• Open Access
Ecotoxicology and Public Health

Assessing the Efficacy of Pyrolysis–Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Nanoplastic and Microplastic Analysis in Human Blood
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Cassandra Rauert*
    Cassandra Rauert
    Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    Minderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    *E-mail: c.rauert@uq.edu.au
  • Nathan Charlton
    Nathan Charlton
    Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    Minderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
  • Angus Bagley
    Angus Bagley
    Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    Minderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    More by Angus Bagley
  • Sarah A. Dunlop
    Sarah A. Dunlop
    Minderoo Foundation, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia
    School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia
  • Christos Symeonides
    Christos Symeonides
    Minderoo Foundation, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia
    Centre for Community Child Health, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria 3056, Australia
  • Kevin V. Thomas
    Kevin V. Thomas
    Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    Minderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
Open PDFSupporting Information (2)

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 59, 4, 1984–1994
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599
Published January 24, 2025

Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Humans are constantly exposed to micro- and nanosized plastics (MNPs); however, there is still limited understanding of their fate within the body, partially due to limitations with current analytical techniques. The current study assessed the appropriateness of pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) analysis for the quantification of a range of polymers in human blood. An extraction protocol that reduced matrix interferences (false positives) of polyethylene (PE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was developed and validated. Extraction recoveries ranged 7–109%, although surface-modified polystyrene (carboxylated) increased nanoparticle recoveries from 17 to 52%. Realistic detection limits were calculated for each polymer, accounting for matrix suppression and extraction recovery. These were up to 20 times higher than nominal detection limits calculated with Milli-Q water. Finally, the method was tested with a pilot study of the Australian population. PE interferences were reduced but still present, and no other polymers were above detection limits. It was concluded that Py-GC-MS is currently not a suitable analysis method for PE and PVC in biological matrices due to the presence of interferences and nonspecific pyrolysis products. Furthermore, while it is plausible to detect some polymers in blood, the estimated exposure concentrations needed are approaching the detection limits of the technique.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Synopsis

The efficacy of Py-GC-MS analysis of MNPs in biological matrices was assessed, determining that it is not appropriate for certain polymers and may not have the detection limits needed for biologically feasible exposures.

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Humans are continuously exposed to micro and nanosized plastics (MNPs) through everyday activities. These exposure pathways include ingestion, inhalation, and potentially dermal exposure for nanosized particles (1,2) although current understanding on the fate of plastic particles within the body, such as residence time in the circulatory system, uptake in organs, or elimination pathways are still limited. Recently, an increasing number of human biomonitoring studies on MNPs have been reported, aiming to address these knowledge gaps. However, there is a lack of standardization in the field with a range of methods and analytical techniques used. This has resulted in a wide range of reported concentrations and particle sizes which may lack biologically plausibility.
Previous studies on nanosized particles (e.g., particulate matter or particles engineered for pharmaceutical purposes such as drug delivery) can provide some insight on the potential fate of MNPs within the body (Figure 1). Once ingested, particles smaller than 2.5 μm can enter the gastrointestinal tract through endocytosis and enter the circulatory system. (2,3) Airborne particles smaller than 10 μm can be inhaled through to the terminal branches and alveolar air sacs of human airways (3) and particles smaller than 1 μm (nanoparticles) have the potential to cross lung tissue barriers and also enter the circulatory system. (2) As the smallest internal diameter of capillaries are typically ∼7–17 μm, (4) only very small micron or nanosized particles can be transported through the body. Once in the bloodstream, particles smaller than ∼6 nm are rapidly eliminated through the kidneys via urinary excretion (5,6) while larger particles can be cleared from circulation by the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS) (7) through sequestration in the liver and spleen. (5) The majority of particle clearance occurs within the liver with an estimated removal of 30–99% of nanoparticles in the bloodstream (5) although this is dependent on particle properties such as size and charge. Particles that are not taken up by the liver may be cleared by the liver during subsequent passes. (8) Within the liver, particles >100 nm can be retained long-term within Kupffer cells (6) whereas smaller particles (5) can pass into the space of Disse for excretion via the biliary pathway for eventual elimination in the feces. (6) The spleen is the largest blood filtering organ in the body, eliminating particles >150 nm (9) with splenic uptake increasing with particle size. (9) Uptake to spleen macrophages is significantly reduced as compared to Kupffer cells. (8) Certain medical conditions can increase the presence of barrier cells which work in conjunction with macrophages to increase clearance (9) or create leaky barriers allowing increased migration. (10)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematic of biological fate of nanosized and small micron-sized particles. Created in BioRender. [Angus Bagley] (2025) https://BioRender.com/x63r090.

The uptake and retention of nanoparticles in the body has been shown to be strongly correlated with surface charge, ligand chemistry and size. Nanoparticles used in drug delivery are often coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) to increase hydrophilicity and neutral surface chemistry, increasing blood circulation half-lives. (7) Highly cationic/anionic surface charges can absorb proteins to form a protein corona which increases interaction with macrophages, (5,8) and certain nanoparticles have demonstrated clearance from the bloodstream within a few hours post injection. (7) Therefore, it is expected that only particles in the small micron or nanosize range will cross biological barriers, and are expected to be cleared from the circulatory system rapidly. These mechanisms will be dependent on health and disease states of the person, and the characteristics of the particle (e.g., size, shape, charge, corona). It is still largely unknown how these factors affect the migration of polymer nanoparticles (nanoplastics) following exposure.
Current human biomonitoring studies that aim to provide information in this area use a range of analytical techniques with the most used being vibrational spectroscopy-based methods. These techniques are marketed to reliably identify particles larger than ∼20 μm in size, or ∼1–5 μm for μ-FTIR and μ-Raman. Therefore, detecting particles that are expected to cross biological barriers is challenging and pushes the detection limits of these instruments. Regardless, recent studies have used these techniques to report MP particles in the human circulatory system ranging in size from 20–184 μm (11) to 7–3000 μm (12) and in clearance organs (the liver) from 4–30 μm, (13) sizes that are often larger than those realistically expected to cross biological barriers into these matrices or even have the ability to circulate through capillary beds. Mass spectrometry-based techniques improve on these size limitations but lose some of the characterization information obtained from spectroscopy-based techniques. Leslie et al. (14) was the first to use pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) to report polymers >700 nm in human blood. Since this first study, there has been an exponential increase in the number in human exposure studies on MNPs using thermal decomposition mass spectrometry techniques. Py-GC-MS has been used to report polymers in venous blood, feces, urine, semen, placenta, arterial tissue, arterial plaque, thrombi, gallstone, tumors, bone marrow, testes and vitreous humor (Table S11). (14−29)
However, the use of Py-GC-MS, even as an environmental monitoring tool for MNP pollution, is still in its infancy and these techniques are employed without fully understanding, or assessing, their uncertainties. For example, both spectroscopy and thermal degradation techniques can suffer from interferences within a complex sample, (30−34) leading to false positives. For Py-GC-MS this uncertainty stems from the method being an indirect analysis technique, as thermal decomposition products (small organic molecules) of a polymer are analyzed, not the polymer itself. This provides the opportunity for endogenous compounds of similar structures to decompose into the same molecules. For example, lipids are a significant matrix interference in the analysis of polyethylene (PE), (31) thermally decomposing into the same series of alkanes, alkenes and alkadienes as PE, hence will provide a false positive PE detection in samples. These matrix interferences cannot be completely removed during analysis (31) and need to be assessed and removed during the sample workup stages. Additionally, some polymers such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) break down into nonspecific molecules, forming a range of common polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during pyrolysis. Without a selective pyrolysis product to analyze, the uncertainty around confident identification and quantification increases.
Human exposure studies are the backbone for understanding fate and persistence of target chemicals of concern (including MNPs) within the body. Therefore, it is paramount that robust and reliable biomonitoring data are produced to aid with understanding fate and toxicology and development of well-informed regulations. To this end, the aim of this study was to build on the previous pioneering work in this area and assess the appropriateness of using Py-GC-MS as an analysis technique for identification and quantification of a range of polymers in human blood. Three extraction protocols were assessed for removal of matrix interferences and the final developed method validated against recovery of both nano- and micron-sized polymers, with realistic detection limits determined and the biological plausibility of mass-based concentrations that can be confidently reported with this methodology discussed. Finally, the methodology was tested with a pilot study of blood samples from the Australian population, using the strict QA/QC criteria developed to determine if plastics >300 nm can be identified confidently.

2. Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Chemicals

Liquid chromatography grade dichloromethane (DCM, LiChrosolv), gradient grade methanol (LiChrosolv) and Proteinase K (lyophilized, 30 mAnson-U/mg) were purchased from Merck Pty Ltd. (Bayswater, VIC, Australia). Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2, Emsure, 30%), calcium chloride dihydrate (ReagentPlus grade, ≥99.0%) and tris hydrochloride (reagent grade, ≥99.0%) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Bayswater, VIC). Analytical reagent grade ethanol (100%, undenatured), calcium chloride (fused dihydrate) and sodium carbonate (anhydrous) were purchased through ChemSupply Australia (Gillman, SA). Where possible, reagents were purchased in glass bottles. CREON 10,000 (Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Germany, Mylan), an over the counter pancreatic enzyme replacement medication containing lipase, amylase and protease (10,000, 8000, and 600 Ph Eur units, respectively), was purchased from a local pharmacy in Brisbane, Australia.
Ultrapure water was purified with a Milli-Q system (Millipore, Bedford, USA) and again filtered through a furnaced (500 °C) 0.3 μm glass fiber filter (Advantec, 47 mm GF-75, Labtek, Brendale, QLD) prior to use. Aqueous solutions of reagents were prepared in filtered Milli-Q water as required. Reagents also underwent an additional 0.3 μm filtering step following preparation and before use. Adjustment of all sample and reagent pH was achieved with a saturated sodium carbonate solution and monitored through an OHAUS Starter 300 pH Meter with an attached ST320 pH probe (OHAUS, Melbourne, Victoria).
Nanosphere (NS) solutions of polystyrene (200, 300, 400, 500, 700, 1000 nm) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (400, 740, and 1100 nm) were purchased from Bangs Laboratories, Inc. (Fishers, USA) and nanosphere solutions of carboxylated polystyrene (COOH-PS) were purchased from PolySciences (Taipei, Taiwan). Specific details of the NS solutions are listed in Table S2. Powdered standards of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), deuterated polystyrene (d5-PS), 4-fluorinated polystyrene (4-FlPS) and deuterated polyethylene (d4-PE) were purchased from Polymer Source, Inc. (Dorval, Canada). Polystyrene (PS) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA), low-density polyethylene (PE) was purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Scoresby, VIC) and polypropylene (PP) was donated by a plastic manufacturer from Melbourne, Australia (LyondellBasell, VIC).
Glass fiber filters (21 mm, 0.3 μm and 20 mm, 1.0 μm pore size from Advantec (Osaka, Japan) and 47 mm, 0.7 μm pore size from Whatman (Seoul, South Korea)) were furnaced (Nabertherm Muffle Furnace, Model LT 40/11m, Nabertherm GmbH, Lilienthal, Germany) at 500 °C for 8 h prior to use. The 47 mm filters were precut into 21 mm circles with furnaced and DCM rinsed stainless-steel surgical scissors prior to furnacing and use.

2.2. Samples

Human ethics for collection of blood for method development and the population pilot study was obtained from the UQ Human Ethics Research Committee (HE001017). Blood used for method development was donated from one participant and this blood was used throughout the method development process for consistency. The pilot study saw collection from 8 participants with samples collected twice: early morning before food intake (fasting) and within an hour after consuming a large meal (nonfasting). One participant donated samples in fasting and nonfasting conditions for 4 days to assess interday variability. Samples were collected in glass 8.5 mL vacutainer tubes containing the anticoagulant acid citrate dextrose, with an eclipse 21G needle (McFarlane Medical and Scientific, Ringwood VIC) creating a direct connection from the draw site to the collection vial, thus avoiding the use of plastic tubing. All samples were stored at −20 °C until analysis. Sampling blanks were prepared by drawing prefiltered Milli-Q water into a glass vacutainer tube (using the 21G needle), storing with the samples, and subsampling for analysis with every batch of blood samples.

2.3. Sample Extraction (Final Method)

The final method was chosen after comparison of 3 extraction methods (Section 2.4), with Method 3 chosen due to reduced matrix interferences and improved ease of use (Section 3.1). Frozen blood samples were thawed and mixed via manual agitation of the vacutainer for 30 s. One mL of whole blood was transferred to a 400 mL tall form beaker via a graduated glass pipet. The beaker was immediately capped with a thick aluminum foil lid to minimize potential contamination from atmospheric deposition. Following aliquoting, 10 mL of tris hydrochloride solution (Tris-HCl, 400 mM, 0.3 μm filtered, pH 8) was added, and samples were heated at 60 °C for 1 h to aid denaturing of proteins. After cooling to room temperature, 100 μL of proteinase K solution (1 mg/mL in Milli-Q water, prepared fresh each batch) and 1 mL of calcium chloride solution (5 mM in Milli-Q, filtered at 0.3 μm) was added, and samples were incubated in a Thermoline Orbital Incubator shaker (Thermoline Scientific, Wetherill Park, NSW) at 38 °C for 2 h.
A freshly made 2.5% w/v CREON enzyme (pancrelipase) solution (31) was prepared with Milli-Q water and pH adjusted to between 8–10. The samples were adjusted to pH 10, 2 mL of the enzyme solution added, and incubated for 3 h at 38 °C. Following incubation, 10 mL of H2O2 was carefully added in 1 mL aliquots over 8 h (while keeping the pH between 8–10) and the samples allowed to digest at room temperature for a total of 48 h.
Following the digestion, samples were heated to 60 °C on a hot plate and samples were filtered hot using a 13 mm All-Glass Microanalysis Filter Holder with 100 mL reservoir capacity (Micro-Analytix Pty. Ltd., Taren Point, Australia) attached to a 125 mL Vacuum Filtering Side-Arm Flask with threaded side arm (Merck, Bayswater, VIC, Australia). Samples were filtered through a 0.7 μm glass fiber filter, with the beaker rinsed with Milli-Q water and added to the filtering apparatus. The filtrate was then transferred to a fresh, furnaced and solvent rinsed beaker. Ten mL of H2O2 was added to the reservoir and left in place for 10 min for an additional digestion of the collected particulates on the filter. After H2O2 removal the filter was then rinsed with 15 mL of water and 15 mL of ethanol with the washes added to the filtrate. The vacuum was left on until the filter was dry and the filter was transferred to an aluminum foil pocket for storage. The filtering process was repeated with the filtrate using a 0.3 μm filter. The filters were inserted to individual 80 μL pyrolysis cups and spiked with 0.1 μg of d5-PS and 4-FlPS internal standard solutions prior to analysis by Py-GC-MS/MS.

2.4. Comparison of Three Extraction Protocols

Initially, three extraction protocols were compared to determine their suitability for ease of use and in removing potential interferences (false positives) from the blood matrix. In Method 1, samples were digested with a mix of CREON enzymes (31) and H2O2 before subsequent filtering through 0.7 and 0.3 μm filters. Full method details are described in Text S1. In Method 2, an adaption of the method from Leslie et al. (14) was trialed which included a proteinase K enzyme digestion before filtration through 0.7 and 0.3 μm filters and a short H2O2 digestion within the filtering apparatus (Text S2). Thirdly a method that combined the best attributes of the above two methods was developed and is described above (Section 2.3). Unlike Method 2, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) was not added to the Tris-HCl buffer in Method 3 as there was no observed difference in either ease of filtering or level of interferences with or without it. Optimized parameters, such as % ethanol end wash, protein denaturation temperature, and assessment of interferences with and without the CREON enzyme digestion are described in Text S3. To compare the three extraction methods, five 1 mL aliquots of the method development blood and 2 sampling blanks (Milli-Q water) were extracted following each of the three protocols.

2.5. Analysis

Identification and quantification of target polymers was performed with a multishot microfurnace pyrolyzer (EGA/PY-3030D) equipped with an autoshot sampler (AS-1020E) (Frontier Lab Ltd., Fukushima, Japan) and coupled to a GC-MS/MS (GC-2030 coupled to a TQ8050 NX MS/MS) (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan), as previously published. (35) The pyrolyzer unit was operated in double shot mode, utilizing a thermal desorption step where the sample is heated to 300 °C as a first analysis or “shot” to remove the more volatile interferences. The sample was then pyrolyzed at 650 °C to decompose the remaining polymers into their respective pyrolysis products for GC-MS/MS separation and detection. The MS/MS functionality was utilized to reduce background signal and improve detection limits. This was achieved through monitoring the same m/z ions in each quadrupole with a low energy set for the collision cell (3 eV) to remove background ions (e.g., air and water). The MS/MS was operated in full scan and MRM mode concurrently to retain sample information. (35) Pyrolysis and GC-MS/MS details are listed in Tables S3 and S4.
Calibration curves were prepared using a low concentration microplastics calibration standard set in CaCO3 diluent and containing 12 common polymers (Frontier Laboratories Ltd., Fukushima, Japan). Eight different masses of the calibration powder were weighed into pyrolysis cups, spiked with 0.1 μg of d5-PS and 4-FlPS internal standards and analyzed. Due to the low concentrations of polystyrene (PS), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and polycarbonate (PC) in these calibration standard sets, a second calibration curve was prepared from a 2 mg/mL dissolved solution of these polymers in DCM. Both sets of standards were overlaid to ensure linearity which was deemed acceptable (R2 of 0.993–0.999).

2.6. Cryomilled Standards

Small particle size polymer standards were prepared from powdered micron-sized standards. Aliquots of each standard were cryomilled (SPEX SamplePrep 6775, Metuchen, NJ) using 4 consecutive runs consisting of 3 cycles of 2 min grinding, 2 min cool time at 10 counts per second. The samples were then sieved through a 25 μm stainless steel mesh using a purpose-built stainless-steel holder with removable mesh disks, and the <25 μm and >25 μm particle size fractions collected. The <25 μm fraction was retained for PS, PMMA, PVC, PC, Nylon-6 and Nylon-6,6. However, PE, d4-PE, PP and PET could not be cryomilled to particle sizes <25 μm and the >25 μm fraction was retained for these plastics.

2.7. QA/QC

All sample preparation was completed within the Minderoo Plastics and Human Health plastics-minimized laboratory in a stainless steel biosafety cabinet and stainless steel fume cupboard to minimize background contamination from the laboratory environment. (35) Cotton lab coats were always worn and the coats were dyed a jade green for visibility of any fibers. Glassware and metalware were subjected to stringent cleaning conditions prior to use. Labware was washed in a laboratory grade Miele Lab Washer PG8583 SS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Scoresby, VIC) under alkaline conditions at 93 °C. Glassware and glass fiber filters were also furnaced at 500 °C for 5 h in a Nabertherm Muffle Furnace (John Morris Group, Chatswood, NSW). Glassware was wrapped in foil until use where they were rinsed with DCM prior to use. All samples, solvents and other containers were covered with furnaced aluminum foil when not directly used to minimize contamination from atmospheric deposition during sample processing and reagents were prefiltered through a furnaced 0.3 μm filter before use.
Sampling blanks (Milli-Q water subsampled from the glass vacutainer tube) were processed with each batch of samples. Limits of quantification (LOQ) were calculated as the concentration of a peak with a signal:noise ratio of 10:1. Where a polymer analyte was detected in sampling blanks, method detection limits (MDLs) were calculated as the average concentration in the blanks plus three times the standard deviation. If an analyte was not detected in the blanks the LOQ was used in place of the MDL. For comparison, a recovery detection limit (RDL) was also calculated as the LOQ of an extracted blood sample (to include matrix suppression) times the % recovery of that polymer from the recovery tests (Section 3.2) and represents a realistic detection limit of the final method. MDLs, LOQs and RDLs are listed in Table S5. All concentrations in samples were blank corrected (subtraction of mean concentration from the sampling blanks) and all analyte concentrations were internal standard corrected.

3. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. Performance Comparison of Three Extraction Protocols

It was observed that Method 1 (CREON only) was difficult to filter, blocking both pore size filters quickly even though the sample was visibly clear following the H2O2 digestion. Method 2 (proteinase K only) was easier to filter and after the H2O2 digestion within the filtering apparatus the filter looked visibly clear. Method 3 was the fastest to filter and the addition of the Tris-HCl buffer assisted with controlling pH fluctuations. It was also observed for all three methods, that if the sample was filtered at 1 μm instead of 0.7 μm, then the 0.3 μm filtering step was much slower suggesting significant particulates in the 0.7–1 μm size range. Therefore, the samples were filtered at 0.7 μm for ease of passing the sample through the 0.3 μm filter. A schematic of the final method is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Schematic of final optimized extraction method.

Analysis of the filters revealed that PE and PVC pyrolysis products were detected above the MDLs for all three methods (Figure 3, Tables S6 and S7). No other polymers were detected. The ratios of the PE concentration calculated using the 4 monitored PE pyrolysis products were highly variable. This variability suggests that the detected products originated from an interference such as lipids, (31) rather than from PE itself, as discussed in Section 3.3. Interestingly, the concentrations of the PE pyrolysis products were highest and most variable between replicates using Method 2. This suggests that the CREON enzyme mix, which contains lipase, is necessary to reduce this interference although it does not completely eliminate it.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Concentrations calculated using different pyrolysis products of polyethylene (PE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as collected on 0.7 and 0.3 μm glass fiber filters. C10 = C10 alkene, C12 = C12 alkene, C14 = C14 alkene, C21 = C21 alkadiene, Nap = naphthalene, Benz = benzene, 1-Me-Nap = 1-methyl-naphthalene, and 2-Me-Nap = 2-methyl-naphthalene.

The PVC pyrolysis products showed greatest variability in the calculated PVC concentrations for Method 2, often showing higher concentrations for either or both of the alkylated naphthalenes. This variability also suggests the presence of a PVC interference and indicates that monitoring the alkylated naphthalenes alone could result in a false positive for PVC in these samples. The calculated concentrations for Methods 1 and 3 were not higher than the blanks, indicating these are not a true PVC result. Previous studies suggest these polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can form from pyrolysis of triglycerides and fatty acids. (36) However, this would need to be investigated with the specific triglycerides present in blood matrices. Due to the ease of filtering and minimization of potential PE and PVC interferences, Method 3 demonstrated the best performance and was used as the final method.

3.2. Method Recovery

3.2.1. Nanoplastics

The efficiency of the adopted method for extracting nanosized particles (<1 μm) was evaluated using a range of commercially purchased PS and PMMA nanosphere standards (nanosized standards were not available for other polymers). Stock nanosphere solutions were diluted with filtered Milli-Q to produce a 0.1% dispersion. A 10 μL aliquot, equating to ∼1 μg of polymer and between 1.3 × 107 and 2.5 × 109 particles (Table S2), was spiked into 1 mL of blood with the sample left to equilibrate for 30 min. The blood samples were then extracted using the optimized protocol. The recovery rates (%) for both polymers were low (<20%) but showed a marginal, although not significant (p > 0.05), increase with particle size (Figure 4). When recoveries from the filtration step only were tested, the recovery for the 700/740 nm nanospheres was high (81–86%, Table S1) suggesting that losses may be from adsorption to the glassware and transfer. The 200 nm particles were captured on the 0.3 μm filter and particles >400 nm were predominantly captured on the 0.7 μm filter (Table S8). This indicates that aggregation or interaction with matrix material may facilitate the capture of particles on filters with larger pore sizes, demonstrating the potential for this method to capture particles in blood down to 200 nm.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Recovery (%) of (a) micron-sized polymers, (b) nanosized polymers from extracted blood samples. PE = polyethylene, PP = polypropylene, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PS = polystyrene, PMMA = poly(methyl methacrylate), PVC = polyvinyl chloride, PC = polycarbonate, N6 = Nylon-6, and N66 = Nylon-6,6.

As these nanospheres are virgin plastics and may not represent environmentally relevant nanoplastics, a carboxylated surface modified PS (COOH-PS) was also used to simulate weathered PS particles. A 0.1% dispersion of 750 nm particles was prepared and 50 μL (∼5 μg and 2.7 × 107 particles) spiked into 1 mL of blood (n = 7) and extracted. The COOH-PS nanospheres returned a much higher mean recovery of 52% (41–72%, Table S8 and Figure 4), indicating that surface charge or chemistry impacts the behavior of nanoparticles. This suggests that the recoveries of virgin PS and PMMA may not accurately reflect recoveries of nanoplastics that may be present in actual blood samples. This result underscores the importance of evaluating methods with environmentally relevant particles and the need for nanosized standards that model different conditions such as size, shape, charge and (eco)corona. (37)

3.2.2. Microplastics

As nanosized plastics were not available for all the polymers monitored in this study, recovery tests were also conducted using cryomilled micron-sized (>1 μm) powder standards. Each standard (10–30 μg) was weighed and spiked into 1 mL of blood (n = 4) and extracted. Recoveries ranged from 7–109% (Figure 4, Tables S9 and S10) with only PE, PP, PET and Nylon-6 showing recoveries >50%. The recoveries of PS and PMMA were higher than those for virgin PS and PMMA nanospheres but remained low (14–30%). PC had the lowest recovery of the study (7%), suggesting it may not be suitable for this method. However, this needs to be assessed further with more environmentally relevant particles. PET recoveries were highly variable between samples, with a relative standard deviation of 42% and recoveries from 11–54% across the three monitored pyrolysis products. Higher average recoveries were observed when using benzoic acid as the quantifying pyrolysis product, and it was therefore chosen as the quantification product in this matrix. Variability in the formation of PET pyrolysis products has been demonstrated previously, in the presence of inorganic matrix components. (38) The suppressed formation of benzophenone as compared to the benzoic acid may be due to the lack of CaCO3 in the samples (as compared to the calibration standards), which facilitates this pyrolytic reaction. However, it is unknown what matrix component is suppressing the formation of the vinyl benzoate, and this variability needs to be further investigated to determine if PET can be confidently reported in blood matrices.
The recovery of PE was also assessed using a deuterated-PE (d4-PE) micron-sized powder standard, to remove the impact from any potential interferences. Again, 10 μg was spiked into 1 mL of blood (n = 4) and extracted. Recoveries were very similar to native PE with a mean of 53%. Brits et al. (29) also assessed MNP recovery of their blood extraction methodology with recoveries ranging from 73–134% for 6 polymers: PMMA, PP, PS, PE PET, PVC. However, their recovery was assessed using dissolved polymer solutions, and the different interactions of complex media with particles as opposed to dissolved polymers may explain the more variable recoveries in this study.
Two internal standards (IS) were added to all samples (d5-PS and 4-FlPS), and recoveries were also compared based on the IS used for quantification. Only PS and PMMA had higher recoveries when d5-PS was used with 30 ± 5 vs 21 ± 3% for PS and 14 ± 3 vs 9 ± 1% for PMMA. Interestingly there was no difference for the PS, COOH-PS or PMMA nanospheres using either d5-PS or 4-FlPS as the IS. Previous studies have reported matrix induced rearrangement of the d5-PS monomer (39) in complex matrices. As this was not observed for theses samples, d5-PS was chosen as the internal standard for this method.

3.2.3. Recovery Detection Limits (RDL)

To determine a realistic detection limit, or a concentration that could be confidently reported in matrix, an RDL was calculated. To include the influence of signal suppression from matrix, this consisted of the concentration of a peak with a signal:noise ratio of 1:10 in an extracted blood sample. This concentration was then corrected by the method recovery determined for each polymer from the MP recovery tests. This was assumed to provide a more realistic blood concentration that could be confidently reported using the current methodology, assuming absence of background contamination or interferences. This calculation is described in eq 1.
Recovery Detection Limit=MDL(Blood)×100%Mean Recovery
(1)
A comparison of the calculated RDL and the LOQs calculated from the sampling blanks is shown in Table S5. The pyrolysis products for PP, Nylon-6 and the PS (specifically PS trimer) were the only products not affected by the presence of matrix. For the other polymers, the RDL increased over the LOQ from 3 (PE) up to 65 times (PET). This resulted in a required PET concentration of 2.4 μg/mL in blood to allow the detection of benzoic acid and 12 μg/mL to detect the vinyl benzoate product of PET. It is noted that these samples were analyzed collecting MRM and Scan data concurrently, and running the samples in just MRM or SIM mode may improve sensitivity, however the ability to retrospectively assess samples using a range of pyrolysis products would be lost, and thus assessment of potential interferences would also be lost.
The calculated RDLs were assessed for the biological plausibility of these concentrations occurring in an average human’s circulatory system. Considering the human body has a volume of blood of ∼5 L, a PET concentration of 12 μg/mL would equate to 60 mg of plastic within the circulatory system. There is limited data on absorption efficiency of nanoplastics through the gastrointestinal tract. Previous studies have estimated an absorption efficiency of up to 1.7% for 50 nm PS nanoparticles. (40) Additionally, there is currently no information on circulation half-lives of environmentally relevant nanoplastics, but previous studies have shown 200 nm spherical poly(ε-caprolactone) (PLA) particles have a half-life of 12 h. (41) Assuming this efficiency and circulation half-life is maintained for the larger 300–700 nm particles captured by this protocol (which is likely an overestimate), the participant would have to be exposed (ingested/inhaled) to at least 7 g of PET, within this size-range, every day to maintain a steady state concentration. This is almost two credit cards worth of plastic and is highly unrealistic. For the polymers with lowest RDLs (PP, PMMA, Nylon-6, Nylon-6,6: 0.01–0.02 μg/mL), an ingested/inhaled plastic mass of at least 6 mg per day is needed, which may be feasible. Of course, there are many assumptions with this calculation due to unknowns with biological transport, efficiency and bioavailability which can be impacted by individual biology, physiology of the GI tract, age, and disease state. (42)

3.3. Polymer Concentrations in Human Blood

A pilot study was conducted as the final validation step. All collected samples were analyzed in triplicate (1 mL aliquots). The pyrolysis products of PMMA, PET, PVC, PC, Nylon-6 and Nylon-66 were below MDLs in every sample, Supporting Information file 2. Three samples had PP concentrations above the MDLs (3.1 to 4.9 μg/mL). However, these concentrations are exceedingly high, and in each case only detected in one of the triplicates analyzed, suggesting sporadic background contamination. Based on the above exposure estimations, a PP concentration of 5 μg/mL would equate to 25 mg of plastic within the circulatory system and the participant would have to be exposed to 3 g of PP every day. This quantity of PP exposure is biologically implausible for the average human, and combined with detection not being replicated across triplicates, indicates contamination as a more likely source.
The PS dimer and trimer were detected together in 2 samples, but only in 1 of the triplicates in all cases, indicating potential contamination due to lack of reproducibility. Blood for participant #5 had PS pyrolysis products in the 0.3–0.7 μm size range in all three triplicates of the fasting sample. The dimer was above MDLs (0.05–0.22 μg/mL), while the trimer was below the MDL (0.019–0.52 μg/mL) making it difficult to confirm the presence of PS by both pyrolysis products. A PS concentration of 0.15 μg/mL (average of the triplicates) would equate to ∼750 μg within the participants circulatory system or exposure to 88 mg per day. Assuming this estimated PS exposure is feasible, the current evidence suggests only an indicative detection of PS in blood. More replicates of this sample need to be analyzed to eliminate the possibility of contamination. Additionally, confirmation with another, noncorrelated technique is needed e.g., imaging with spectroscopy-based identification. Although it is noted that analytical options are limited for small particle sizes (300–700 nm).

3.3.1. PE and PVC Interferences

The PVC pyrolysis products were detected in all Milli-Q blanks, and concentrations in all samples were below MDLs (0.9–4.2 μg/mL, Supporting Information file 2). In contrast, the PE pyrolysis products were detected in every sample, with at least one product above the MDL. Our previous research established a quality control framework to improve confidence in reporting PE concentrations and avoid reporting false positives due to interferences. (31) This framework includes comparing the PE concentration calculated from the 4 monitored pyrolysis products. If the ratio of the concentration calculated with the C10 alkene to the concentration calculated with the C12 alkene, C14 alkene or C21 alkadiene differs by more than a factor of 2, then an interference is likely present. In these samples (not blank corrected) the ratio ranged from 0.02–4.1. To further investigate, we assessed 21 different PE pyrolysis products, including alkanes, alkenes and alkadienes of chain length C10, C12, C14, C18, C19, C20 and C21. Figure S2 shows the ratio of the PE concentration calculated from each pyrolysis product to the concentration calculated from the C10 alkene, highlighting the high variability in these ratios.
To also compare with a positive control, the same pyrolysis products were extracted from blood samples spiked with PE and d4-PE in the method recovery validation experiments, Figures 5 and S2. These spiked samples showed a consistent ratio with the C10 alkene, ranging from 0.7 to 1.2. This further confirms that the high variability in calculated PE concentrations of the pyrolysis products in the pilot study samples indicates significant interferences. In these samples similar calculated PE concentrations were detected between size ranges (>0.7 μm or 0.3–0.7 μm) and there was also no trend in pattern between the fasting and nonfasting samples across participants, despite triplicates being very consistent. Participant #2 had higher concentrations in the nonfasting sample, participants #4 and #7 had higher concentrations in the fasting samples, with no difference for the other participants.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Ratios of PE concentrations calculated using different pyrolysis products of PE to the calculated concentration using the C10 alkene. Positive controls (blood spiked with either d4-PE or PE) are shown in (a), a fasting sample from participant #1 in (b) and a nonfast sample from the same participant in (c). All graphs from all samples are in Figure S2. Shaded boxes indicate the “acceptable” ratio range for PE identification.

The significant interference in the PE analysis and the inability to successfully remove it highlights the need for caution in human exposure studies to avoid misreporting PE concentrations. Previous studies using Py-GC-MS as an analysis tool for human biomonitoring have primarily reported elevated concentrations of PE and PVC, (0.7–7.1 μg/mL and 0.09–22,000 μg/g for PE; 0.2–25 μg/mL and 0.05–5,000 μg/g for PVC, Table S11) in internal matrices. However, it is unclear if these studies have considered the possibility of matrix interferences, which should be a primary consideration in future studies.

3.4. Considerations for Future Studies

3.4.1. Detection Limits and Biological Plausibility

For the analysis of complex matrices, such as in human biomonitoring, it is essential to assess realistic detection limits and determine if these concentrations are biologically feasible within the investigated matrix. Recovery validation experiments are crucial to assess the robustness of current methods and provide greater confidence in the quality of the reported data. As demonstrated in the current study, certain pyrolysis products can be influenced by matrix suppression and lower recoveries, increasing realistic detection limits by 20 times over MDLs calculated from blanks. To address this, more reference standards of environmentally relevant nanosized plastics are needed.

3.4.2. Interferences

Validating methods must include an investigation of potential matrix interferences, regardless of the analysis technique used. In the current study advanced measures were implemented to remove these interferences including extensive digestion protocols and Py-GC-MS analysis in double shot mode. Despite these efforts trace levels of interferences persist. Therefore, the authors suggest that Py-GC-MS is not an appropriate technique for reporting PE and PVC in biological matrices using current methodologies.

3.4.3. Background Controls

The importance of appropriate quality control measures to reduce, eliminate and monitor background contamination in MNP studies cannot be overstated. As observed in the current study, even with the extreme protocols employed (e.g., extraction within the Minderoo Plastics and Human Health plastics-minimized laboratory, (35) dedicated washing/furnacing procedures for all equipment), sporadic contamination can still occur. It is crucial to address this in all studies.
The current study thoroughly assessed Py-GC-MS as an analytical technique for confidently reporting MNPs in human matrices, specifically blood. Several limitations were identified, leading to the conclusion that Py-GC-MS is not currently a suitable technique for identifying PE or PVC due to persistent interferences that are reduced by enzymatic digestion but not fully removed. The method is also not suitable for PET due to matrix suppression and high detection limits. Py-GC-MS may currently be suitable to detect PP, PMMA, PS, Nylon-6 or Nylon-66 in blood matrices, but only at the upper end of concentrations that might be biologically feasible if interferences and background contamination are reduced/removed. It is noted that certain medical conditions such as implantation of polymer materials, (43) or the use of intravenous lines (44) may be a more feasible pathway for NPs to enter the bloodstream in detectable concentrations. This should be a priority area for future research.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599.

  • Descriptions of three tested extraction methodologies, details of nanoparticle standards and Py-GC-MS conditions, details on blanks and calculated detection methods, tables of calculated PE and PVC interferences, method recoveries from micro- and nanosized standards, table of MNP concentrations previously reported using Py-GC-MS, and poymer concentrations in blood samples and calculated PE interferences (PDF)

  • Plastic concentrations and PE interfaces (XLSX)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Cassandra Rauert - Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, AustraliaMinderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, AustraliaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2543-9023 Email: c.rauert@uq.edu.au
  • Authors
    • Nathan Charlton - Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, AustraliaMinderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    • Angus Bagley - Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, AustraliaMinderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    • Sarah A. Dunlop - Minderoo Foundation, Perth, Western Australia 6009, AustraliaSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, AustraliaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1306-3962
    • Christos Symeonides - Minderoo Foundation, Perth, Western Australia 6009, AustraliaCentre for Community Child Health, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria 3056, Australia
    • Kevin V. Thomas - Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, AustraliaMinderoo Centre − Plastics and Human Health, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, AustraliaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2155-100X
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This study was funded by the Minderoo Foundation. Neither the Minderoo Foundation nor its benefactors had any influence over the design or conduct of this study. Dr Cassandra Rauert, Dr Nathan Charlton, and Mr Angus Bagley are supported by the Minderoo Foundation. Emerita Professor Sarah Dunlop and Dr Christos Symeonides are employed by the Minderoo Foundation. The Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences, The University of Queensland, gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Queensland Health. The authors thank all the participants of the pilot study for their participation and time.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 44 other publications.

  1. 1
    Prata, J. C.; da Costa, J. P.; Lopes, I.; Duarte, A. C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455
  2. 2
    Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V. F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17 (4), 1212,  DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17041212
  3. 3
    Wright, S.; Levermore, J.; Ishikawa, Y. Application of Infrared and Near-Infrared Microspectroscopy to Microplastic Human Exposure Measurements. Appl. Spectrosc. 2023, 77 (10), 11051128,  DOI: 10.1177/00037028231199772
  4. 4
    Etehad Tavakol, M.; Fatemi, A.; Karbalaie, A.; Emrani, Z.; Erlandsson, B.-E. Nailfold Capillaroscopy in Rheumatic Diseases: Which Parameters Should Be Evaluated?. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015 (1), 974530,  DOI: 10.1155/2015/974530
  5. 5
    Zhang, Y.-N.; Poon, W.; Tavares, A. J.; McGilvray, I. D.; Chan, W. C. W. Nanoparticle–liver interactions: Cellular uptake and hepatobiliary elimination. J. Controlled Release 2016, 240, 332348,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.01.020
  6. 6
    Poon, W.; Zhang, Y.-N.; Ouyang, B.; Kingston, B. R.; Wu, J. L. Y.; Wilhelm, S.; Chan, W. C. W. Elimination Pathways of Nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2019, 13 (5), 57855798,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.9b01383
  7. 7
    Hoshyar, N.; Gray, S.; Han, H.; Bao, G. The effect of nanoparticle size on in vivo pharmacokinetics and cellular interaction. Nanomedicine 2016, 11 (6), 673692,  DOI: 10.2217/nnm.16.5
  8. 8
    Tsoi, K. M.; MacParland, S. A.; Ma, X.-Z.; Spetzler, V. N.; Echeverri, J.; Ouyang, B.; Fadel, S. M.; Sykes, E. A.; Goldaracena, N.; Kaths, J. M.; Conneely, J. B.; Alman, B. A.; Selzner, M.; Ostrowski, M. A.; Adeyi, O. A.; Zilman, A.; McGilvray, I. D.; Chan, W. C. W. Mechanism of hard-nanomaterial clearance by the liver. Nat. Mater. 2016, 15 (11), 12121221,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat4718
  9. 9
    Moghimi, S. M. Mechanisms of splenic clearance of blood cells and particles: Towards development of new splenotropic agents. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1995, 17, 103115,  DOI: 10.1016/0169-409X(95)00043-7
  10. 10
    Camilleri, M. Leaky gut: Mechanisms, measurement and clinical implications in humans. Gut 2019, 68 (8), 15161526,  DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318427
  11. 11
    Yang, Y.; Xie, E.; Du, Z.; Peng, Z.; Han, Z.; Li, L.; Zhao, R.; Qin, Y.; Xue, M.; Li, F.; Hua, K.; Yang, X. Detection of Various Microplastics in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (30), 1091110918,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07179
  12. 12
    Leonard, S. V. L.; Liddle, C. R.; Atherall, C. A.; Chapman, E.; Watkins, M.; Calaminus, S. D. J.; Rotchell, J. M. Microplastics in human blood: Polymer types, concentrations and characterisation using μFTIR. Environ. Int. 2024, 188, 108751,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108751
  13. 13
    Horvatits, T.; Tamminga, M.; Liu, B.; Sebode, M.; Carambia, A.; Fischer, L.; Püschel, K.; Huber, S.; Fischer, E. K. Microplastics detected in cirrhotic liver tissue. eBiomedicine 2022, 82, 104147,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104147
  14. 14
    Leslie, H. A.; van Velzen, M. J. M.; Brandsma, S. H.; Vethaak, A. D.; Garcia-Vallejo, J. J.; Lamoree, M. H. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107199,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199
  15. 15
    Ke, D.; Zheng, J.; Liu, X.; Xu, X.; Zhao, L.; Gu, Y.; Yang, R.; Liu, S.; Yang, S.; Du, J.; Chen, B.; He, G.; Dong, R. Occurrence of microplastics and disturbance of gut microbiota: A pilot study of preschool children in Xiamen, China. eBiomedicine 2023, 97, 104828,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104828
  16. 16
    Zhao, Q.; Zhu, L.; Weng, J.; Jin, Z.; Cao, Y.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, Z. Detection and characterization of microplastics in the human testis and semen. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 877, 162713,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162713
  17. 17
    Garcia, M. A.; Liu, R.; Nihart, A.; El Hayek, E.; Castillo, E.; Barrozo, E. R.; Suter, M. A.; Bleske, B.; Scott, J.; Forsythe, K.; Gonzalez-Estrella, J.; Aagaard, K. M.; Campen, M. J. Quantitation and identification of microplastics accumulation in human placental specimens using pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Toxicol. Sci. 2024, 199 (1), 8188,  DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfae021
  18. 18
    Liu, S.; Wang, C.; Yang, Y.; Du, Z.; Li, L.; Zhang, M.; Ni, S.; Yue, Z.; Yang, K.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Qin, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, M. Microplastics in three types of human arteries detected by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS). J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 469, 133855,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133855
  19. 19
    Marfella, R.; Prattichizzo, F.; Sardu, C.; Fulgenzi, G.; Graciotti, L.; Spadoni, T.; D’Onofrio, N.; Scisciola, L.; Grotta, R. L.; Frigé, C. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 390 (10), 900910,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
  20. 20
    Wang, T.; Yi, Z.; Liu, X.; Cai, Y.; Huang, X.; Fang, J.; Shen, R.; Lu, W.; Xiao, Y.; Zhuang, W.; Guo, S. Multimodal detection and analysis of microplastics in human thrombi from multiple anatomically distinct sites. eBiomedicine 2024, 103, 105118,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105118
  21. 21
    Zhang, D.; Wu, C.; Liu, Y.; Li, W.; Li, S.; Peng, L.; Kang, L.; Ullah, S.; Gong, Z.; Li, Z.; Ding, D.; Jin, Z.; Huang, H. Microplastics are detected in human gallstones and have the ability to form large cholesterol-microplastic heteroaggregates. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 467, 133631,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133631
  22. 22
    Zhong, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ma, D.; Wen, K.; Cai, J.; Cai, Z.; Wang, C.; Chai, X.; Zhong, J.; Liang, B.; Huang, Y.; Xian, H.; Li, Z.; Yang, X.; Chen, D.; Zhang, G.; Huang, Z. Revealing new insights: Two-center evidence of microplastics in human vitreous humor and their implications for ocular health. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 921, 171109,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171109
  23. 23
    Hu, C. J.; Garcia, M. A.; Nihart, A.; Liu, R.; Yin, L.; Adolphi, N.; Gallego, D. F.; Kang, H.; Campen, M. J.; Yu, X. Microplastic presence in dog and human testis and its potential association with sperm count and weights of testis and epididymis. Toxicol. Sci. 2024, 200 (2), 235240,  DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfae060
  24. 24
    Chen, Y.; Cheng, C.; Xu, W.; Cui, Y.; Tian, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Qian, R.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Chen, H.; Luo, T. Occurrence, toxicity and removal of polystyrene microplastics and nanoplastics in human sperm. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024, 22 (5), 21592165,  DOI: 10.1007/s10311-024-01752-0
  25. 25
    Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Shi, L.; Jia, Y.; Sheng, H. Detection and quantification of microplastics in various types of human tumor tissues. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 283, 116818,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116818
  26. 26
    Guo, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Li, D.; Wang, H.; Xu, H.; Liu, Y.; Kang, R.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, L.; Wu, S.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, S. Discovery and analysis of microplastics in human bone marrow. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 477, 135266,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135266
  27. 27
    Song, X.; Chen, T.; Chen, Z.; Du, L.; Qiu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Tan, Z.; Mo, Y.; Feng, X. Micro(nano)plastics in human urine: A surprising contrast between Chongqing’s urban and rural regions. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 917, 170455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170455
  28. 28
    Yang, W.; Wu, L.; Li, G.; Shi, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Yu, H.; Wang, K.; Xin, L.; Tang, D.; Shen, Q.; Xu, C.; Geng, H.; Wu, H.; Duan, Z.; Cao, Y.; He, X. Atlas and source of the microplastics of male reproductive system in human and mice. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31 (17), 2504625058,  DOI: 10.1007/s11356-024-32832-x
  29. 29
    Brits, M.; van Velzen, M. J. M.; Sefiloglu, F. Ö.; Scibetta, L.; Groenewoud, Q.; Garcia-Vallejo, J. J.; Vethaak, A. D.; Brandsma, S. H.; Lamoree, M. H. Quantitation of micro and nanoplastics in human blood by pyrolysis-gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Microplast. Nanoplast. 2024, 4 (1), 12,  DOI: 10.1186/s43591-024-00090-w
  30. 30
    Witzig, C. S.; Földi, C.; Wörle, K.; Habermehl, P.; Pittroff, M.; Müller, Y. K.; Lauschke, T.; Fiener, P.; Dierkes, G.; Freier, K. P.; Zumbülte, N. When Good Intentions Go Bad─False Positive Microplastic Detection Caused by Disposable Gloves. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (19), 1216412172,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03742
  31. 31
    Rauert, C.; Pan, Y.; Okoffo, E. D.; O’Brien, J. W.; Thomas, K. V. Extraction and Pyrolysis-GC-MS analysis of polyethylene in samples with medium to high lipid content. J. Environ. Exposure Assess. 2022, 1 (2), 13,  DOI: 10.20517/jeea.2022.04
  32. 32
    Li, D.; Sheerin, E. D.; Shi, Y.; Xiao, L.; Yang, L.; Boland, J. J.; Wang, J. J. Alcohol Pretreatment to Eliminate the Interference of Micro Additive Particles in the Identification of Microplastics Using Raman Spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (17), 1215812168,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c01551
  33. 33
    Gerhard, M. N.; Schymanski, D.; Ebner, I.; Esselen, M.; Stahl, T.; Humpf, H.-U. Can the presence of additives result in false positive errors for microplastics in infant feeding bottles?. Food Addit. Contam.,: Part A 2022, 39 (1), 185197,  DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2021.1989498
  34. 34
    Crichton, E. M.; Noël, M.; Gies, E. A.; Ross, P. S. A novel, density-independent and FTIR-compatible approach for the rapid extraction of microplastics from aquatic sediments. Anal. Methods 2017, 9 (9), 14191428,  DOI: 10.1039/C6AY02733D
  35. 35
    Rauert, C.; Wang, X.; Charlton, N.; Lin, C.-Y.; Tang, C.; Zammit, I.; Jayarathne, A.; Symeonides, C.; White, E.; Christensen, M.; Ponomariova, V.; Mueller, J. F.; Thomas, K. V.; Dunlop, S. Blueprint for the design, construction, and validation of a plastic and phthalate-minimised laboratory. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 468, 133803,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133803
  36. 36
    Kozliak, E.; Sulkes, M.; Smoliakova, I. P.; Alhroub, I.; Nespor, B.; Yao, B.; Kubátová, A. Pathways toward PAH Formation during Fatty Acid and Triglyceride Pyrolysis. J. Phys. Chem. A 2020, 124 (37), 75597574,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.0c05515
  37. 37
    Thomas, K. V. Understanding the plastics cycle to minimize exposure. Nature Sustainability 2022, 5 (4), 282284,  DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00814-3
  38. 38
    Lauschke, T.; Dierkes, G.; Ternes, T. A. Challenges in the quantification of poly(ethylene terephthalate) microplastics via thermoanalytical methods posed by inorganic matrix components. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2023, 174, 106108,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2023.106108
  39. 39
    Lauschke, T.; Dierkes, G.; Schweyen, P.; Ternes, T. A. Evaluation of poly(styrene-d5) and poly(4-fluorostyrene) as internal standards for microplastics quantification by thermoanalytical methods. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 159, 105310,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105310
  40. 40
    Walczak, A. P.; Hendriksen, P. J. M.; Woutersen, R. A.; van der Zande, M.; Undas, A. K.; Helsdingen, R.; van den Berg, H. H. J.; Rietjens, I. M. C. M.; Bouwmeester, H. Bioavailability and biodistribution of differently charged polystyrene nanoparticles upon oral exposure in rats. J. Nanopart. Res. 2015, 17 (5), 231,  DOI: 10.1007/s11051-015-3029-y
  41. 41
    Shenoy, D.; Little, S.; Langer, R.; Amiji, M. Poly(Ethylene Oxide)-Modified Poly(β-Amino Ester) Nanoparticles as a pH-Sensitive System for Tumor-Targeted Delivery of Hydrophobic Drugs: Part 2 Vivo Distribution and Tumor Localization Studies. Pharm. Res. 2005, 22 (12), 21072114,  DOI: 10.1007/s11095-005-8343-0
  42. 42
    Kim, K. S.; Na, K.; Bae, Y. H. Nanoparticle oral absorption and its clinical translational potential. J. Controlled Release 2023, 360, 149162,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.06.024
  43. 43
    Farr, N. T. H.; Gregory, D. A.; Workman, V. L.; Rauert, C.; Roman, S.; Knight, A. J.; Bullock, A. J.; Tartakovskii, A. I.; Thomas, K. V.; Chapple, C. R.; Deprest, J.; MacNeil, S.; Rodenburg, C. Evidence of time dependent degradation of polypropylene surgical mesh explanted from the abdomen and vagina of sheep. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2024, 160, 106722,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106722
  44. 44
    Tarafdar, A.; Xie, J.; Gowen, A.; O’Higgins, A. C.; Xu, J.-L. Advanced optical photothermal infrared spectroscopy for comprehensive characterization of microplastics from intravenous fluid delivery systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 929, 172648,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172648

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 99 publications.

  1. Kevin V. Thomas, Susanne Belz, Andy M. Booth, Martin J. D. Clift, Richard K. Cross, Grace Davies, Hubert Dirven, Sarah Dunlop, Alessio Gomiero, Shaowei Guo, Dorte Herzke, Albert A. Koelmans, Ian S. Mudway, Elvis D. Okoffo, Cassandra Rauert, Saer Samanipour, Christos Symeonides, Douglas I. Walker, Tingting Wang, Stephanie L. Wright, Jun-Li Xu, Leon P. Barron. Communicating Confidence in the Reliability of Micro- and Nanoplastic Identification in Human Health Studies. Environment & Health 2026, 4 (5) , 804-811. https://doi.org/10.1021/envhealth.5c00671
  2. Tamás Péter, Dóra Takács, Bojana Katana, Şeyma Miray Simav, Gergő Terjéki, Viktória Hornok, Szilárd Sáringer, Matija Tomšič, István Szilágyi. PFAS-Induced Charge Regulation and Aggregation in Polystyrene Nanoplastic Colloids. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2026, 17 (19) , 5486-5492. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6c00866
  3. Ke Shi, Elvis D. Okoffo, Jie Jiang, Cassandra Rauert, Kevin V. Thomas. Detection and Quantification of Nanoplastics and Microplastics in Australian Drinking Water. ACS ES&T Water 2026, 6 (5) , 2883-2893. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.5c01404
  4. Xuan Liao, Jixing Liu, Bin Jia, Gaosheng Zhao, Li Xu, Ping Cheng. The Invisible Threat from Your Microwave: Real-Time Warning of VOCs Emissions and Rapid Detection of Nanoplastics from Polypropylene Food Containers. Analytical Chemistry 2026, 98 (15) , 11179-11185. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c07573
  5. RafiqAdeelDoctoral Researcher, Biosystems & Food EngineeringXuJunliAssociate Professor, Biosystems & Food Engineering. Microplastics in Food. 2026https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfocus.7ea006
  6. Xiaoyong Li, Qiang Ma, Jie Zhang, Yan Gao, Tong Zhao, Liping Fang, Fasong Li, Dejin Wang, Xiao-Xia Zhou, Fangbai Li. Improved Py-GC/MS Analysis of Nanoplastics in Environmental Waters via Organic-Free Flocculation-Based Preconcentration. Environmental Science & Technology 2026, 60 (14) , 11046-11055. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c17808
  7. Dehua Luo, Xinyun Chu, Anyu Wu, Yue Wu, Zhonglu Liao, Yang Fang, Xiaoyi Hu, Jiahong Yu, Siguang Liu, Tianle Xiang, Zhiwei Huang, Jitai Zhang, Randy A. Dahlgren, Minghua Zhang, Xu Shang. Mass Balance Tracing of In Vivo Biodistribution, Relocation, and Excretion of Europium-Doped Micro/Nanoplastics in Rats. Environmental Science & Technology 2026, 60 (10) , 7774-7787. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c18689
  8. Yuzhu Zhang, Qunfang Zhou, Shanjun Song, Qian Liu. Gaps between Laboratory Experiments and Real-World Exposure: Toxicological Assessment of Microplastics Is Based on Inadequate Evidence. Environment & Health 2026, Article ASAP.
  9. Edward P. C. Lai, Amos Onomhante, Apollinaire Tsopmo, Farah Hosseinian. Development of a Dye-Binding Method for Nanoplastics Detection in Snow Samples Using Capillary Electrophoresis with Laser-Induced Fluorescence Detection. ACS Omega 2026, 11 (7) , 12824-12842. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.5c13510
  10. Pengcheng Tu, Junhao Xie, Xueqing Li, Xue Ma, Mingluan Xing, Huixia Niu, Lizhi Wu, Zhe Mo, Xin Gong, Xiaoming Lou, Zhijian Chen, Bei Gao, Jun-Li Xu. What Drives Microplastic Exposure in Human Blood and Feces? Machine Learning Reveals Potential Key Influencing Factors. Environmental Science & Technology 2026, 60 (1) , 1040-1050. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c07946
  11. Kevin V. Thomas, Grace Davies, Elvis Okoffo, Stephanie Wright, Cassandra Rauert. Comment on “Polyethylene and Polyvinyl Chloride Nanoplastics in Human Follicular Fluid and Seminal Plasma: Impact on Fertilization and Sperm Quality”. ACS Nano 2026, 20 (1) , 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5c13836
  12. Feifei Kong, Xiaomei Tong. Reply to “Comment on ‘Polyethylene and Polyvinyl Chloride Nanoplastics in Human Follicular Fluid and Seminal Plasma: Impact on Fertilization and Sperm Quality”’. ACS Nano 2026, 20 (1) , 3-4. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5c17902
  13. Anushree Dutta, Siiri Bienz, Naresh Kumar, Renato Zenobi. Hyperspectral TERS Imaging Reveals Strain Heterogeneity in Individual Nanoplastic Particles. Nano Letters 2025, 25 (51) , 17806-17813. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c05003
  14. V. C. Shruti, Gurusamy Kutralam-Muniasamy. The Human Plastiphere: A Bioparticulate System Challenging Microplastic Risk Assessment and Governance. Environmental Science & Technology 2025, 59 (45) , 24131-24150. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c05922
  15. Theodore B. Henry, David G. Bucknall, Ana I. Catarino, Bronwyn M. Gillanders, Marte Haave, Norbert E. Kaminski, Carolin Völker, Nina Wootton. Examining Misconceptions about Plastic-Particle Exposure from Ingestion of Seafood and Risk to Human Health. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2025, 12 (11) , 1453-1461. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00551
  16. Menghui Zhang, Sisi Liu, Yuchen Wang, Yanni Ge, Xiuyi Li, Xiawei Wang, Shulin Zhuang, Hongguang Cui. Detection and Characterization of Multiple Microplastics in the Human Retina. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2025, 12 (10) , 1327-1333. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00903
  17. Sara L. Belontz, Janice Brahney, Caroline E. Caplan, Eoghan Dillon, Ting Yan, Gerardo Dominguez. Combining Submicron Spectroscopy Techniques (AFM-IR and O-PTIR) To Detect and Quantify Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Snow from a Utah Ski Resort. Environmental Science & Technology 2025, 59 (26) , 13362-13373. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c12170
  18. Kannan Sridharan, Brigida Anna Maiorano, Farah Rehan, Francesca Maradonna, Elisabetta Giorgini, Tarek Taha, Javier Molina-Cerrillo, Sebastiano Buti, Francesco Piva, Francesco Massari, Matteo Santoni. Microplastics as both a driver of genitourinary cancers and a deliverer of treatments. Communications Medicine 2026, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-026-01675-7
  19. Hien Anh Anna Tran, John Joson Ng, Daniel Hengyi Tang, Cai Ting Yong, Andrew Fu Wah Ho. Health impacts of micro- and nanoplastics in humans: systematic review of in vivo evidence. Environmental Health 2026, 25 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01282-y
  20. Gang Liu, Qiuya Cai, Tingchen Qin, Xiatian Yu, Binbin Pan, Lin Ye, Lisha Jia, Xianwei Wang. Emerging cardiovascular risks of micro- and nanoplastics: toxic effects and mechanistic pathways. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2026, 23 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-026-00669-6
  21. Ying Sun, Xiaoqin Xu, Guoting Sun, Jiang Li, Bowei Yu, Yuying Wang, Kun Zhang, Fangzhen Xia, Yingli Lu, Ningjian Wang. Polystyrene microplastics and hepatic fibrosis-related indices in type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional analysis with experimental validation. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2026, 23 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-026-00681-w
  22. Yufei Pan, Taskeen Iqbal Janjua, Kevin V. Thomas, Claire E. Shepherd, Cassandra Rauert. A critical review of micro- and nanoplastic permeation in the human body. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2026, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-026-00177-6
  23. Yujing Tan, W. H. Hunter Woodward, David Becker, Jim Luong, Robert Ellis-Hutchings, Kyle Hart, Mridula Babli Kapur, David M. Meunier. Opportunities to improve polyethylene microparticle analysis by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2026, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-026-00185-6
  24. Amanda M. Durkin, Tim L. P. Skrabanja, Ulrike Gehring, Runyu Zou, Virissa Lenters, Gerard H. Koppelman, Judith M. Vonk, Nienke Vrisekoop, Roel Vermeulen. Micro- and nanoplastic exposure, immune cell activation, and lung function in young adults. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2026, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-026-00189-2
  25. Wenfang Lin, Kai Yang, Tao Lu, Xiaoxi Kang, Xinyu Xing, Ewa Korzeniewska, Natalia P. Ivleva, Feng Ju, Haifeng Qian, Li Cui, Yong-guan Zhu. The plastisphere: from microbial pollution to biodegradable solution. ENGINEERING Environment 2026, 20 (9) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-026-2234-5
  26. Jelmir Craveiro de Andrade, Gislaine Natiele dos Santos Costa, Thiago Cantisano André, Débora de Almeida Azevedo, Celeste Yara dos Santos Siqueira, Regina Binotto, Vinicius Kartnaller. Py-GC-MS in organic geochemistry of petroleum systems: A systematic and critical review of methods, applications and trends. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 2026, 197 , 107840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2026.107840
  27. Yuexin Qiu, Mufei Li, Zuguang Li, Jinsong Liu. Same-source analysis of microplastics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surface water using unified pretreatment, TD-GC/MS, and Py-GC/MS. Journal of Chromatography A 2026, 1779 , 467028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2026.467028
  28. Wanzi Jing, Meilin Zheng, Xinhang Yang, Bin He, Xing Zhang, Wei Cui. Micro- and nanoplastics in the central nervous system: Transport pathways, neurotoxicity, and implications for brain disorders. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2026, 319 , 120278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2026.120278
  29. Jiyun Lee, Christie M. Sayes, Yunsong Mu, John P. Giesy, Hyeong-Moo Shin. Prenatal and early-life exposure to micro- and nanoplastics and autism-relevant neurodevelopment: An integrated review of human, experimental, and mechanistic evidence. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2026, 513 , 142401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.142401
  30. Martín Benzo, Andrés Pérez-Parada, Heinkel Bentos-Pereira, María Eugenia Pérez-Barthaburu, Laura Fornaro. Matrix effects and key methodological factors for reliable nanoplastic quantification by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Microchemical Journal 2026, 226 , 118541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2026.118541
  31. Javier Bayo, Carlos Baeza-Martínez, Gerardo Pulido-Reyes, Francisca Fernández-Piñas, Roberto Rosal, Miguel González-Pleiter. The Global Status of Microplastic Pollution in Respiratory Health. Open Respiratory Archives 2026, 8 (3) , 100629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.opresp.2026.100629
  32. Francisco T.T. Cavalcante, Ana M. Ferreira, Teresa Rocha-Santos, Rilvia S. De Santiago-Aguiar, João A.P. Coutinho. Analytical strategies for micro- and nanoplastics in aqueous matrices: Progress and the separation bottleneck. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2026, 200 , 118823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2026.118823
  33. Adrian Goldsworthy, Marcus Randall, Oystein Tronstad, Jacky Suen, John F. Fraser. Micro‐Nanoplastics Significantly Increase Adverse Events and Economic Burden Associated With Carotid Endarterectomy: A Health Economic Modelling Evaluation. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2026, 163 https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70778
  34. Sophia Hohenstatt, Gabriele Maliandi, Dominik F. Vollherbst, Michael O. Breckwoldt, Niclas Schmitt, Fabian Preisner, Kianush Karimian-Jazi, Susanne Bonekamp, Martin Bendszus, Markus A. Möhlenbruch. Circulating Microplastics in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Feasibility, Variability, and Exploratory Comparisons with Healthy Individuals. Clinical Neuroradiology 2026, 102 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-026-01673-1
  35. Ruwen Xie, Gulimire Yilihan, Qiong Chen, Dachuan Lin, Zhen Liu, Mengyi Yuan, Yujia Wang, Haoteng Xu, Weishang Zhou, Wanxin Gong, Yueer Li, Chen Peng, Tong Yang, Peng Gao, Qing Liu, Xin‐Hua Feng, Mu Xiao, Chao Jiang. Oil‐Coated Nanoplastics Induce Rapid Membrane Disruption and Severe Intestinal Injury. Advanced Science 2026, 13 (31) https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202520935
  36. Min Jae Kim, Hyun Seung Shin, Yun Hee So, Dong Hun Lee, Jae-Eon Lee, Hyeon-Gu Kang, DongJoo Joung, Eui-Man Jung, Beum-Soo An. Polystyrene nanoplastic-encapsulated extracellular vesicles promote blood–brain barrier breakdown and accumulate in the brain. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2026, 511 , 142152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.142152
  37. Yasin Etli. Bone microplastic burden as a postmortem chronological marker: a hypothesis for distinguishing forensic from archaeological skeletal remains. Medical Hypotheses 2026, 211 , 111981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2026.111981
  38. Afifa Tahir, Enxi Jin, Dongha Shin. Nanoplastics analysis in real-world samples: From detection sensitivity to statistical rigor. Trends in Environmental Analytical Chemistry 2026, 50 , e00307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teac.2026.e00307
  39. Fabio D’Ottaviano, Kyle Hart. Detection and Quantification Challenges in Microplastics Research: A Statistical Overview. Microplastics 2026, 5 (2) , 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/microplastics5020097
  40. Lisete Fernandes, Abderrazzak Ait Bassou, José R. Fernandes, Pedro B. Tavares. Deconstructing Food Packaging: Component-Specific Sources of Micro and Nanoplastics in Foods and Beverages. Microplastics 2026, 5 (2) , 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/microplastics5020107
  41. Ghulam Nabi, Tariq Aziz, Lin Lin. The bioaccumulation and carcinogenic potential of micro- and nanoplastics in humans. Toxicological Research 2026, 42 (3) , 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43188-025-00332-w
  42. Xuri Wu, Hao Long, Zhiguang Sun, Rui Cai, Liping Huang, Yan Wang, Feng Tan. Hidden hazards of eco-friendly plastics: Thermally induced release of micro/nanoplastics and dissolved organic matter from polylactic acid. Chinese Chemical Letters 2026, 11 , 113010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cclet.2026.113010
  43. S.P. Asima, Arghyadeep Mayur, Soumya Sonalisha, Richeek Parashar, Indira Batsya, Adrija Sinha, Vishakha Raina, Mrutyunjay Suar, Suresh K. Verma. Imperative implication of microplastics as vital agent for salmonellosis inducing biofilms, antibiotic resistance, and health risk. Environmental Research 2026, 297 , 124090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2026.124090
  44. Medina Veliu, Joeri Kaal, Tiago De Oliveira, Asier Goñi-Urtiaga, Denis Courtier-Murias, Liliane Jean-Soro, Johnny Gasperi, Marco Panettieri. Microplastics quantification in organic-rich samples: The relevance of testing substrate-specific calibration curves. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 2026, 195 , 107624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2026.107624
  45. Kai Zhang. Analytical advances in microplastic detection: A comprehensive review of physical, chemical, and biosensing techniques. Microchemical Journal 2026, 224 , 117642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2026.117642
  46. Xiaotao Zhou, Yujing Chuai, Yuting Zhang, Zifan Hu, Jing Zhang, Yuming Jin, Qianru Zhou, Yujie Yu, Shi Qiu, Yu Wang, Xiaoli Zou. Establishment and application of a pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method for 8 microplastics in blood and urine assisted by Raman spectroscopy. Microchemical Journal 2026, 224 , 117821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2026.117821
  47. Jian Zhang, Baowei Zhao, Yin Zhang, Fengfeng Ma, Xin Zhang, Hao Zhao. Adsorption performance and mechanisms of ciprofloxacin onto microplastics: effects of different textures and aging degrees. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2026, 28 (4) , 1120-1133. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5EM01033K
  48. Zi Wang, Abolghasem Pilechi, Parisa A. Ariya. Waterborne nanoplastics and microplastics: analytical advances, modelling, and future directions. Environmental Science: Nano 2026, 13 (4) , 1776-1802. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5EN01084E
  49. Runting Li, Fa Lin, Xiaoli Zhao, Junyu Wang, Miaomiao Teng, Chengjun Li, Li Ma, Huan Zhong, Yu Chen, Wenli Tang, Ke Wang, Jiaqi Sun, Zhenshan Song, Jionghao Xue, Minghao Liu, Yitong Jia, Genhuan Yang, Qingyuan Liu, Zenghui Qian, Wenying Qiu, Naili Wang, Zhen Chen, Wei Zhang, Shuai Kang, Hao Wang, Bobo Cao, Guozhi Cao, Shuo Wang, Chao Ma, Fengchang Wu, Dabiao Zhou, Yuanli Zhao, Jizong Zhao, Xiaolin Chen. Microplastics and nanoplastics in brain tumours and the healthy human brain. Nature Health 2026, 386 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44360-026-00091-4
  50. Shilpa Chokshi, Ashwin Dhanda, Matthew E. Cramp, Richard Thompson. Microplastics, nanoplastics and liver disease: an emerging health concern?. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2026, 3 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-026-01188-7
  51. Long Zhao, Jianheng Zheng, Yuyang Shen, Xin Xu, Xinyuan Liu, Jianguo Yu, Jing Li, Binrui Yang, Liang Chen, Feijie Wang, Shaojie Liu, Xianwu Peng, Jun Du, Ruihua Dong. Composite polyphenols mitigate microplastic exposure-related immune disturbances: a two-phase population trial. Nature Communications 2026, 877 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71167-8
  52. Joacim Rocklöv, Sarah Dunlop, Thomas C Chiles, Lizzie Fuller, Roland Geyer, Mary Margaret Johnson, Rachel Karasik, Jane Muncke, Herve Raps, Cassandra Rauert, Megan G Rhodes, Margaret Spring, John Stegeman, Christos Symeonides, Kevin V Thomas, Marina Treskova, Costa A Velis, Martin Wagner, Philip J Landrigan. Plastics, plastic chemicals, and microplastics: multiple harms to health. The Lancet 2026, 386 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00647-1
  53. Zebin Fang, Xiaoyi Wang, Fan Wu, Sihan Mao, Hao Jiang, Chi Hu, Luyuan Zhang, Weijian Fan, Chao Zhang, Ping Lan, Kaiyuan Huang, Yuxiang Weng, Jianwei Pan. A case-control study linking concentrations of microplastics in human cerebrospinal fluid to intracranial aneurysm risk. Environmental Pollution 2026, 395 , 127788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2026.127788
  54. Yeli Fan, Tao Wang, Xinyu Wang. Bioimaging approaches for mapping micro/nanoplastic distribution in living systems: Advancing One-Health risk assessment. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2026, 197 , 118724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2026.118724
  55. Shivani Kumar S., Dhanaraj Sangeetha. Toxic effects of microplastics in aquatic environments and the pathways to sustainable management. RSC Advances 2026, 16 (18) , 16718-16747. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5RA05202E
  56. Luciana Rivera Molina, Robert Brand, Calum Bochenek, Chrys Wesdemiotis. Identification of microplastics and additives from the Lake Erie watershed and the Cuyahoga River via MALDI-MS and DART-MS. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 2026, 521 , 117581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2026.117581
  57. Priyanka Mahajan, Meenakshi Gusain, Poonam Singh. Analytical strategies for nanoplastics detection and remediation: advances, challenges, and perspectives. Microchemical Journal 2026, 222 , 117228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2026.117228
  58. Iqra Batool. Micro- and nanoplastics in human male reproduction: Immune disruption, blood–testis barrier, and clinic-ready biomarkers. Reproductive Toxicology 2026, 140 , 109128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2025.109128
  59. Ailing Tan, Haoyu Wang, Yajie Zuo, Rongxuan Zhao, Wei Ma, Yunhao He, Yong Zhao. IFCNN-based fusion of GAF and MTF encoded near-infrared spectral images for quantitative analysis of microplastics. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 2026, 348 , 127069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2025.127069
  60. Sean M. Gettings, Riddhi Sharma, Nora Bourbia. Micro- and nanoplastics in neurological dysfunction. Trends in Neurosciences 2026, 49 (3) , 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2026.01.004
  61. Gurmit Singh, Ligia Velasquez, Chris Mason, Michal Scur, Kristen A. Marcellus, Santokh Gill. Detection and Identification of Non-Labeled Polystyrene Nanoplastics in Rodent Tissues Using Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation (AF4) Combined with UV–Vis, Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) Detectors and Offline Pyrolysis–GCMS (Pyro-GCMS). Microplastics 2026, 5 (1) , 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/microplastics5010002
  62. Doaa M. Mokhtar. Microplastics in Aquatic Ecosystems: Implications for Ecosystem Services and the Sustainability of Fisheries. Sustainability 2026, 18 (6) , 3021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18063021
  63. Martina H. Stenzel. The dark matter in water, air and land: from microplastic to invisible nanoplastics. Materials Horizons 2026, 13 (4) , 1628-1648. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5MH01544H
  64. Andrew B. West, Matthew J. Campen, Mark Wiesner, Jason A. Somarelli, Jason W. Arnold. The hidden world of nanoplastics colliding with neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2026, 136 (4) https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI204824
  65. Syarif Hidayat, Rendra Hakim Hafyan, Linh Nguyen Quang, Young Ki Seo, Siddharth Gadkari, Jinsoo Kim, Hyun Tae Hwang, Xinxing Zhou, Seung-Soo Kim. PET waste to terephthalic acid, biphenyl, and benzoic acid via dolomite catalytic fast pyrolysis in fluidized-bed reactor: Experimental and techno-economic analysis. Chemical Engineering Journal 2026, 529 , 172849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2026.172849
  66. Marc von Pawlowski, Leonard Saur, Jochen Röthele, Christian Pylatiuk. Microplastic particles and infusion therapy — Evidence, implications, and unanswered questions. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances 2026, 21 , 101068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2026.101068
  67. Hongwen Xu, Zhilong Yu, Yunfei Xie. Towards intelligent risk profiling of micro- and nanoplastics in humans: Mechanisms, detection, and toxicological risk paradigms. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2026, 207 , 108358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2025.108358
  68. Matheus Simonato, Michael I. Brener, Giovanni Ferrari, Claire A. Graves, Beizhan Yan, Isaac George. Impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on cardiovascular health. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine 2026, 11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2026.02.008
  69. Ge Zeng, Binchao Zhao, Chenxin Deng, Chunxiang Zhu, Mark Ming-Cheng Cheng, Pu-Xian Gao. Microplastic Detection and Monitoring in Biological and Environmental Systems: A Mini Review of Techniques and Strategies. International Journal of High Speed Electronics and Systems 2026, 35 (01) https://doi.org/10.1142/S012915642640001X
  70. Haocheng Yang, Haifeng Zhou, Ping Zou, Shengshen Gu, Jinghong Luo, Yingyang Zhang. Electrochemical and Surface‐Enhanced Raman Scattering Coupling for Dual‐Mode Sensing of Nanoplastics. Analysis & Sensing 2026, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/anse.202500076
  71. Olayemi K. Ijomone, Omolabake I. Omotosho, Iretomiwa L. Awoyemi, Itohan R. Ovwere, Oritoke M. Okeowo, David A. Oyeniran, Toheeb O. Oyerinde, Victor E. Anadu, Tolulope J. Gbayisomore, Omamuyovwi M. Ijomone. Synaptic health in brain disorders: Impact of nanoplastic exposure. 2026https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ant.2026.03.011
  72. Ajith.B. Singh, Alavudeen Basha A, U Arun Kumar, Azath Mubarakali. Multilayer Ag–Au–BP–TIBr–FASnI3 Kretschmann surface plasmon resonance biosensor for high sensitivity refractive index analysis: A computational and machine learning approach. Analytica Chimica Acta 2026, 1384 , 344991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2025.344991
  73. Florence Nono Almeida, Carole Leray, Magali Albignac, Marion Vittecoq, Karen D. McCoy, Alexandra ter Halle. Py-GC-MS/MS quantification of microplastics in vertebrate tissues: Addressing false positives of polyethylene. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2026, 501 , 140658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.140658
  74. Yuanyuan Zhou, Yijie Lu, Yujia Luo, Jingping Li, Weikang Chen, Yingming Zheng, Wenshan Zeng, Hangying Lou. Associations between concentrations of microplastics in follicular fluid and the risk of diminished ovarian reserve. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2026, 502 , 140958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.140958
  75. Marios C. Christodoulou, Marinos Stylianou, Irene Voukkali, Vincenzo Naddeo, Damià Barceló, Chrysostomos Kepertis, Antonis A. Zorpas. Unveiling the presence of micro and nanoplastics in human biological matrices: A systematic review covering the latest five years from 2020 to 2025. Science of The Total Environment 2026, 1013 , 181304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.181304
  76. Cristina Di Fiore, Pasquale Avino. Microplastics and nanoplastics in the human diet. Nature Health 2026, 1 (1) , 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44360-025-00025-6
  77. Yan-Xiong Wang, Jun-Ge Liang, Jian-Nan Ding, Yan-Feng Jiang, Tian Qiang. Micropatterned microwave resonator with microcavity arrays for ultrasensitive, label-free quantification of aquatic microplastics. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2025, 396 , 117190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2025.117190
  78. Fazel A. Monikh, Dušan Materić, Eugenia Valsami-Jones, Hans-Peter Grossart, Korinna Altmann, Rupert Holzinger, Iseult Lynch, Jessica Stubenrauch, Willie Peijnenburg. Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain. Nature Medicine 2025, 31 (12) , 4034-4035. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04045-3
  79. Siyuan Jing, Yanting Wang, Yunqian Chen, Yinjuan Chen, Xianda Gong, Thomas C. Wanger. Standardizing pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry for nanoplastics and microplastics detection to advance environmental research. npj Emerging Contaminants 2025, 1 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s44454-025-00001-5
  80. Roland Buesen, Stefanie Vogel, Tizia Thoma, Volker Strauss, Sibylle Gröters, Kathrin Becker, Frank Müller, Till Gründling, Patrizia Pfohl, Amelie Vogel, Andrea Haase, Wendel Wohlleben. Oral toxicity of small microplastic of polyamide assessed by a standardized guideline study. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2025, 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-025-00137-6
  81. Manfred F. Maitz, Robin Lenz, Steven Winkler, Mara F. Abschke, Carsten Werner, Dieter Fischer. Weathered microplastics in human blood: unraveling the effect of structural changes at the particle surface on coagulation and platelet activation. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2025, 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-025-00139-4
  82. Federica Nardella, Marthinus Brits, Martin J. M. van Velzen, Lorenzo Scibetta, Amanda Durkin, Roel Vermeulen, Frederic Béen, Sicco H. Brandsma, Marja H. Lamoree. Advancing pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the accurate quantification of micro- and nanoplastics in human blood. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2025, 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-025-00152-7
  83. Isabel Goßmann, Corinna Wirth, Barbara M. Scholz-Böttcher. Reliable thermal mass quantification of PVC – an ongoing challenge. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2025, 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-025-00162-5
  84. Adrian Goldsworthy, Liam A. O’Callaghan, Oystein Tronstad, Jacky Suen, Honglin Chen, Cassandra Rauert, Ciara B. Blum, Lotti Tajouri, Matthew Olsen, Kevin V. Thomas, John F. Fraser. Micro- and Nanoplastic-Induced Respiratory Disease and Dysfunction: A Scoping Review. Microplastics 2025, 4 (4) , 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/microplastics4040079
  85. Justine R. Bissonnette, Nikita E. Harvey, Mikela L. Rowsell, Sophie Kiefte, Kas J. Houthuijs, Frederic M. Béen, Marja H. Lamoree, Lindsay S. Cahill, Karl J. Jobst. Identification of micro-/nanoplastics in human placental blood using comprehensive multidimensional pyrolysis - gas chromatography x ion mobility mass spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta 2025, 1376 , 344606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2025.344606
  86. Antonio F. Hernández, Marina Lacasaña, Aristidis M. Tsatsakis, Anca Oana Docea. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Micro- and Nanoplastics Driving Adverse Human Health Effects. Toxics 2025, 13 (11) , 921. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13110921
  87. Satwik Majumder, Lila Bazina, Glen DeLoid, Alvaro G. Garcia, Nubia Zuverza-Mena, Jakub Konkol, George Tsilomelekis, Michael Verzi, Hao Zhu, Jason C. White, Philip Demokritou. Impact of UV Aging on the Toxicity and Bioavailability of Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS)-Traceable Core–Shell Polystyrene Nanoplastics in an In Vitro Triculture Small Intestinal Epithelium Model. Toxics 2025, 13 (11) , 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13110939
  88. Carlos Edo, Marica Erminia Schiano, Sergio J. Álvarez-Méndez, Javier Hernández-Borges, Daura Vega-Moreno, Ana Molina-Rodríguez, May Gómez, Alicia Herrera, Miguel González-Pleiter, Francisca Fernández-Piñas, Roberto Rosal. Chemometric discrimination of airborne fibres: microplastics, regenerated cellulose and natural fibres. Environmental Research 2025, 282 , 122082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2025.122082
  89. Xue Zhang, Ruqin Shen, Peng Xia, Hongli Tan, Yongfeng Deng. Unraveling micro/nanoplastics and phthalates in infusion solutions: A novel integrated approach for quantification and cardiovascular cytotoxicity evaluation. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025, 497 , 139614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139614
  90. Xuri Wu, Feng Tan, Han Zhang, Liping Huang, Yan Wang, Xin He, Rui Cai, Shumin Li. Macrophage cytoskeletal and immune responses to photoaged and gastrointestinal-transformed polylactic acid micro/nanoplastics with protein corona. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025, 498 , 139807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139807
  91. D. Ludescher, L. Wesemann, J. Schwab, J. Karst, S. B. Sulejman, M. Ubl, B. O. Clarke, A. Roberts, H. Giessen, M. Hentschel. Optical sieve for nanoplastic detection, sizing and counting. Nature Photonics 2025, 19 (10) , 1138-1145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-025-01733-x
  92. Muhammad Shoaib, Huijuan Zhang, Sajad Hussain, Muhammd Arshad, Marian Brestic, Xinghong Yang, Shixiang Zhang, Xinru Liu, Jun Wu, Feng Hu, Huixin Li. Integrated physiological, metabolomic, and transcriptomic responses of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) to nanoplastic-induced stress. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2025, 302 , 118612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118612
  93. Cancan Cui, Zheng Guo, Yanxi Liu, Ning Han, Jiayin Song, Yuanmei Chen, Yulu Zheng, Chen Sheng, Lois BALMER, Haibin Li, Rui Liu, Lin Liu, Jianshi Du, Zhiyuan Wu. Tissue-specific distribution of microplastics in human blood and carotid plaques: A paired sample analysis. Environment International 2025, 203 , 109743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109743
  94. Marja H. Lamoree, Jeske van Boxel, Federica Nardella, Kas J. Houthuijs, Sicco H. Brandsma, Frederic Béen, Majorie B. M. van Duursen. Health impacts of microplastic and nanoplastic exposure. Nature Medicine 2025, 31 (9) , 2873-2887. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03902-5
  95. Sanja J. Armaković, Stevan Armaković. Advanced GC-MS Chemosensing Combined with Atomistic Modeling: A Synergistic Approach for Environmental Water Analysis. Chemosensors 2025, 13 (9) , 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13090353
  96. Lin Zhang, Jiaqi Tian, Xiaodan Zhu, Linlin Wang, Xiang Yun, Liyang Liang, Shuyin Duan. Cross-platform detection of microplastics in human biological tissues: Comparing spectroscopic and chromatographic approaches. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025, 492 , 138133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138133
  97. Yifei Li, Wei Ling, Jian Yang, Yi Xing. Risk Assessment of Microplastics in Humans: Distribution, Exposure, and Toxicological Effects. Polymers 2025, 17 (12) , 1699. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17121699
  98. Linyong Zhi, Ruixue Li, Zhen Li, Zeliang Su, Fang Chen, Qiwei Qin, Youhua Huang, Xiaohong Huang, Jun Wang. Micro/nanoplastics in aquatic ecosystems: Analytical challenges, ecological impacts, and mitigation strategies. Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology 2025, 7 , 1480-1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enceco.2025.07.009
  99. Pierce L. Massie, Marcus A. Garcia, Daniel Gallego, Christopher Schlosser, Aerlin Decker, Rui Liu, Milad MazloumiBakhshayesh, Deepali Kulkarni, Matthew P. Justus, Carolyn Pace, Rowza T. Rumma, Matthew J. Campen, Ross M. Clark. Micro- and nanoplastics are elevated in femoral atherosclerotic plaques compared with undiseased arteries. JVS-Vascular Science 2025, 6 , 100393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvssci.2025.100393

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 59, 4, 1984–1994
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599
Published January 24, 2025

Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

21k

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Schematic of biological fate of nanosized and small micron-sized particles. Created in BioRender. [Angus Bagley] (2025) https://BioRender.com/x63r090.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Schematic of final optimized extraction method.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Concentrations calculated using different pyrolysis products of polyethylene (PE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as collected on 0.7 and 0.3 μm glass fiber filters. C10 = C10 alkene, C12 = C12 alkene, C14 = C14 alkene, C21 = C21 alkadiene, Nap = naphthalene, Benz = benzene, 1-Me-Nap = 1-methyl-naphthalene, and 2-Me-Nap = 2-methyl-naphthalene.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Recovery (%) of (a) micron-sized polymers, (b) nanosized polymers from extracted blood samples. PE = polyethylene, PP = polypropylene, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PS = polystyrene, PMMA = poly(methyl methacrylate), PVC = polyvinyl chloride, PC = polycarbonate, N6 = Nylon-6, and N66 = Nylon-6,6.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Ratios of PE concentrations calculated using different pyrolysis products of PE to the calculated concentration using the C10 alkene. Positive controls (blood spiked with either d4-PE or PE) are shown in (a), a fasting sample from participant #1 in (b) and a nonfast sample from the same participant in (c). All graphs from all samples are in Figure S2. Shaded boxes indicate the “acceptable” ratio range for PE identification.

  • References


    This article references 44 other publications.

    1. 1
      Prata, J. C.; da Costa, J. P.; Lopes, I.; Duarte, A. C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455
    2. 2
      Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V. F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17 (4), 1212,  DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17041212
    3. 3
      Wright, S.; Levermore, J.; Ishikawa, Y. Application of Infrared and Near-Infrared Microspectroscopy to Microplastic Human Exposure Measurements. Appl. Spectrosc. 2023, 77 (10), 11051128,  DOI: 10.1177/00037028231199772
    4. 4
      Etehad Tavakol, M.; Fatemi, A.; Karbalaie, A.; Emrani, Z.; Erlandsson, B.-E. Nailfold Capillaroscopy in Rheumatic Diseases: Which Parameters Should Be Evaluated?. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015 (1), 974530,  DOI: 10.1155/2015/974530
    5. 5
      Zhang, Y.-N.; Poon, W.; Tavares, A. J.; McGilvray, I. D.; Chan, W. C. W. Nanoparticle–liver interactions: Cellular uptake and hepatobiliary elimination. J. Controlled Release 2016, 240, 332348,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.01.020
    6. 6
      Poon, W.; Zhang, Y.-N.; Ouyang, B.; Kingston, B. R.; Wu, J. L. Y.; Wilhelm, S.; Chan, W. C. W. Elimination Pathways of Nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2019, 13 (5), 57855798,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.9b01383
    7. 7
      Hoshyar, N.; Gray, S.; Han, H.; Bao, G. The effect of nanoparticle size on in vivo pharmacokinetics and cellular interaction. Nanomedicine 2016, 11 (6), 673692,  DOI: 10.2217/nnm.16.5
    8. 8
      Tsoi, K. M.; MacParland, S. A.; Ma, X.-Z.; Spetzler, V. N.; Echeverri, J.; Ouyang, B.; Fadel, S. M.; Sykes, E. A.; Goldaracena, N.; Kaths, J. M.; Conneely, J. B.; Alman, B. A.; Selzner, M.; Ostrowski, M. A.; Adeyi, O. A.; Zilman, A.; McGilvray, I. D.; Chan, W. C. W. Mechanism of hard-nanomaterial clearance by the liver. Nat. Mater. 2016, 15 (11), 12121221,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat4718
    9. 9
      Moghimi, S. M. Mechanisms of splenic clearance of blood cells and particles: Towards development of new splenotropic agents. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1995, 17, 103115,  DOI: 10.1016/0169-409X(95)00043-7
    10. 10
      Camilleri, M. Leaky gut: Mechanisms, measurement and clinical implications in humans. Gut 2019, 68 (8), 15161526,  DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318427
    11. 11
      Yang, Y.; Xie, E.; Du, Z.; Peng, Z.; Han, Z.; Li, L.; Zhao, R.; Qin, Y.; Xue, M.; Li, F.; Hua, K.; Yang, X. Detection of Various Microplastics in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (30), 1091110918,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07179
    12. 12
      Leonard, S. V. L.; Liddle, C. R.; Atherall, C. A.; Chapman, E.; Watkins, M.; Calaminus, S. D. J.; Rotchell, J. M. Microplastics in human blood: Polymer types, concentrations and characterisation using μFTIR. Environ. Int. 2024, 188, 108751,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108751
    13. 13
      Horvatits, T.; Tamminga, M.; Liu, B.; Sebode, M.; Carambia, A.; Fischer, L.; Püschel, K.; Huber, S.; Fischer, E. K. Microplastics detected in cirrhotic liver tissue. eBiomedicine 2022, 82, 104147,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104147
    14. 14
      Leslie, H. A.; van Velzen, M. J. M.; Brandsma, S. H.; Vethaak, A. D.; Garcia-Vallejo, J. J.; Lamoree, M. H. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107199,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199
    15. 15
      Ke, D.; Zheng, J.; Liu, X.; Xu, X.; Zhao, L.; Gu, Y.; Yang, R.; Liu, S.; Yang, S.; Du, J.; Chen, B.; He, G.; Dong, R. Occurrence of microplastics and disturbance of gut microbiota: A pilot study of preschool children in Xiamen, China. eBiomedicine 2023, 97, 104828,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104828
    16. 16
      Zhao, Q.; Zhu, L.; Weng, J.; Jin, Z.; Cao, Y.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, Z. Detection and characterization of microplastics in the human testis and semen. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 877, 162713,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162713
    17. 17
      Garcia, M. A.; Liu, R.; Nihart, A.; El Hayek, E.; Castillo, E.; Barrozo, E. R.; Suter, M. A.; Bleske, B.; Scott, J.; Forsythe, K.; Gonzalez-Estrella, J.; Aagaard, K. M.; Campen, M. J. Quantitation and identification of microplastics accumulation in human placental specimens using pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Toxicol. Sci. 2024, 199 (1), 8188,  DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfae021
    18. 18
      Liu, S.; Wang, C.; Yang, Y.; Du, Z.; Li, L.; Zhang, M.; Ni, S.; Yue, Z.; Yang, K.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Qin, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, M. Microplastics in three types of human arteries detected by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS). J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 469, 133855,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133855
    19. 19
      Marfella, R.; Prattichizzo, F.; Sardu, C.; Fulgenzi, G.; Graciotti, L.; Spadoni, T.; D’Onofrio, N.; Scisciola, L.; Grotta, R. L.; Frigé, C. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 390 (10), 900910,  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
    20. 20
      Wang, T.; Yi, Z.; Liu, X.; Cai, Y.; Huang, X.; Fang, J.; Shen, R.; Lu, W.; Xiao, Y.; Zhuang, W.; Guo, S. Multimodal detection and analysis of microplastics in human thrombi from multiple anatomically distinct sites. eBiomedicine 2024, 103, 105118,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105118
    21. 21
      Zhang, D.; Wu, C.; Liu, Y.; Li, W.; Li, S.; Peng, L.; Kang, L.; Ullah, S.; Gong, Z.; Li, Z.; Ding, D.; Jin, Z.; Huang, H. Microplastics are detected in human gallstones and have the ability to form large cholesterol-microplastic heteroaggregates. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 467, 133631,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133631
    22. 22
      Zhong, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ma, D.; Wen, K.; Cai, J.; Cai, Z.; Wang, C.; Chai, X.; Zhong, J.; Liang, B.; Huang, Y.; Xian, H.; Li, Z.; Yang, X.; Chen, D.; Zhang, G.; Huang, Z. Revealing new insights: Two-center evidence of microplastics in human vitreous humor and their implications for ocular health. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 921, 171109,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171109
    23. 23
      Hu, C. J.; Garcia, M. A.; Nihart, A.; Liu, R.; Yin, L.; Adolphi, N.; Gallego, D. F.; Kang, H.; Campen, M. J.; Yu, X. Microplastic presence in dog and human testis and its potential association with sperm count and weights of testis and epididymis. Toxicol. Sci. 2024, 200 (2), 235240,  DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfae060
    24. 24
      Chen, Y.; Cheng, C.; Xu, W.; Cui, Y.; Tian, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Qian, R.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Chen, H.; Luo, T. Occurrence, toxicity and removal of polystyrene microplastics and nanoplastics in human sperm. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024, 22 (5), 21592165,  DOI: 10.1007/s10311-024-01752-0
    25. 25
      Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Shi, L.; Jia, Y.; Sheng, H. Detection and quantification of microplastics in various types of human tumor tissues. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 283, 116818,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116818
    26. 26
      Guo, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Li, D.; Wang, H.; Xu, H.; Liu, Y.; Kang, R.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, L.; Wu, S.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, S. Discovery and analysis of microplastics in human bone marrow. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 477, 135266,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135266
    27. 27
      Song, X.; Chen, T.; Chen, Z.; Du, L.; Qiu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Tan, Z.; Mo, Y.; Feng, X. Micro(nano)plastics in human urine: A surprising contrast between Chongqing’s urban and rural regions. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 917, 170455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170455
    28. 28
      Yang, W.; Wu, L.; Li, G.; Shi, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Yu, H.; Wang, K.; Xin, L.; Tang, D.; Shen, Q.; Xu, C.; Geng, H.; Wu, H.; Duan, Z.; Cao, Y.; He, X. Atlas and source of the microplastics of male reproductive system in human and mice. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31 (17), 2504625058,  DOI: 10.1007/s11356-024-32832-x
    29. 29
      Brits, M.; van Velzen, M. J. M.; Sefiloglu, F. Ö.; Scibetta, L.; Groenewoud, Q.; Garcia-Vallejo, J. J.; Vethaak, A. D.; Brandsma, S. H.; Lamoree, M. H. Quantitation of micro and nanoplastics in human blood by pyrolysis-gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Microplast. Nanoplast. 2024, 4 (1), 12,  DOI: 10.1186/s43591-024-00090-w
    30. 30
      Witzig, C. S.; Földi, C.; Wörle, K.; Habermehl, P.; Pittroff, M.; Müller, Y. K.; Lauschke, T.; Fiener, P.; Dierkes, G.; Freier, K. P.; Zumbülte, N. When Good Intentions Go Bad─False Positive Microplastic Detection Caused by Disposable Gloves. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (19), 1216412172,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03742
    31. 31
      Rauert, C.; Pan, Y.; Okoffo, E. D.; O’Brien, J. W.; Thomas, K. V. Extraction and Pyrolysis-GC-MS analysis of polyethylene in samples with medium to high lipid content. J. Environ. Exposure Assess. 2022, 1 (2), 13,  DOI: 10.20517/jeea.2022.04
    32. 32
      Li, D.; Sheerin, E. D.; Shi, Y.; Xiao, L.; Yang, L.; Boland, J. J.; Wang, J. J. Alcohol Pretreatment to Eliminate the Interference of Micro Additive Particles in the Identification of Microplastics Using Raman Spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (17), 1215812168,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c01551
    33. 33
      Gerhard, M. N.; Schymanski, D.; Ebner, I.; Esselen, M.; Stahl, T.; Humpf, H.-U. Can the presence of additives result in false positive errors for microplastics in infant feeding bottles?. Food Addit. Contam.,: Part A 2022, 39 (1), 185197,  DOI: 10.1080/19440049.2021.1989498
    34. 34
      Crichton, E. M.; Noël, M.; Gies, E. A.; Ross, P. S. A novel, density-independent and FTIR-compatible approach for the rapid extraction of microplastics from aquatic sediments. Anal. Methods 2017, 9 (9), 14191428,  DOI: 10.1039/C6AY02733D
    35. 35
      Rauert, C.; Wang, X.; Charlton, N.; Lin, C.-Y.; Tang, C.; Zammit, I.; Jayarathne, A.; Symeonides, C.; White, E.; Christensen, M.; Ponomariova, V.; Mueller, J. F.; Thomas, K. V.; Dunlop, S. Blueprint for the design, construction, and validation of a plastic and phthalate-minimised laboratory. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 468, 133803,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133803
    36. 36
      Kozliak, E.; Sulkes, M.; Smoliakova, I. P.; Alhroub, I.; Nespor, B.; Yao, B.; Kubátová, A. Pathways toward PAH Formation during Fatty Acid and Triglyceride Pyrolysis. J. Phys. Chem. A 2020, 124 (37), 75597574,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.0c05515
    37. 37
      Thomas, K. V. Understanding the plastics cycle to minimize exposure. Nature Sustainability 2022, 5 (4), 282284,  DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00814-3
    38. 38
      Lauschke, T.; Dierkes, G.; Ternes, T. A. Challenges in the quantification of poly(ethylene terephthalate) microplastics via thermoanalytical methods posed by inorganic matrix components. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2023, 174, 106108,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2023.106108
    39. 39
      Lauschke, T.; Dierkes, G.; Schweyen, P.; Ternes, T. A. Evaluation of poly(styrene-d5) and poly(4-fluorostyrene) as internal standards for microplastics quantification by thermoanalytical methods. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 159, 105310,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105310
    40. 40
      Walczak, A. P.; Hendriksen, P. J. M.; Woutersen, R. A.; van der Zande, M.; Undas, A. K.; Helsdingen, R.; van den Berg, H. H. J.; Rietjens, I. M. C. M.; Bouwmeester, H. Bioavailability and biodistribution of differently charged polystyrene nanoparticles upon oral exposure in rats. J. Nanopart. Res. 2015, 17 (5), 231,  DOI: 10.1007/s11051-015-3029-y
    41. 41
      Shenoy, D.; Little, S.; Langer, R.; Amiji, M. Poly(Ethylene Oxide)-Modified Poly(β-Amino Ester) Nanoparticles as a pH-Sensitive System for Tumor-Targeted Delivery of Hydrophobic Drugs: Part 2 Vivo Distribution and Tumor Localization Studies. Pharm. Res. 2005, 22 (12), 21072114,  DOI: 10.1007/s11095-005-8343-0
    42. 42
      Kim, K. S.; Na, K.; Bae, Y. H. Nanoparticle oral absorption and its clinical translational potential. J. Controlled Release 2023, 360, 149162,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.06.024
    43. 43
      Farr, N. T. H.; Gregory, D. A.; Workman, V. L.; Rauert, C.; Roman, S.; Knight, A. J.; Bullock, A. J.; Tartakovskii, A. I.; Thomas, K. V.; Chapple, C. R.; Deprest, J.; MacNeil, S.; Rodenburg, C. Evidence of time dependent degradation of polypropylene surgical mesh explanted from the abdomen and vagina of sheep. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2024, 160, 106722,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106722
    44. 44
      Tarafdar, A.; Xie, J.; Gowen, A.; O’Higgins, A. C.; Xu, J.-L. Advanced optical photothermal infrared spectroscopy for comprehensive characterization of microplastics from intravenous fluid delivery systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 929, 172648,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172648
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599.

    • Descriptions of three tested extraction methodologies, details of nanoparticle standards and Py-GC-MS conditions, details on blanks and calculated detection methods, tables of calculated PE and PVC interferences, method recoveries from micro- and nanosized standards, table of MNP concentrations previously reported using Py-GC-MS, and poymer concentrations in blood samples and calculated PE interferences (PDF)

    • Plastic concentrations and PE interfaces (XLSX)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.