 million microplastic particles and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles per square centimetre within three minutes for some containers, but months of storage in the fridge or at room temperature also released particles. In cell cultures, a very high dose of 1,000 micrograms per millilitre killed 76.70 and 77.18 percent of human embryonic kidney cells after 48 and 72 hours respectively, a lab finding that cannot be transferred directly to your plate.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c01942Laura Hernandez and Nathalie Tufenkji of McGill University in Montreal steeped plastic tea bags at 95 °C. A single bag released about 11.6 billion microplastic particles and 3.1 billion nanoplastic particles into a cup, made of nylon and PET, in other words the material of the bag. According to the researchers, this was orders of magnitude higher than the amounts of plastic previously reported for other foods.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02540Baby bottles have been studied too. A team led by Dunzhu Li at Trinity College Dublin found up to 16.2 million particles per litre with polypropylene bottles. Sterilising and very hot water markedly increased the release. For infants up to twelve months, the researchers estimated 14,600 to 4,550,000 particles per day, depending on the region.
Hygiene rules for infant formula take priority. Don't lower preparation temperatures below the recommendations on your own initiative, because germs are a real risk for infants. If you have questions, talk to your midwife or paediatrician, for example about glass bottles.
- Heat food in glass, ceramic or stainless steel, not in a plastic container.
- Drink hot drinks from your own cup made of ceramic, glass or stainless steel.
- Brew loose tea in a metal strainer if your tea bags are made of plastic.
- Let hot food cool down before it goes into plastic containers.
Lever 2: Tap water instead of plastic bottles
Water is what you drink most often. Small differences per glass add up over a whole year.
Kieran Cox and a team at the University of Victoria in Canada analysed 402 data points from 26 studies and estimated how much microplastic people in the USA take in. According to this calculation, anyone who meets their water needs from bottles alone takes in about 90,000 additional particles per year, compared with about 4,000 for tap water alone. The estimate covers only around 15 percent of calorie intake, and because of gaps in methods and data, the researchers consider their figures more likely to be too low.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01517Naixin Qian and Wei Min at Columbia University developed an imaging technique that can detect individual plastic particles below 100 nanometres and used it to examine bottled water. They estimated about 240,000 plastic particles per litre, around 90 percent of them nanoplastics. That is orders of magnitude more than earlier figures for bottled water, partly because older methods could barely detect such small particles.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2300582121In Germany, tap water is strictly monitored and is a good choice for most people. For when you are out and about, a refillable glass or stainless steel bottle is a simple lever.
Lever 3: House dust and indoor air
This lever surprises many people. When it comes to microplastics, we think of oceans, beaches and mussels. But the evidence points to a place much closer to you: your home.
Ana Catarino and a team at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh estimated how much microplastic people take in through mussels and compared this with fibres from house dust. For mussels, they arrived at 123 particles per person per year in the UK and up to 4,620 in countries with high mussel consumption. Fibres from house dust that settle on food during meals, on the other hand, they estimated at 13,731 to 68,415 per person per year.
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.069Junjie Zhang, Lei Wang and Kurunthachalam Kannan found PET microplastics in all 286 house dust samples from twelve countries, with a median of 5,900 micrograms per gram of dust. For infants, they calculated a median daily intake of 4,000 to 150,000 nanograms of PET per kilogram of body weight. In three homes in Denmark, a team from Aalborg University used a breathing manikin to measure 1.7 to 16.2 plastic particles per cubic metre of air. The most common was polyester, a plastic found in many textiles.
- Wipe with a damp cloth instead of sweeping dry, so the dust stays bound.
- Use a vacuum cleaner with a fine dust filter.
- Air your rooms regularly, more on this in the article on fresh air and indoor air.
- Don't leave food uncovered for long.
These measures are plausible. However, their effect on microplastic intake has not been specifically tested in studies.
Lever 4: Less packaging, different storage
Plastic is more than the polymer. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission led by Philip Landrigan describes thousands of added chemicals, including phthalates and bisphenols, which can disrupt the hormonal system. Particles might also carry such substances into tissues like a Trojan horse. However, the Commission describes the data on this as still incomplete.
Ruthann Rudel and a team at the Silent Spring Institute had 20 people from five families eat fresh food for three days that came neither from cans nor from plastic packaging. In urine, bisphenol A fell by 66 percent (geometric mean), and breakdown products of the plasticiser DEHP by 53 to 56 percent. Plastic chemicals were measured, not particles, but the study shows how quickly exposure from packaging can change.
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1003170- Buy fresh and unpackaged food where it is easy for you.
- Store leftovers in glass or stainless steel.
What you can skip
Detox programmes, binders, detox teas and expensive blood washing for prevention. For none of these approaches is there currently any evidence that they remove microplastics from tissues and thereby benefit your health. Your money and energy may be better spent on the first three levers.
You don't have to live plastic-free. Nobody manages that. It is enough to know the big taps and turn off the easy ones.
And now you know why a ceramic cup can be a better start than any detox capsule.
What do the four KPNI lenses show, and what does that mean for you?
The short answer: The biological mechanisms are plausible, but not proven in humans. That is exactly why measured precaution makes sense.
Perhaps you are wondering: if so much is still open, why change anything at all?
In clinical psychoneuroimmunology, KPNI for short, I look at four systems that are constantly talking to each other. For microplastics, this results in a picture made of hints, not proof.
Nervous system
Particles have been described in brain tissue, including in the walls of blood vessels in the brain. Whether they disturb nerve cells has not been clarified in humans. And the measured amounts are disputed.
Immune system
Scavenger cells clear away foreign bodies. In arterial plaques and brain samples, particles were found near or inside immune cells. Constant stimulation of the immune defences would be biologically plausible, but it has not been shown in humans.
Metabolism and blood vessels
The plaque study shows an association with heart attack and stroke. In cell cultures, very high doses damage cells. Both are hints, not evidence for your everyday life.
Hormonal system
Plastics contain additives such as bisphenols and phthalates, which can disrupt the hormonal system. Here, research is further along than for the particles. Less packaging lowered urine levels within days.
I stick to a simple rule. If a measure costs little, has hardly any downsides and can lower a plausible exposure, you are free to put it into practice without waiting for the final proof. If a measure costs a lot, has its own risks and has shown no benefit, you are free to remain sceptical. This rule separates the ceramic cup from expensive blood washing.
For me, this is where the biggest gain lies. You don't have to fear every plastic fork or scrutinise every shopping trip. Freedom means knowing the few dials that can make a big difference and carrying the rest with composure. Fear narrows your world. Knowledge gives you room to move.
Three levers for this week
- Keep heat and plastic apart: heat food in glass or ceramic, hot drinks from your own cup, loose tea in a strainer.
- Drink tap water: take a refillable glass or stainless steel bottle with you.
- Reduce dust: wipe with a damp cloth, vacuum with a fine dust filter, air your rooms regularly and cover food.
Plastic in the body is a finding of our time, not a personal failure. You cannot free the world from plastic on your own. But you can decide what ends up in your cup tomorrow morning.
And now you know why calm and smart precaution are not a contradiction when it comes to microplastics.
Frequently asked questions about microplastics in the body
How do microplastics get into the body?
Mainly through food, drink and the air you breathe. A Canadian analysis of 26 studies estimated 39,000 to 52,000 particles per year from food for people in the USA, and 74,000 to 121,000 when inhaled air is included. Lab experiments show that particularly large numbers of particles can be released when plastic gets hot, for example in the microwave, in coated cups or in plastic tea bags. House dust and indoor air also contribute. All of these figures are rough estimates with a high degree of uncertainty.
Are microplastics in the blood dangerous?
This has not yet been clarified in humans. In 2022, a study from Amsterdam found measurable plastic particles in the blood of 22 healthy volunteers, on average 1.6 micrograms per millilitre. It shows that particles can enter the bloodstream, but it did not examine any health effects. More recent method checks also urge caution regarding the exact amounts, especially for polyethylene. The finding is therefore a reason for precaution, not for panic.
Has plastic been found in the human brain?
In 2025, a study in Nature Medicine reported plastic in brain samples from deceased people, mostly polyethylene, with higher levels in 2024 than in 2016 and even higher levels in dementia. An international research team criticised the work in the same journal, among other things for limited controls against contamination and a lack of validation. There is also a fundamental problem: with the measurement method used, fat can produce signals similar to those of polyethylene, and the brain is very rich in fat. It is plausible that particles can reach the brain. The exact amounts and their significance remain open.
What did the NEJM study on plastic in the carotid artery show?
An Italian team examined plaques from the carotid arteries of people who had surgery and followed 257 of them for almost three years. Polyethylene was found in 58.4 percent of the plaques. People with particles in their plaque had a heart attack or stroke or died more often during this period (hazard ratio 4.53). This is an association from an observational study, not proof that plastic caused these events. In addition, the measurement method used is now considered prone to interference for polyethylene and PVC in biological samples.
Can I have the microplastics in my body measured?
To my knowledge, there is no established, validated routine test that reliably determines the burden in your body. Even research labs are still wrestling with the methods. A 2025 paper from the University of Queensland concluded that the commonly used pyrolysis method is currently not suitable for polyethylene and PVC in biological samples. A measured value also could not tell you what it means for your health. It makes more sense to reduce your intake where that is easy.
Can microplastics be flushed out or detoxed?
Flushing them out of tissues has not been shown in humans. Some of the particles you swallow leave the body via the stool, as a study from Vienna shows. There are first measurements on apheresis: a US paper on 114 people saw falling blood levels, which at low starting levels were masked by particles from the device's plastic tubing. Tissues and health were not examined. For detox programmes, binders or the sauna, I have not found any controlled study showing that microplastics are flushed out.
Is tap water better than water from plastic bottles?
Based on the available data, there is a lot to suggest so. An analysis of 26 studies estimated about 90,000 additional particles per year for people who drink only bottled water, and about 4,000 for tap water only. Using a new imaging technique, a team at Columbia University found about 240,000 plastic particles per litre in bottled water, around 90 percent of them nanoplastics. In Germany, tap water is strictly monitored. A refillable glass or stainless steel bottle is a simple everyday lever.
Is it a concern to heat food in plastic containers in the microwave?
It is one of the ways in which particularly large numbers of particles can be released. In experiments at the University of Nebraska, some containers released up to 4.22 million microplastic particles and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles per square centimetre within three minutes in the microwave. Long storage also released particles, but fewer than the microwave. Whether this harms your health is an open question. Switching to glass or ceramic for heating, however, is easy and has hardly any downsides.
How concerning is coffee from a paper cup?
Paper cups are usually coated with plastic on the inside. A team at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur counted around 25,000 microplastic particles in 100 millilitres of hot water after 15 minutes. Researchers at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology found trillions of nanoparticles per litre in hot water from coated cups, and the hotter the water, the more there were. Nobody yet knows exactly what this means for health. Your own cup made of ceramic, glass or stainless steel is an easy lever.
What role does house dust play?
A bigger one than many people think. A study from Edinburgh estimated that 13,731 to 68,415 fibres per person per year settle from house dust onto food during meals, considerably more than the particles taken in through mussels. In house dust from twelve countries, PET microplastics were found in all 286 samples. Wiping with a damp cloth, a vacuum cleaner with a fine dust filter, airing your rooms and covering food are plausible levers, even though their effect on microplastic intake has not been specifically studied.
What is the difference between microplastics and nanoplastics?
Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than five millimetres, often with a lower limit of one micrometre. Nanoplastics are even smaller than one micrometre. Researchers suspect that nanoplastics may enter the body more easily because of their size. At the same time, they are particularly hard to measure, which is why older studies often barely captured them.
Are pregnant women and babies particularly affected?
Plastic particles have been found in placentas, in four out of six in a small study from Rome. Polypropylene baby bottles can release many particles during preparation, especially after sterilising and with very hot water. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission counts unborn babies and young children among the groups at particularly high risk of health effects from plastics. Even so, hygiene rules for infant formula take priority. If you have questions, talk to your midwife or paediatrician, for example about glass bottles.
Further reading
All articles in the Detox Guide
- Liver detox: what counts and what is marketing
- Phase 1 and phase 2 of liver detoxification explained
- Raised liver values: ALT, AST, GGT and the next steps
- Glutathione, the master antioxidant
- Coffee, cruciferous vegetables, garlic: foods for the detox phases
- Sulforaphane and broccoli
- Bitter compounds: dandelion, artichoke and digestion
- The gut, elimination and the enterohepatic circulation
- Alcohol and the liver: breakdown and protection
- Stimulating and supporting the lymphatic system
- Kidneys and water in detoxification
- Sauna and sweating for detox
- Detox through the skin: myth and benefit
- Tongue coating, bad breath, rashes: detox signals?
- Fasting as detox: autophagy instead of “waste deposits”
- Tired and drained: is detoxification behind it?
- Detox programmes, juice cleanses and detox teas: a critical look
- Alkaline cleanses and overacidification
- Gentle everyday detox without a programme
- Detox after antibiotics and medication
Sources
- Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. 2022;163:107199. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 [Case-Series, Biomonitoring, n=22]
- Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C et al. Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. 2021;146:106274. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274 [Case-Series, n=6 placentas, Raman microspectroscopy]
- Amato-Lourenço LF, Carvalho-Oliveira R, Júnior GR, Dos Santos Galvão L, Ando RA, Mauad T. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416:126124. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126124 [Case-Series, autopsy tissue, n=20]
- Schwabl P, Köppel S, Königshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T, Liebmann B. Detection of Various Microplastics in Human Stool: A Prospective Case Series. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(7):453-457. DOI: 10.7326/M19-0618 [Case-Series, prospective, n=8]
- Marfella R, Prattichizzo F, Sardu C et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(10):900-910. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309822 [Cohort, prospective, multicentre, n=257]
- Nihart AJ, Garcia MA, El Hayek E et al. Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nat Med. 2025;31(4):1114-1119. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1 [Case-Series, autopsy tissue, Py-GC/MS, FTIR and electron microscopy]
- Monikh FA, Materić D, Valsami-Jones E et al. Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain. Nat Med. 2025;31(12):4034-4035. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04045-3 [Editorial, Matters Arising, methodological critique]
- Campen MJ, West AB, Garcia M, Gullapalli R, El Hayek E. Reply to: Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain. Nat Med. 2025;31(12):4036-4037. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04046-2 [Editorial, reply by the original authors]
- Rauert C, Charlton N, Bagley A, Dunlop SA, Symeonides C, Thomas KV. Assessing the Efficacy of Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for Nanoplastic and Microplastic Analysis in Human Blood. Environ Sci Technol. 2025;59(4):1984-1994. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c12599 [In vitro, method validation in human blood with pilot measurement]
- Lamoree MH, van Boxel J, Nardella F, Houthuijs KJ, Brandsma SH, Béen F, van Duursen MBM. Health impacts of microplastic and nanoplastic exposure. Nat Med. 2025;31(9):2873-2887. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-03902-5 [Review]
- Yan Z, Liu Y, Zhang T, Zhang F, Ren H, Zhang Y. Analysis of Microplastics in Human Feces Reveals a Correlation between Fecal Microplastics and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Status. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(1):414-421. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03924 [Case-Control, stool analysis, correlation]
- Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, Dower JF, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(12):7068-7074. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01517 [Review, exposure estimate from 26 studies]
- Qian N, Gao X, Lang X et al. Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(3):e2300582121. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2300582121 [In vitro, lab measurement of bottled water]
- Hernandez LM, Xu EG, Larsson HCE, Tahara R, Maisuria VB, Tufenkji N. Plastic Teabags Release Billions of Microparticles and Nanoparticles into Tea. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(21):12300-12310. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02540 [In vitro, release experiment]
- Li D, Shi Y, Yang L et al. Microplastic release from the degradation of polypropylene feeding bottles during infant formula preparation. Nat Food. 2020;1(11):746-754. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-020-00171-y [In vitro, release experiment plus exposure estimate]
- Hussain KA, Romanova S, Okur I et al. Assessing the Release of Microplastics and Nanoplastics from Plastic Containers and Reusable Food Pouches: Implications for Human Health. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57(26):9782-9792. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c01942 [In vitro, release experiment plus cell culture]
- Zangmeister CD, Radney JG, Benkstein KD, Kalanyan B. Common Single-Use Consumer Plastic Products Release Trillions of Sub-100 nm Nanoparticles per Liter into Water during Normal Use. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(9):5448-5455. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06768 [In vitro, release experiment]
- Ranjan VP, Joseph A, Goel S. Microplastics and other harmful substances released from disposable paper cups into hot water. J Hazard Mater. 2021;404(Pt B):124118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124118 [In vitro, release experiment]
- Catarino AI, Macchia V, Sanderson WG, Thompson RC, Henry TB. Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during a meal. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:675-684. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.069 [Real-World, field measurement]
- Zhang J, Wang L, Kannan K. Microplastics in house dust from 12 countries and associated human exposure. Environ Int. 2020;134:105314. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105314 [Real-World, measurement of 286 dust samples]
- Vianello A, Jensen RL, Liu L, Vollertsen J. Simulating human exposure to indoor airborne microplastics using a Breathing Thermal Manikin. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):8670. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45054-w [Real-World, measurement in three homes]
- Rudel RA, Gray JM, Engel CL et al. Food packaging and bisphenol A and bis(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate exposure: findings from a dietary intervention. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(7):914-920. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1003170 [Real-World, intervention study without control group, n=20]
- Landrigan PJ, Raps H, Cropper M et al. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health. Ann Glob Health. 2023;89(1):23. DOI: 10.5334/aogh.4056 [Review, commission report]
- Weinstein R, Yuksel ZS, Anderson C et al. Can Plasma Exchange Be Used to Lower the Circulating Burden of Microplastics in Human Patients? J Clin Apher. 2026;41(3):e70135. DOI: 10.1002/jca.70135 [Case-Series, before/after measurement, n=114]
- Bornstein SR, Gruber T, Katsere D et al. Therapeutic apheresis: A promising method to remove microplastics? Brain Med. 2025;1(3):52-53. DOI: 10.61373/bm025l.0056 [Case-Series, n=21, qualitative]
Putting the evidence in context: It is well established that plastic particles occur in many environmental sources and have been found in human samples. The exact amounts in tissues are uncertain, especially when polyethylene and PVC are measured with pyrolysis methods. Associations with disease come from observational studies and cannot prove cause. To my knowledge, there are no randomised studies on health effects. The release data come from lab experiments and cannot be converted directly into intake in the body.
No robust evidence of benefit was found for flushing microplastics out of tissues. So far, there are few large human studies on this topic, and many associations rest on measurement studies, lab experiments and mechanisms. They are biologically plausible, but not yet supported with the same certainty that large randomised studies would provide. This text is no substitute for a medical examination or a diagnosis.