microplastics

We have been obsessed with microplastics for years. There are more and more scientists who believe that there is something wrong

by

Up to 18 studies that affirmed the presence of microplastics in human organs they have just been challenged due to possible technical and control failures. And, although we have been obsessed with them for years, the truth is that it should not surprise us: we have known it almost from the beginning. Studies suggesting its presence in arterial tissue or in the testicles they have been receiving public criticism from the beginning. And the famous study that talked about the presence of microplastics in the brain was pure scientific fraud. None of this invalidates environmental concern, nor does it deny human exposure to these types of particles. It simply indicates that we have gone too far. And what is there many people taking advantage of it. What exactly happened? So far this decade, environmental contamination by microplastics has become a central issue that has not only generated a research boom, but has also promoted rules and regulations. And it is logical, the global use of plastics (which reached 460 megatons in 2019) is on its way to tripling by 2060 and that perspective makes its impact an issue to take into account. However, media interest is obscuring the fact that a good number of studies are being launched to make statements without a methodological solidity behind them to sustain them. What really is the problem? In reality there are many problems. To begin with, the very term ‘microplastics’ is deliberately broad and confusing: we are talking about a myriad of things (fragments, fibers, films or particles) of numerous sizes and compositions. Its use is useful to be able to speak globally about the problem, yes; worse, it is generating in the population the idea of ​​”colored confetti” sneaking through the organs of animals and plants. Then came everything else. This is possible because this “everything else” has an explanation that is as simple as it is worrying. As Sergio Ferrer emphasized“the detection of plastics at these size scales is an extremely complex analytical process and the urgency to publish information about their presence in remote places (even in the human body) can favor the appearance of these high-profile publications.” In other words, the problem is another. As Hannah Arendt said, we often do not know how to distinguish between a refuge and a trap. The (almost hysterical) concern about microplastics, the tendency to legislate in a hurry in response to the social mood and the lack of rigor of the media (problem in which it is inevitable that we include ourselves) have turned this topic into a trap. Because, as I say, everything seems to indicate that (even though we don’t have a teaspoon of them in our brains) microplastics are a problem. All that remains is for us to accept the type of problem they really are, not to overreact and to take action on the matter. Image | Naja Bertolt Jensen In Xataka | When Tap Water Tastes Like Hell: The Invisible Chemistry of Drinking Water That Explains Why It Tastes How It Tastes (And Why It’s One of the World’s Greatest Inventions)

clean our ejaculations of microplastics

by

In the universe of biohacking extreme, Brian Johnson operates in a league of its own. The technological millionaire, known for his ‘Blueprint Project’ which aims achieve eternal youth With funding of two million euros, it has announced a drastic reduction of microplastics in its body, measured in the most intimate place possible. His testicles. The problem of microplastics. One of the great enemies of today’s society is undoubtedly in the microplastics and the endocrine disruptors that surround us. Bottles, containers, food…they can be a source of this type of elements that can threaten our integrity. And it is something that is currently under investigation, because at the moment it is not known exactly what having a high concentration of microplastics in our bloodstream. Science has pointed out in the past that in the testicles it was possible to find high levels of microplasticsbut until now we didn’t really know what implications it had. And this is where Bryan Johnson wanted to investigate it within his project to obtain the mechanism to turn back the ‘biological clock’ and calm his doubts about how it affected male fertility. But this is something very worrying throughout Europe in general, since we live in a time where in Europe The experiment. How are demonstrations done in science? With clinical trials if done with humans. In this case, Johnson was used as a proper subject in what is called ‘experiment n=1‘. To do this, he analyzed the concentration of microplastics in semen and blood in different periods of time, as mentioned. in a post by X. In this case, the measurement of microplastics in his semen pointed to the following: In November 2024 it was 165 particles per milliliter. In July 2025 it was 20 particles per milliliter. Here you can see a significant reduction in the concentration of microplastics in the semen, but the same thing also happened in the blood with a reduction from 70 to 10 particles per milliliter in a matter of seven months. He had literally managed to ‘wash’ his semen to remove the microplastics from his semen with the aim of improving his fertility. Beyond the shock initial measure of plastic in semen, Johnson assures that his results offer “new hope” for the detoxification of these contaminants. But what is true in all this? Are we really that contaminated? And does his “cure” make any sense? Based on science. And it is something that is being investigated right now. Specifically, a meta-analysis of 36 studies published in Environmental Pollutionit was confirmed that microplastics are a clear enemy of male fertility. induce oxidative stress in the reproductive system, which triggers testicular inflammation, cell death and therefore a reduction in testosterone levels that can influence the concentration of sperm per milliliter of semen. But it doesn’t stay here, it a second study published in Science of The Total Environment analyzed the 23 samples of human testicles (from autopsies) and 47 from dogs. They found microplastics in 100% of the human samples and in all of the dog samples. All of this made Johnson clear about one thing: stay away from all the plastic that would end up in your food. The detox. But… How do you clean semen? This is the big question that we may all have in our minds (and that we would want to ask if he is right). And although Jhonson himself admits that it is a hypothesis, his team believes that the therapy ‘most responsible’ for this drastic reduction is the sauna. His protocol is intense: 20 minutes daily at 93°C (200°F), with a peculiarity: “with ice on the testicles” (a common practice to protect spermatogenesis from extreme heat). But this is something that is complemented with other strategies such as: It’s true? The hypothesis suggests that the sauna is the detoxification system, but now it is time to look for evidence that can contrast it. Right now, in the literature you can find certain articles that try to support this. In order to see something of a relationship we can go to a 2012 study published in Environ Public Health which confirmed that sauna-induced sweat is effective in eliminating heavy metals such as cadmium or lead and also plasticizers such as bisphenol (BPA) and phthalates. However, there is a crucial difference: plasticizers are not microplastics. He BPA is a chemical molecule that detaches of plastic; Microplastics are physical particles. Currently, there is no direct scientific evidence that physical plastic particles can be excreted through sweat. What happened. So, taking all this into account, the obligatory question is this. Johnson’s “detox” is most likely a success of his second strategy: avoidance. By stopping ingesting and absorbing microplastics (thanks to filtered water and not using plastics in the kitchen), your body has had the opportunity to cleanse itself through natural means. The role of the sauna, although plausible for chemicals associated with plastic, it remains speculative for the particles that are the issue in this case. It is reversible. Beyond the sauna, the most important information that Johnson provides is hope. One of the great fears that one may have in this case is that the contamination was cumulative and irreversible, but based on this data, this is not the case. Although this must be taken with a lot of caution because statistical significance stands out by its absence, as does external validity. In order to reach a conclusion of this level, a complete study would have to be carried out, protocolized with groups of men formed randomly and respecting the principles of “Randomized Clinical Trials”. And this result may be the first step for science in the field of fertility to try to investigate much more in this regard. Images | FlyD In Xataka | vh

We have been talking about microplastics for years without being very clear about how they affect us. Science is close to solving it

by

Plastic no longer only wraps our food or makes up the clothes we wear, but it has silently colonized our body. And microplastics have been found almost everywhere in the body: placenta, blood, lungs, testiclesbreast milk, brain human… But when faced with the big question of What effect does it have on the body?we are already having answers. The measurements. Studies already suggest that we could hold up to five grams of this material in our own brain. The image is shocking: the equivalent of a plastic teaspoon lodged in the deepest part of our being. Microplastics are particles, in this case they are very tiny, that come off from packaging, synthetic clothing, tires, cosmetics and countless everyday objects such as lettuce. But some are so small that they are able to cross the barriers of our lungs and intestines, travel through the bloodstream and deposit in our internal organs. What happens once there is the great unknown that scientists strive to clear up. The studies. Dr. Christian Pacher-Deutsch, from the University of Graz (Austria), recently presented a study in which he exposed human intestinal bacteria to five types of common microplastics. The result was quite clear: bacterial populations were altered, producing chemical changes, in some cases reflecting patterns observed in patients with depression and colorectal cancer. Although the researcher himself was cautious in pointing out that “although it is early to make definitive statements, reducing exposure to microplastics is a sensible precaution.” But the effects don’t stop in the intestine. Dr. Jaime Ross, a neuroscientist at the University of Rhode Island, conducted a revealing experiment: gave a group of mice water contaminated with microplastics to drink. Soon, the mice began behaving strangely, anxiously venturing into open spaces, an atypical behavior that is associated with aging and neurological diseases. Analyzing their brains, Ross found plastic in all organs and a reduction in GFAP, a key protein for brain health. This same pattern of exhaustion is seen in humans with depression and dementia. Caution. In this case, microplastics have been detected in arterial plaques, and an analysis concluded that people whose plaques were loaded with plastic were almost five times more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke or die within three years. The practice. Faced with this avalanche of data, The Guardian wanted to move from theory to practice. The British journalist herself decided to undergo a test from the company Plastictox which, for £144, promises to reveal the amount of microplastics circulating in the blood. The test result indicated a concentration of forty microplastics per milliliters of blood. And although this figure placed her in the 25% of people with the least exposure, the laboratory gave her the total result: about 200,000 plastic particles in the bloodstream. However, other experts urge caution. Professor Stephanie Wright, a researcher at Imperial College London, calls this evidence “very premature.” He points out that although an analysis shows that there are 40 particles per ml, it is unknown if this is good or bad or if it will depend on the type of plastic it is or its origin. We live in real uncertainty. The advice. Although it is impossible to avoid exposure completely, there are a number of tips to avoid consuming this type of microplastics. For example, you can choose not to use plastic kitchen utensils or drink hot liquids from plastic cups. Even with the tap water either bottled we can have the same problem. Outside of food, the material composition of bedding or pajamas should also be reviewed, as they can release these types of particles, making cotton the best. Images | FlyD Chad Montano In Xataka | When Tap Water Tastes Like Hell: The Invisible Chemistry of Drinking Water That Explains Why It Tastes How It Tastes (And Why It’s One of the World’s Greatest Inventions)

Millions in advertising convinced us that bottled water was healthier. Until microplastics arrived

by

On many occasions we can associate bottled water as a higher quality option to hydrate ourselves above tap water. But the reality is that the latest scientific analyzes indicate that bottled water is a direct source of exposure to nano and microplastics (NMPs). This means that regular bottled water consumers may be ingesting up to 90,000 additional plastic particles per year compared to those who drink tap water. Something that breaks with the idea that we can reach everyone that bottled water is much healthier as they have always tried to sell us. The invisible enemy. The studypublished in the magazine Journal of Hazardous Materials defines microplastics as particles between 1 micrometer and 5 mm and nanoplastics as those smaller than 1 micrometer. Ultimately, very small particles that are released from plastic bottles throughout their life cycle. How they are released. According to the study, the particles are released not only by the natural degradation of plastic, but also by everyday physical and environmental stressors. For example, the simple act of opening and closing the cap or squeezing the bottle to drink generates friction that ends with the release of particles into the water. Another very common case is leaving the water bottle in the sun for a certain time. Many plastic particles are being released here because the degradation of the packaging is increasing. But in the opposite case, in freezing, we also have this same problem because it has also been shown that it is a factor that increases contamination by microplastics. Size matters. Once these particles are ingested, Its effect will depend on the size it has.. In general, the smaller it is, the more worrying it is for our body, since the more easily it will be able to cross biological barriers. If we talk about particles larger than 150 micrometers, the truth is that we can rest assured because they will directly pass through the digestive tract to the feces. But if they are smaller than 150 micrometers, they will be able to cross the intestinal cavity and enter the lymphatic and circulatory system, being able to reach the organs with particles smaller than 20 micrometers. But the real danger is in particles smaller than 100 nanometers that are considered nanoplastics. In this case, the particles are small enough to reach all organs, including the ability to cross such critical barriers as the blood-brain barrier and the placenta. The dangers. Continued exposure to nano- and microplastics is linked to a number of chronic health problems. This is not acute toxicity, but long-term cumulative damage. Among the main risks that have been identified are respiratory diseases, reproductive products, disruption of the immune system or increased oxidative stress. The challenge. One of the great challenges for researchers is the lack of standardized methods to analyze these plastics. Right now different tests can be found, but they vary in sensitivity and precision, which makes it difficult to reach a common criterion between the different studies in order to have a general image of the big problem before us. Right now, some techniques can detect very small particles, but not their composition, while others do the opposite, which is a very important limitation. But despite these, some studies already point to significant differences between the water brands we find on the market. For example, research cited in the report found that Nestle Pure Life and Bisleri had some of the highest average concentrations of microplastic particles. Regulation. This lack of standardization in studies has contributed to a large “legislative vacuum” in our society. And while there has been legislation on plastic bags, straws or single-use cutlery, water bottles have largely been left out of the regulatory focus. In this way, the author of the study points out that the consumption of water in plastic bottles should be done in emergency situations, but not as a daily practice due to the high consumption of microplastics that we are going to end up ingesting and that would generate a long-term problem. And we have already witnessed precisely how they have appeared microplastics in human testiclesthe breast milkthe blood, archaeological remains or also in the foods we eatlike the vegetables we consume. That is why in the long run we will have to specifically see the impact that prolonged consumption will have through different means, and not just bottled water. Images | Jonathan Cooper In Xataka | From causing diarrhea to making biodegradable plastics: the E. coli bacteria has a new job in Japan

The true size of the microplastics that populate our life, exposed in this disturbing graphic

by

We have a gigantic problem with microplastics. These elements seem to permeate everything that surrounds us: From tap water, lettuce either Even in the testicles and in Archaeological elements with centuries behind them. The difficulty in fighting them is that we would have to Put our consumption habits up to deal with this almost invisible enemy. And this graph prepared by Visual Capitalist It allows us to put the size of microplastics in context when comparing them with more everyday elements. In short: small. Talking about microplastics, it really encompasses very diverse particles. The larger ones measure about 5,000 microns, which are five millimeters. They are small, but perfectly identifiable to the naked eye. At the extreme are those who measure a micra, and there the identification is complicated because we are talking about 0.001 millimeters. In the graph (which takes data From agencies such as the EPA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency) we can see an expanded comparison that allows us to put a microplastic of a microphone with a particle of dust, the diameter of a human hair (about 80 microns) or a grain of sand (90 microns). If a hair seems ‘fine’ and is 80 times thicker than one of the smallest microplastics, imagine the size of that particle. The nanoplastic. There is another category: nanoplastic. Here we are talking about those particles that measure less than one micra and that enter a totally different scale. Nanopathic They are the result of the breakage of larger plastics such as food containers, Plastic utensils or any element produced with this material that we use in our day to day. As they break, they become more and smaller pieces that enter the Nanoscale when they measure less than one micra. There they cannot be purchased with more family elements such as a grain of salt, but directly with particles such as the Coronaviruswhich measures between 0.1 and 0.2 microns. Problem. Its dimensions make microplastics be omnipresentbeing the most tiny particles those that are even together with other suspended particles, Like the dust we aspire. The estimate is that an adult can ingest between 39,000 and 52,000 microplastic particles per year only for the diet, but other sources such as that air exposure should be taken into account. And there are more and more studies that alert other sources of microplastics. For example, packages we all use like tuppers. Also those who detach when cutting food into a plastic table are “easy” to identify and even correct with a change in our habits, but there are other microplastics that already They are finding in bottled water. Spain is one of the European countries that More bottled water consumesso throwing accounts seems bleak. Health. For now, more than damage there are worrying indications. Blood microplastics, lungs, placenta, heart, brain and in the aforementioned testicles have been found. There are already associations between these particles and conditions such as conical inflammation, oxidative stress or immunological alterations. It is investigated whether the presence of microplastics in the capillary vessels can increase the risk of heart attack or cardiovascular problems, but something that adds more spicy to the equation is that these nanoplastic could penetrate The biological barriers. As? Crossing cell membranes as a virus would do. And ecosystems. And, obviously, they are particles that are present in virtually any corner. There are agricultural soils, lakes and The oceans. Apart from the conditions similar to the human that could have other organisms, we are what we eat and Animals feed on elements containing microplasticsso those particles then end within us. As we say, there is increasingly a greater concern about the state of microplastics around us, but the big problem is that eliminating them seems especially complicated when, we look where we look, there are microplastics. The positive note? How to change large -scale habits seems complex, there are already those who are investigating Filters to reduce the amount of microplastics That come to us. In addition to much more invasive practices, as filtered with human blood… if you have a money. In Xataka | Japan has found a formula to overcome one of the biggest environmental problems: plastic that falls apart

A study has investigated how many microplastics we inhale daily when breathing. And has an unpleasant surprise

by

From a time to this part, microplastics seem to have sneaked into all areas of our life: From the lettuce that we eat In the salad, even In men’s testicles. This polymer is not only found in the earth where vegetables are grown, in the oceans where the fish are or in The springs where the water we drink comes out. And the idea that all these particles are in the environment that we breathe more and more consolidates. Already in the past ‘Nature’ magazine He published the first evidences that showed that microplastics are found in the air that surrounds us. But now A recent French study Published in the magazine ‘Plos One’ gives us more details about the concentration of these polymers that we are constantly breathing, and how the car is one of the biggest foci we face. The good news is that this gives rise to solutions to reduce your presence. The conclusion of this new study are very direct, but also alarming: we are inhaling a drastically greater microplastics than we believed. The previous estimates have fallen short, very short. The new figure suggests that an average adult inhales about 68,000 microplastic particles every day. One hundred times more than what was calculated so far for the range of more dangerous particles. An invisible enemy that attacks our lungs The problem of measurements that were done so far was a matter of view. The most common methods in this type of detection, such as infrared spectroscopy, are effective to detect particles up to 20 micrometers. However, they are completely ‘blind’ with the smallest particles, which are known as PM_10 (less than 10 micrometers), and that are the ones that can make the lungs the most damage when the different defense mechanisms that the body has. This new study, led by French researcher Nadiia Yakovenko, has used a much more precise technique called Raman spectroscopy, capable of ‘see’ particles of up to a micrometer, eliminating the limitation that the conventional spectrometer had. In this way, we have a new molecular zoom that has revealed that the situation of our environment is much more alarming than was thought. Taking advantage of this new technique, the investigation was conducted in the path of knowing the place where there is a greater concentration of microplastics. In the case of an apartment, the average measure measured was 528 particles per cubic meter. But the problem was when measuring in the car, where the figure shot up to 2,238 particles per cubic meter. Box chart showing the concentration analyzed with microplastics in cars and apartments. Seven apartments and five cars were analyzed. In this way, the simple fact of this in the car makes us exposed to a concentration of microplastics four times higher than that we expose ourselves in our own home. And this is not due to anything other than the amount of synthetic material that we have in a car, such as plastic splashing, carpets or upholstery. All this, added to a very small space and that can be without ventilating for many hours, makes it the ideal breeding ground for the cabin to be filled with microplastics that we breathe at the time of starting to drive. Because the reality is that we do not ventilate the cabin before driving, but that we enter the car, we start and go. The new and alarming daily account: 68,000 particles Here comes the data that changes everything. When combining its findings with those of the history of the bibliography, the team has recalculated the exposure we face on average. In total there are 68,000 particles small size (less than 10 micrometers) to which an adult is faced daily. These are the most worrying particles, since being so small They can reach the alveoli and cross the alveolocapilar barrier formed by pneumocytes and blood capillaries. This means that they can end in our blood. In a lower exposure range are the particles with a larger size ranging from 10 to 300 micrometers. These being larger do not reach the alveolocapillary barrier, but are ‘trapped’ in the mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract, although they are not harmless, since they crawl to the throat and end up in our stomach. It has important health consequences. This constant exposure to plastic fragments It is not harmless. The authors of the study remember that the inhalation of these particles can be associated with damage to lung tissue, inflammation, increased oxidative stress and also to the appearance of chronic diseases such as COPD. But microplastics do not ‘travel’ lonely. They can transport with them different heavy or polluting metals that adhere to their surface and that once within the body can be released and alter endocrine functions such as endocrine disruptors or increase the risk of other diseases. In this way, this new study demonstrates that there is still much to investigate microplastics and redipline as a complex a public health problem that occurs silently and ‘invisible’. Images | Flyd Brock Wegner In Xataka | More than 50,000 microplastic particles per year: that is what an average citizen ingests according to the first estimate we have

Extra virgin olive oil is one of the purest products in the world. And it is also full of microplastics

by

As if it were the fashion concertFrance’s olive oil consumers have been waiting for their time for too long: that exact point in which the Bodegas Galas are left without the accumulated reserves of 2024 and prices begin to go down driven by the arrival of the Spanish product. The good news is that this moment has arrived. The bad is that oil bottles come with surprises. Surprises? These days, preparing the “great moment”, the great French magazine of consumption ’60 million of consommateurs’, decided to analyze the main brands They were in the French market. They selected 22 bottles of extra virgin olive oil (that is, extracted only with mechanical pressure or centrifugation). Despite the numerous frauds that have been found, the results of the analyzes seem to square with the requirements of composition of this type of products (99% of lipids of a certain profile, predominance of monoinsaturated oleic acids, etc …). The surprise has been the fact of finding high levels of microplastics. Also in oil? Indeed: “Bios or conventional all (…) contain some type of phthalates”, chemical substances that make the most flexible and lasting plastic. Although they are allowed products, there are an increasing body of evidence which suggests that they have an important role as endocrine disruptors. A few days ago We commented on his role in the regulation of blood pressure. And what do we do? The problem of microplastics is huge, really. Only now we begin to be aware of its dimension and depth. However, cases such as this show that we are not being diligent in the control of these: the presence of phthalates is directly due to the containers we use. A global problem. Because yes, these are French data, but it would be naive not to assume that in Spain (where these oil are consumed up to six times more and the presentations are very far from being ‘premium’) the situation is better. It is not, it cannot be. And it is precisely what should lead us to a reflection: we talk about one of the most important products in the country, the axis of a strategic industry that articulates the entire country. It is time to assume that conserving that heritage requires a much deeper look, a plan that goes beyond day to day. And that, I’m afraid, is a pending task. Image | Fulvio Ciccolo | Oregon State University In Xataka | Olive oil sales have fired 50%. The market is so broken that it threatens to be bad news

We already know where the microplastics get the lettuce that you eat in the salad: from the air

by

At this point of 2025, the idea that everything (Absolutely everything) It is full of microplastics. Plants are no exception; nor, of course, the vegetables we consume. The matter is that, for a long time, we have assumed that these compounds entered them through roots, soil and water. It is not exactly like that. No? And where do they come from? Well, a few days ago a Chinese research group published in the magazine ‘Nature’ The first solid evidence that supports the idea that one of the main routes for these microplastics is air. And it is in a lot of environments: Tianjin scientists collected all kinds of leaves, herbs and vegetables of urban and rural environments. In all, they found plastic particles in the foliar fabric. In the most polluted sites, concentrations of up to 10,000 nanograms per gram of dry weight. Above all, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polystyrene (PS). And where do they enter? That is something that is yet to be confirmed, but everything seems to sign up for stomata (small openings formed by cells) and cutt it (a membrane covered by insoluble waxes, “Ideal for absorbing microplastics“). Once inside, the compounds move inside the plants using the vascular beam, are distributed by different tissues and accumulate in hair structures called ‘trichomes’, a kind of fitological ‘sinks’. A big problem … The Chinese study demonstrates that accumulated absorption and accumulation of atmospheric microplastics It is generalized. But there are keys that help us better understand the circulation of these compounds: for example, that the outdoor plants had between 10 and 100 times more pet than those grown in greenhouse. And that the efficiency of the absorption of the leaves is extremely low (around 0.05%); That is why this route has been discarded repeatedly. However, given the little evidence we have about how microplastics enter the soil and water, this route begins to take shape. And, we like it or not, right now it is very difficult to control. And, of course, even if we don’t know what they do … In our body, yes that data like these raised many doubts about what happens if we discover that (as we intuit) is a serious problem. Because, in short, Our control capacity It is extremely limited. Image | Killari Hotaru | Kasturi Laxmi Mohit In Xataka | Our problem with microplastics is so huge that they already appear even in human testicles

We begin to discover the effect of microplastics on our body thanks to the most unsuspected thing: tap water

by

The heat comes and, with it, the thirst comes. On average, according to some public estimates, household consumption grows up to 44%. But those data are incomplete because, a good part of the water we drink, comes in bottle. In Spain they are sold 5,331 million liters of bottled water every year. And it is a market in full growth. Sales grow annually at a rate of 2.5%. What we usually forget is that this type of product has consequences: the pressure pressure rises. As? What does what? One might think that drinking water rises the normal artery pressure. After all, blood pressure is the force exerted by blood against the walls of the arteries. If there is more liquid in the system or more salt, there should be more pressure … But not. Although obviously in extreme cases and, of course, specific conditions and compositions They alter the pressure Within a fork, the system has dozens of mechanisms to ensure that the blood pressure of a normal human being is what has to be. And then? That is what some scientists from the Danube University asked when, in the middle of a very small clinical trial They discovered that the same did not happen with bottled water. The Austrian team discovered that by keeping eight healthy people (of both genres) to a “water regime” of only tap water, His basal diastolic blood pressure dropped. It happened in men and in mujres, but in the latter the effect was much more striking. Because? Right now we only have hypotheses, but the most solid are phthalates (chemical substances that make the most flexible and durable plastic). And, honestly, it is something quite interesting: because, although all the water we consume right now has complex microplastics and substances, the truth is that they do not have the same things. And that is exceptionally good news. Not because with the available information is (or not) advisable to take (or stop drinking) bottled water. But because it is these little things that allow us to improve our understanding of What microplastics do in our bodies. Image | Noppadon Manadee | Engin Akyurt In Xataka | When the tap water knows in rays: the invisible chemistry of drinking water that explains why he knows how he knows (and why he is one of the best inventions in the world)

Some researchers analyzed 280 samples of bottled water. Only one of the brands was microplastics free

by

Better flavor and smell and health reasons. Those are the two main reasons why people drink bottled water, according to A study of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Spain is, in fact, The third European country that consumes more bottled water (up to 107 liters per inhabitant). That clashes with one thing: that bottled water is not only Much more expensive than tap waterbut now we know that it also has micro and nanoplastic in amounts much greater than those estimated. The original study. Some researchers from Columbia University They analyzed Three popular bottled water marks in the United States (whose names names have not transcended) in search of micro and nanoplastic. To do this, they used a new technique called Raman stimulated dispersion microscopy Based on probe samples with two tuned simultaneous lasers to resonate specific molecules. Analyzing seven common plastics, the researchers developed an algorithm to interpret the results. According to Wei Min, co-inventor of the technique and co-author of the study that concerns us, “one thing is to detect and another to know what you are detecting.” The findings. On average, this study discovered that a liter of bottled water contains 240,000 detectable plastic fragments, between ten and 100 times more than previous estimates. Specifically, the researchers claim that they found between 110,000 and 370,000 plastic fragments in each liter, of which 90% were nanoplastic. In that sense, it is important to remember the difference between micro and nanoplastic: Microplastics: those whose size varies between 100 nanometers and five millimeters. Nanoplastic: those whose size is equal to or less than 100 nanometers. The most frequent plastics. To anyone’s surprise, one of the most common plastics was the Terephthalate polypropylene, better known as PET. It is the material of which many bottles are made. “It is probably introduced into the water when pieces are detached when the bottle is squeezed or exposed to heat,” says the researchers, who cite another study that suggests that they can also detach themselves when the cap repeatedly opens and closes. Usual. And although the presence of PET is common, this plastic is overcome by the polyamide, a type of nylon that “probably comes from the plastic filters used to supposedly purify the water before bottling it,” says Beizhan Yan, a researcher of the study. Other common plastics found by the researchers were polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and methyl polymetacrylate. And the rest? The technique used contemplates the seven most common plastics, but there are many other plastics. According to exposes Columbia University, “the seven types of plastic that researchers sought only represented about 10% of all the nanoparticles found in the samples; They have no idea what the rest are. If all are nanoplastic, they could be dozens of millions per liter. ” And what about those sold in Spain? That’s what he wanted to find out A study by CSIC and the Global Health Institute of Barcelona. They have developed a technique To quantify particles of between 0.7 and 20 micrometers, as well as the chemical additives released to the water and, for this study, analyzed 280 samples of 20 trademarks of commercial water. Only one of the brands did not contain microplastics, but all, the 280 samples, contained plastic additives. More specifically. The result is that, on average, a liter of water contains 359 nanograms of micro and nanoplastic, an amount comparable to that obtained in the tap water found in a previous study made by the same group. “The main difference we find is the type of polymer: in tap water we find more polyethylene and polypropylene while in bottled water we have mostly detected polypropylene terephthalate (PET), although also polyethylene,” said Cristina Villanueva, a researcher of the Isglobal and Author of the study. Quite microplastic. Considering that we drink two liters of water a day, the authors estimate “an intake of 262 micrograms of plastic particles per year.” With regard to additives, 28 plastic additives, mostly stabilizers and plasticizers have been detected. According to the researchers, “our toxicity study showed that three types of plasticizers had a higher risk to human health and, therefore, should be considered in risk analysis for consumers.” Images | Jonathan Chng in Unspash In Xataka | The US has decided to leave paper straws because everyone hates them. The problem is the alternative: plastic In Xataka | After the failure of the yellow container, the government has reached a conclusion: it is time for the returnable bottles *An earlier version of this article was published in February 2024

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.