ArticleEnvironmental science and ecotechnology2024
Underestimated activity-based microplastic intake under scenario-specific exposures.
Article in Environmental science and ecotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microplastic and human health with focus on pediatric well-being: a comprehensive review and call for future studies.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2025Article
- Exposure scenarios for human health risk assessment of nano- and microplastic particles.Microplastics and nanoplastics · 2025Review
- The Application of Metal-Organic Frameworks in Water Treatment and Their Large-Scale Preparation: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Acute exposure to polystyrene nanoparticles promotes liver injury by inducing mitochondrial ROS-dependent necroptosis and augmenting macrophage-hepatocyte crosstalk.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2024Article
- Microplastics dysregulate innate immunity in the SARS-CoV-2 infected lung.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing alarms over the health impacts of microplastics (MPs) due to their detection in human organs and feces, precise exposure evaluations remain scarce. To comprehend their risks, there is a distinct need to prioritize quantitive estimates in MP exposome, particularly at the environmentally-realistic level. Here we used a method rooted in real-world MP measurements and activity patterns to determine the daily intake of MPs through inhalation and from ground dust/soil ingestion. We found that nearly 80% of this intake comes from residential sectors, with activity intensity and behavioral types significantly affecting the human MP burden. The data showed a peak in MP exposure for those aged 18-64. When compared to dietary MP intake sources like seafood, salt, and water, we identified a previously underestimated exposure from inhalation and dust/soil ingestion, emphasizing the need for more realistic evaluations that incorporate activity factors. This discovery raises questions about the accuracy of past studies and underscores MP's potential health risks. Moreover, our time-based simulations revealed increased MP intake during the COVID-19 lockdown due to more surface dust ingestion, shedding light on how global health crises may inadvertently elevate MP exposure risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.