We already knew tiny pieces of plastic
find their way into seawater where they can be eaten by marine animals
and so end up in human food. But now, perhaps more worryingly, new
research suggests plastic particles or fibres are also commonly found in
drinking water.
How concerned by this should we be? The
study was carried out by university academics but was commissioned and
published by a media company, rather than being reviewed by other
researchers in a scientific journal. That means we need more research
before we can be confident plastic microparticles are really as
widespread as the new study indicates.
It certainly is possible that many
samples of drinking water could contain plastic given how common the
material is and how commonly it enters the environment as litter, and
also as fibres from clothes made from artificial materials.
Drinking water treatments may well be
unable to remove the particles. For example, sedimentation techniques
rely on particles such as clay, silt and natural organic matter settling
at the bottom of a treatment tank. Many plastic microparticles are less
dense than water and so they would float and not be removed from the
water.
But we also don’t know what happens to
the particles once they enter the human gut. They may pass directly
through the body without being absorbed, just as indigestible roughage
in food does. But the smaller the particles are, the more likely they
are to enter the bloodstream and even cells in the body.
The recent research looked for plastic
particles larger than 2.5 microns. These are about 10 times smaller than
the cells that line the gut. Nanoparticles that are 0.1 microns or less
are more likely to enter cells. But we do not know if these smaller
nanoparticles are present in drinking water because the researchers did
not look for them.
Artificial substances have been entering
the human body for at least 400,000 years, when palaeolithic cave
dwellers inhaled the soot particles produced by early cave fires. But
there are many examples of small particles causing negative health
effects. For example, clay particles cause podoconiosis (a form of
elephantiasis) in about 1.5m African people. Inhalation of small
asbestos particles causes an aggressive form of lung cancer.
There is also clear evidence that
exposure to air pollution particles is harmful and that the particles do
enter the bloodstream. Researchers have found particles from combustion
engines in human brains.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates
that over 6 million deaths each year are associated with air pollution.
So there are a range of potential negative health effects associated
with particle exposure.
We don’t have any clear evidence that the
kind of plastic microparticles found in the drinking water study can
enter the bloodstream or that they have a negative effect on human
health. But these particles do have a number of potentially harmful
effects.
As with other particles, such as those
from air pollution, they could cause inflammation, an immune response to
anything recognised as “foreign” to the body, which can also cause
damage.
Another potential concern is that plastic
microparticles could become carriers for other toxins to enter the
body. Plastic microparticles generally repel water and will bind with
toxins that don’t dissolve.
For example, microparticles can bind to
compounds containing toxic metals such as mercury, and organic
pollutants such as some pesticides, and chemicals called dioxins known
to cause cancer and reproductive and developmental problems. If the
microparticles enter the body, these toxins could then accumulate in
fatty tissues.
We do not currently have clear evidence
that plastic microparticles in drinking water have a negative effect on
health. But given the effects other particles can have, we urgently need
to find out more about plastic microparticles in the body.
(ChannelNewsAsia)
No comments:
Post a Comment