Nanoplastics in water – surprisingly large amounts discovered and its not good(molecularspec.substack.com)
molecularspec.substack.com
Nanoplastics in water – surprisingly large amounts discovered and its not good
https://molecularspec.substack.com/p/nanoplastics-in-water-surprisingly
63 comments
While I'd agree that the article itself is mediocre, it does list all its sources, which seem perfectly valid. This is just a shallow dismissal and an appeal to authority. It irks me how some people think it's impossible to have enough expertise to contribute to multiple fields without some formal pedigree. That may be true for you, and may even be true for the author of the article, but it's not true as a generalization.
If you're going to shit all over someone's work, at least come up with legitimate reasons.
If you're going to shit all over someone's work, at least come up with legitimate reasons.
I would like to remind people that...
+ the primary source of microplastic particle generation in most households is the washing and drying of (plastic) clothes. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I have a feeling you breathe in more plastic fiber particles every time you remove lint from your dryer than you ingest through your mouth the whole year.
+ the more processed a food is, the higher its microplastic concentration [1] - apparently breaded shrimp is the worst.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/01/12/...
+ the primary source of microplastic particle generation in most households is the washing and drying of (plastic) clothes. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I have a feeling you breathe in more plastic fiber particles every time you remove lint from your dryer than you ingest through your mouth the whole year.
+ the more processed a food is, the higher its microplastic concentration [1] - apparently breaded shrimp is the worst.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/01/12/...
Even the simple act of putting on a synthetic shirt or sweatshirt has you at the epicenter of a large "puff" of microplastic dust.
Source: put on a hoodie while standing in a sunbeam.
Source: put on a hoodie while standing in a sunbeam.
I am very concerned by this really. After putting on that hoodie, take a look at your fingertips, and then your eyelashes. Microplastic fibers are everywhere and they are electrostatically attracted to you. At times it will feel like they are chasing you.
I am conflicted every time my wife brings home Patagonia she received for free at work
Going to be some sad irony if Patagonia is found out to be responsible for more plastic pollution than they ever thought imaginable.
I been wearing their plastic fleeces for years, I guess I’m fucked.
I been wearing their plastic fleeces for years, I guess I’m fucked.
Links to paywalled articles will not win you many friends around here
Genuine question: are the health risks really that bad? Plastic has been around for decades - surely also then these micro/nano plastics have been around for decades? I can't help but feel like if there were obvious and large health effects that we'd have noticed by now.
The big problem I guess is to establish correlation between precisely the plastics and whatever effects we should "see". We have plenty of cancer, fodd intolerances, fertility problems, mental and other health issue sthat seemingly never existed to this extend but what they're actually caused by is very hard to determine.
They did exist, and so did various cancers, albeit in lesser concentrations. People mostly died younger and nobody cared nor investigated.
And its not that big mystery - people got properly dumb and do literally everything to destroy themselves, and completely ignore advices coming from every direction about healthy living. Its not 'they evil corps', is us(them) dumb shits who can't act like balanced mature adults and contain those few vices you may gather as life goes along. You can't tackle all of it, but most folks are not even trying and just complain.
A random example - all guys everywhere would massively benefit from consistently wearing loose pants and underwear if they want to increase their fertility, especially in summer. It would skyrocket in stats. Now show me how popular this 'simple trick' is in mass media. There, maybe 30% of couple infertility cases tackled.
I don't want to downplay the topic, the idea that nano-plastic-infested meat is grilled/cooked/even just boiled and eaten by literally everybody... we know what great things high heat does to all plastics, and eating that yummy is probably a bullet train to ruined health decades down the line.
And its not that big mystery - people got properly dumb and do literally everything to destroy themselves, and completely ignore advices coming from every direction about healthy living. Its not 'they evil corps', is us(them) dumb shits who can't act like balanced mature adults and contain those few vices you may gather as life goes along. You can't tackle all of it, but most folks are not even trying and just complain.
A random example - all guys everywhere would massively benefit from consistently wearing loose pants and underwear if they want to increase their fertility, especially in summer. It would skyrocket in stats. Now show me how popular this 'simple trick' is in mass media. There, maybe 30% of couple infertility cases tackled.
I don't want to downplay the topic, the idea that nano-plastic-infested meat is grilled/cooked/even just boiled and eaten by literally everybody... we know what great things high heat does to all plastics, and eating that yummy is probably a bullet train to ruined health decades down the line.
> There, maybe 30% of couple infertility cases tackled.
Any source to back that outrageous number?
Any source to back that outrageous number?
Start here: https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2020/p...
The answer is yes, and it is absolutely important. If plastics disrupt our endocrine system, then that touches every facet of our bodies from development, sexual health, mental health, disease, and more. We can’t underestimate the effects plastic exposure has on our health.
The answer is yes, and it is absolutely important. If plastics disrupt our endocrine system, then that touches every facet of our bodies from development, sexual health, mental health, disease, and more. We can’t underestimate the effects plastic exposure has on our health.
That article is talking about plasticizers - small molecules added to plastics - not plastics as the source of risk.
This is the same reason "BPA-free" drink bottles are now a thing.
This is the same reason "BPA-free" drink bottles are now a thing.
The plasticizers are in the plastics, and the plastics are in our bodies. When the plasticizers leach out of the plastics, where do you think they can go?
And if, in the case of BPA-free plastic, they're not their in the first place, what, do you imagine they spontaneously come into existence?
The point is that "plastic is toxic" people sure seem to have a lot of trouble being honest about their own sources.
The point is that "plastic is toxic" people sure seem to have a lot of trouble being honest about their own sources.
The point is that BPA-free plastics are used specifically in drinking bottles and the like, while micro- and nanoscale particles are liberated into the environment by all plastics - the vast majority of which, certainly all the widely used engineering resins, are not formulated on the assumption that they need to be innocuous.
(I assume that, four years after an airborne virus ran pandemic, no one need explained the inverse relationship between particle size and length of mean free path in air. I hope no one needs that explaining, at least...)
It may be true there is less risk here than some suspect, or it may not. It is certainly foolish to assume either without bothering even to investigate the question.
(I assume that, four years after an airborne virus ran pandemic, no one need explained the inverse relationship between particle size and length of mean free path in air. I hope no one needs that explaining, at least...)
It may be true there is less risk here than some suspect, or it may not. It is certainly foolish to assume either without bothering even to investigate the question.
Keep in mind that a lot of the microplastics come from "macroplastics" (?) that have broken down.
There's few things that destroy them further.
That and many of the effects may not occur until a sufficient amount of microplastics have accumulated which we may only now be approaching.
The biggest issue is that they break down so poorly. Even if we stopped all plastic production today, the total amount of microplastics will only accumulate
There's few things that destroy them further.
That and many of the effects may not occur until a sufficient amount of microplastics have accumulated which we may only now be approaching.
The biggest issue is that they break down so poorly. Even if we stopped all plastic production today, the total amount of microplastics will only accumulate
If there were subtle and dose-dependent (or dose-rate dependent) and large health effects, though, we could reasonably expect only to have started noticing them around now.
edit: I don't mind that this is getting downvoted, but I would like to know why. What have I overlooked?
edit: I don't mind that this is getting downvoted, but I would like to know why. What have I overlooked?
Don't say things people don't want to hear.
A quick Google search will make it very clear that we do detect problems already, that it's cumulative and that it's getting worse over time
When you put the numbers in context, they are tiny.
For example, consider this comparison: when you take a pill of some drug, say an aspirin tablet, how much of the active ingredient (aspirin in this case) are in that pill? And how many bottles of water would you have to drink to put the same amount of nanoplastics (treating them as an "active ingredient") into your body?
Here's a back of the envelope calculation: suppose the concentration of nanoplastics is 10 nanograms per liter (about what is claimed in the article). A liter is about one (fairly large) bottle of water, so say 10 nanograms per bottle. A standard aspirin tablet has 325,000,000 nanograms (325 milligrams) of aspirin in it, or 32.5 million times as much active ingredient. So you would have to drink 32.5 million 1-liter bottles of water to expect the same general order of magnitude of "active ingredient" effects on your body as one aspirin tablet. If you drank one bottle of water per second, it would take you more than 10 years to drink that much water.
So I don't see any reason to forgo bottled water on these grounds. Certainly not in favor of tap water, which is much more subject to how careful your municipality's water purification process is (not to mention various possible sources of contamination in the water lines between the purification plant and the water tower and you).
For example, consider this comparison: when you take a pill of some drug, say an aspirin tablet, how much of the active ingredient (aspirin in this case) are in that pill? And how many bottles of water would you have to drink to put the same amount of nanoplastics (treating them as an "active ingredient") into your body?
Here's a back of the envelope calculation: suppose the concentration of nanoplastics is 10 nanograms per liter (about what is claimed in the article). A liter is about one (fairly large) bottle of water, so say 10 nanograms per bottle. A standard aspirin tablet has 325,000,000 nanograms (325 milligrams) of aspirin in it, or 32.5 million times as much active ingredient. So you would have to drink 32.5 million 1-liter bottles of water to expect the same general order of magnitude of "active ingredient" effects on your body as one aspirin tablet. If you drank one bottle of water per second, it would take you more than 10 years to drink that much water.
So I don't see any reason to forgo bottled water on these grounds. Certainly not in favor of tap water, which is much more subject to how careful your municipality's water purification process is (not to mention various possible sources of contamination in the water lines between the purification plant and the water tower and you).
The NIH has begun doing studies on the effects of nanoplastics, and it appears there is evidence for buildup in the liver [1]. If asprin had a long half-life in your body, you'd have a maximum lifetime dose. The reason it makes a good medicine is due to the fact that it has a positive effect and leaves your body in a timely manner.
A good example in this instance is Lead. Its bad to have lead in your water even in relatively small amounts, because the half-life of lead in your soft tissues is months, and in your bone is 20-30 years. If nanoplastics end up being similar, you could end up with liver damage, or other medical complications if your exposure is high.
[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9610555/
A good example in this instance is Lead. Its bad to have lead in your water even in relatively small amounts, because the half-life of lead in your soft tissues is months, and in your bone is 20-30 years. If nanoplastics end up being similar, you could end up with liver damage, or other medical complications if your exposure is high.
[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9610555/
There would be very little economic effect if everyone in the world got a reverse osmosis drinking-water only filter ($200 every 10-15 years, $20-30 a year). Though we don't have any kind of structure that could actually make that happen.
The article suggests the source of nanoplastics in tap water is from reverse osmosis PA filters.
Even if you assume permanent lifetime build up, it seems like we're talking about ~10 nanograms per liter (as per grandparent post) of these plastics versus 15,000 nanograms per liter of lead that meets EPA safety limits.
I find it hard to assume the plastic should be more than a thousand times more worrisome than lead on a per-gram basis (That said, we have persistently underestimated the negative effects of the element.)
I find it hard to assume the plastic should be more than a thousand times more worrisome than lead on a per-gram basis (That said, we have persistently underestimated the negative effects of the element.)
Appreciate the context, but the magnitude of effect of drugs also varies by some orders of magnitude - so it's possible/likely that the concentrations that build up over a lifetime in the body could be having some negative effect.
> it's possible/likely that the concentrations that build up over a lifetime in the body could be having some negative effect.
See my response to globular-toast downthread.
See my response to globular-toast downthread.
>So you would have to drink 32.5 million 1-liter bottles of water to expect the same general order of magnitude of "active ingredient" effects on your body as one aspirin tablet.
Only if aspirin is what the bottle is leeching into the water.
Only if aspirin is what the bottle is leeching into the water.
Yeah agreed, worth noting that it only takes ~100-1000 nanograms of Botulinum toxin to kill you. So it’s kind of irrelevant to compare different substances toxicity based on quantity alone. The toxic levels of aspirin are totally irrelevant for a different substance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
> it’s kind of irrelevant to compare different substances toxicity based on quantity alone
While this is true, it applies with even more force to the comparison with botulinum toxin than to the comparison with aspirin. Nanoplastics are less active than aspirin, not more (there's a reason why nobody takes nanoplastics to cure headaches), so if anything one would expect to require more nanoplastics than aspirin to have a significant effect--which means even much more more, so to speak, than botulinum toxin.
While this is true, it applies with even more force to the comparison with botulinum toxin than to the comparison with aspirin. Nanoplastics are less active than aspirin, not more (there's a reason why nobody takes nanoplastics to cure headaches), so if anything one would expect to require more nanoplastics than aspirin to have a significant effect--which means even much more more, so to speak, than botulinum toxin.
Yeah but things like aspirin don't accumulate in the body. If the plastics are accumulating then you might very well have an active dose after years of consumption. People born today are going to be consuming this stuff every day for their entire lives.
> If the plastics are accumulating then you might very well have an active dose after years of consumption.
After how many years of consumption? If we suppose that every single nanoplastic molecule that enters your body never leaves it (which is not going to be the case, but will give us an absolute lower bound to the time required), it would still take 32.5 million one-liter bottles to accumulate as much as one aspirin tablet. Say you drink six of those bottles a day, which is more than just about anyone actually drinks. That's about 2200 bottles a year. Meaning it would take you about 16,000 years to accumulate as much as one aspirin tablet.
After how many years of consumption? If we suppose that every single nanoplastic molecule that enters your body never leaves it (which is not going to be the case, but will give us an absolute lower bound to the time required), it would still take 32.5 million one-liter bottles to accumulate as much as one aspirin tablet. Say you drink six of those bottles a day, which is more than just about anyone actually drinks. That's about 2200 bottles a year. Meaning it would take you about 16,000 years to accumulate as much as one aspirin tablet.
It's only 16 years to accumulate as much as one LSD dose, though.
Pass water through plastic piping, through a filtration system that includes a lot of plastic including plastic membranes, output into a plastic bottle. Then express surprise that the water has a tiny amount of plastic in it.
I wouldn't think this is even the biggest source. Probably half the dust in your house is plastic. Textiles and thread are mostly plastic now and they kick off tiny plastic dust constantly.
If nano plastics are like protein sized wouldn’t the immune system treat it like any other foreign biological materials of similar size?
One thing worth considering is we in fact have a model for this: tattoos, and tattoo-ink. This is in fact the mechanism by which tattoos are removed by laser (the particles are exploded into ones small enough for the immune system to carry off quickly - as opposed to the gradual fading with time which happens).
One tattoo is a larger exposure of particulate contaminants to the skin then anyone will ingest in a lifetime from the environmental contamination.
One tattoo is a larger exposure of particulate contaminants to the skin then anyone will ingest in a lifetime from the environmental contamination.
Are there any consumer devices that are capable of filtering out any amount of micro or nano plastics? I already avoid plastic bottles as much as I reasonably can, and I'd like to make sure my tap water is as not terrible as possible.
The problem isn't just the water supply. Its in your food, the soil, your clothes, your furniture, the air. LITERALLY everywhere. Theres a study that was done where a group avoided the use of plastic containers to consume food+water vs a group that only used plastic containers and it showed that it made no significant difference in the amount of microplastics they were consuming.
Lots of activated charcoal does help to an extent, which is a standard for filters. The more, the better, which inevitably slows the water to a trickle. I use a kichu water filter(1) in an old Brita, but I have had my eye on an a glass dafi pitcher which should hold it aa well. I pack it full, and let it sit for a day if possible - then dump it in another glass pitcher with a little charcoal stick inside that.
https://kishucharcoal.com/shop/brita-reuseable-filter-501/
As the sibling says, reverse osmosis is the best.
https://kishucharcoal.com/shop/brita-reuseable-filter-501/
As the sibling says, reverse osmosis is the best.
Doesn’t the post link to an article that suggests reverse osmosis membranes may be responsible for some of these nanoplastics? Am I misreading this?
The articles state higher levels in bottled water treated with RO but there are many stages of treatment and delivery involved in industrial scale bottled water production. Unclear if RO itself is the underlying cause.
RO membranes are tight enough and should effectively remove all microplastics from the output water. On a consumer RO system the water will still pass through a few final treatment stages and a few feet of plastic tubing before getting to your glass.
Very possible some additional plastic is being introduced in the post membrane stages and delivery but my assumption is that a point of use RO system is going to reasonably effective.
There is some chance the manufacturers are omitting the fact that all membranes are bleeding microplastics during use. At the moment I don't think we have enough evidence to say they are and most testing has shown them to be effective as a removal method.
RO membranes are tight enough and should effectively remove all microplastics from the output water. On a consumer RO system the water will still pass through a few final treatment stages and a few feet of plastic tubing before getting to your glass.
Very possible some additional plastic is being introduced in the post membrane stages and delivery but my assumption is that a point of use RO system is going to reasonably effective.
There is some chance the manufacturers are omitting the fact that all membranes are bleeding microplastics during use. At the moment I don't think we have enough evidence to say they are and most testing has shown them to be effective as a removal method.
no, you're not misreading.
It seems reverse osmosis is a _cause_ of nanoplastics.
https://apnews.com/article/plastic-nano-bottled-drinking-wat...
https://apnews.com/article/plastic-nano-bottled-drinking-wat...
Water filters can be sources of all kinds of germs. Depending on your local water quality, it might make sense to not use them at all.
ZeroWater makes a carafe that reduces total dissolved solids to 0 ppm, including PFAs and microplastics, or so they claim. I have tested it with two different monitors, and it is indeed 0 ppm, which is good enough to be considered distilled water by the FDA. The filter does not sustain that level of efficiency for very long if there are lots of solids to clog it (i.e. ymmv depending on your water source. Some people prefilter, but who has space and time for that?). I’m not sure it’s capable of filtering to the nanometer scale, but then again I’m not sure anything can, which is why this is so frightening for life forms.
Other devices you can install with some rudimentary plumbing knowledge are BWT or Pentaire reverse osmosis filters. They do a good enough job at filtering, though they waste a lot of water in the process. I use these at work and I the Pentaire allows you to control ppm, which is suitable for coffee aficionados. You can always remineralize your water once you get the junk out.
Other devices you can install with some rudimentary plumbing knowledge are BWT or Pentaire reverse osmosis filters. They do a good enough job at filtering, though they waste a lot of water in the process. I use these at work and I the Pentaire allows you to control ppm, which is suitable for coffee aficionados. You can always remineralize your water once you get the junk out.
> ZeroWater makes a carafe that reduces total dissolved solids to 0 ppm, including PFAs and microplastics, or so they claim.
ZeroWater uses an ion exchange filter - It's my understanding that many (most?) micro plastics are not dissolved and/or are not charged meaning it won't effectively filter most microplastics.
Similarly they aren't designed to filter bacteria.
> The current system is meant to be used with municipally treated, potable water as the current filter will not remove microbiological contaminants.
https://zerowater.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions
ZeroWater uses an ion exchange filter - It's my understanding that many (most?) micro plastics are not dissolved and/or are not charged meaning it won't effectively filter most microplastics.
Similarly they aren't designed to filter bacteria.
> The current system is meant to be used with municipally treated, potable water as the current filter will not remove microbiological contaminants.
https://zerowater.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions
They do manage to filter inorganic solids, but I’m not sure about microplastics. I assumed they did, but they’re hesitant to say on their site. Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that if they can eliminate PFAs from water, microplastics are also removable.
The vast majority of your plastic exposure is from inhalation due to the degradation of rubber tires on roadways.
It becomes more and more obvious that eventually all plastic needs to be removed, perhaps by a genetically modified bacteria that can digest it.
That's only 1 reason why you distill all your drinking water.
I've heard this can cause other problems, do you add minerals back in?
What trace minerals would a person get in tap water that they wouldn't get through food in their diet?
Distilled water absorbs the minerals back when you drink it so it's removing the ones you got from your diet.
Why does that matter? Water contributes like 1% of your mineral intake. Removing it just doesn't matter.
It's a thing people say, truth or not, people worry about it
This would be highly dependent in their specific diet. For lots of folks it likely wouldn't cause a problem, for some it would.
Their startup, which has 2 employees according to LinkedIn, is billed as such:
"Volatile AI researches and innovates in the field of chemical analysis and molecule detection."
A finance guy with absolutely no credentials is writing blog posts telling us how dangerous these nanoplastics are while pitching us his startup that can "detect molecules with AI."
I hate to see this absolute junk on HackerNews.