Are We Really 0.5% Plastic? The Surprising Critique of Recent Microplastic Research

Abstract

By the commencement of 2026, the scientific narrative surrounding microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) had shifted from ecological observation to an urgent biomedical crisis. A succession of high-profile studies purported to establish the systematic bioaccumulation of synthetic polymers within the human brain, heart, bloodstream, and reproductive organs. These findings, suggesting that human tissue could contain up to 0.5 percent plastic by weight, triggered global alarm and informed major policy frameworks, including the Lancet Commission’s declaration of a "plastics crisis." However, in January 2026, this consensus was fractured by a significant intervention from the analytical chemistry community. Leading experts have cast substantial doubt on the validity of these detections, proposing that the observed "plastics" may, in many instances, be artifacts of lipid interference, background contamination, and methodological overreach. This report provides an exhaustive, critical review of the current state of microplastic detection in human matrices. It synthesizes the physical principles of Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) and vibrational spectroscopy (FTIR/Raman) to elucidate the mechanisms of potential false positives. Through a forensic analysis of contested studies—specifically regarding the brain, carotid arteries, and testes—it evaluates the weight of evidence for bioaccumulation against the "bombshell" critiques of contamination. The report concludes that while environmental exposure is undeniable, the mapping of the "plastic human" is currently compromised by a lack of standardized Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, necessitating a fundamental recalibration of toxicological research methods.

1. Introduction: Plastic Output and the Rise of the Plastisphere

The trajectory of plastic production is one of the defining industrial statistics of the modern era. From negligible amounts in the mid-20th century, global plastic output has surged more than 200-fold, reaching approximately 400 million tonnes annually by 2022, with projections indicating a rise to over one billion tonnes per year by 2060.¹ This material proliferation has resulted in a ubiquitous environmental burden; the disintegration of macro-plastics into microplastics (1 micrometer to 5 millimeters) and nanoplastics (less than 1 micrometer) has created a planetary particulate smog. These polymers have been documented in the deepest ocean trenches, high-altitude cryospheres, and throughout the global food web.³

For decades, the primary concern regarding this pollution was ecological—entanglement of marine life, ingestion by seabirds, and the smothering of benthic communities. However, the early 2020s marked a paradigm shift toward human internal exposure. The conceptual barrier between the "environment" and the "organism" began to dissolve in the scientific literature. Researchers moved from identifying plastics in human stool (indicative of passage) to identifying them in blood, deep lung tissue, placentas, and the myocardium (indicative of retention and accumulation).⁵

The culmination of this research arc arrived in late 2024 and 2025 with studies published in journals of the highest impact, such as Nature Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine. These papers described a terrifying reality: the breach of the blood-brain barrier and the accumulation of polyethylene shards in the frontal cortex, correlated with neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's.⁸ Simultaneously, influential bodies like the Lancet Commission on Health and Plastics estimated the health costs of this contamination at $1.5 trillion annually, framing it as a "grave, growing and under-recognised danger".²

Yet, precisely as this narrative solidified into public truth and policy justification, the analytical foundation began to crack. In January 2026, the Guardian published an exclusive report detailing a "bombshell" intervention by analytical chemists.¹ These experts argued that the rush to publish had outpaced the rigour of the methods used. They posited that the "plastic" found in human brains and arteries might not be plastic at all, but rather ghost signals generated by the body’s own fats and proteins, misidentified by instruments pushed beyond their limits.¹

This report aims to serve as a definitive resource for understanding this scientific schism. It is written for an audience of peers and students requiring a nuanced, technically grounded exploration of how we measure the invisible, why those measurements are now in doubt, and what this implies for the future of environmental health.

2. The Physics and Chemistry of Microplastic Detection: A Deep Dive

To adjudicate the controversy, one must first possess a granular understanding of the instrumental techniques employed. The detection of a polyethylene particle inside a human cell is not a matter of simple observation; it is an act of complex chemical inference. The two dominant methodologies—Spectrometry and Spectroscopy—each possess inherent vulnerabilities that are central to the current debate.

2.1 Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (Py-GC-MS)

Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, or Py-GC-MS, is often touted as the "gold standard" for microplastic analysis because it offers mass-based quantification.¹⁰ Unlike counting particles, which tells you nothing about the total mass burden, Py-GC-MS can theoretically determine that a sample contains "5 micrograms of polyethylene per gram of tissue."

2.1.1 The Operational Principle

The technique relies on thermal decomposition. A sample of human tissue—which has ideally been chemically digested to remove organic matter—is placed into a pyrolysis cup.

1. Thermal Shock: The cup is instantaneously heated to temperatures exceeding 600 degrees Celsius in an inert atmosphere (usually helium).

2. Fragmentation: At these temperatures, the long polymer chains of plastics (like polyethylene) allow for random scission. They shatter into smaller, volatile fragments. For polyethylene (a chain of carbon atoms surrounded by hydrogen), this shattering produces a characteristic "triplet" pattern of hydrocarbons: alkanes, alpha-alkenes, and alpha,omega-alkadienes at each carbon number.¹¹

3. Separation and Identification: These gas fragments are pushed through a chromatography column, which separates them by size and polarity. They then enter a mass spectrometer, which ionizes them and measures their mass-to-charge ratio. The resulting data is a chromatogram—a series of peaks. The analyst looks for the specific "fingerprint" of polyethylene decomposition products.

2.1.2 The Lipid Interference Mechanism

The core of the critique leveled by researchers like Dr. Dušan Materić and Dr. Cassandra Rauert is that biology and synthetic chemistry share the same building blocks: carbon and hydrogen.¹¹

The human brain, for instance, is approximately 60 percent fat (lipid) by dry weight. These lipids include phospholipids, cholesterol, and long-chain fatty acids. Structurally, a fatty acid tail is a long chain of carbon atoms saturated with hydrogen—chemically very similar to a polyethylene chain.

When a biological sample is pyrolyzed, residual lipids that survived the digestion process also decompose. They break down into hydrocarbon fragments (alkanes and alkenes) that can overlay almost perfectly with the breakdown products of polyethylene.11

If a researcher relies on a specific "marker ion" or a standard chromatogram pattern to identify polyethylene, but fails to account for the pyrolysis products of human fat, they will generate a false positive. The machine sees a spike in alkanes and reports "Polyethylene," when in reality, it has detected the carbon backbone of a neuron's cell membrane. This is the mechanism behind the claim that brain study results are a "joke"—the high concentrations of "plastic" may simply reflect the high concentration of lipids in the brain.⁹

2.1.3 The Detection Limit Paradox

Dr. Rauert’s validation studies indicate that while detecting polymers in blood is plausible, the concentrations reported in some studies are perilously close to the method's limit of detection (LOD) once matrix interference is calculated. In her analysis, the theoretical detection limits in pure water are vastly lower than in a complex biological matrix. When "noise" from the biological matrix is high (as in blood or tissue), the signal required to definitively identify plastic must be much stronger. Many disputed studies fail to adjust their LODs for this matrix effect, potentially counting noise as signal.¹³

2.2 Vibrational Spectroscopy: FTIR and Raman

While Py-GC-MS destroys the sample to weigh it, vibrational spectroscopy attempts to identify particles non-destructively by analyzing how their chemical bonds interact with light.

2.2.1 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

FTIR works on the principle of infrared absorption. Chemical bonds vibrate at specific frequencies. When infrared light hits a molecule, the molecule absorbs energy at frequencies matching its vibrational modes.

• The Amide I/II Overlap: The fundamental flaw in FTIR analysis of biological tissue is the "Amide" bands. Proteins are polymers of amino acids linked by peptide bonds. The peptide bond (–CO–NH–) has a strong vibrational mode called the "Amide I" band (primarily C=O stretching), which appears in the spectrum between 1600 and 1700 cm⁻¹.¹⁴

• The Mimicry: Unfortunately, many synthetic polymers also have carbonyl (C=O) groups that absorb in this exact region. Polyamides (Nylon), oxidized polyethylene, and certain polyesters show peaks around 1630–1650 cm⁻¹.

• The Consequence: If a microplastic particle is covered in a "bio-corona" of proteins (which happens almost instantly in the body), or if the particle is embedded in a collagen-rich matrix (like a vessel wall), the FTIR microscope will see a massive peak at 1650 cm⁻¹. An inexperienced analyst, or an automated software library, might identify this peak as oxidized microplastic, when it is actually the protein collagen.¹⁶

2.2.2 Raman Spectroscopy

Raman spectroscopy uses a laser to induce inelastic scattering. It is capable of much higher spatial resolution than FTIR, allowing for the detection of particles as small as 1 micrometer.¹⁸

• The Fluorescence Blindness: The Achilles' heel of Raman in biology is fluorescence. Biological tissues contain many molecules (flavins, porphyrins, lipofuscins) that fluoresce strongly when hit by a laser. This fluorescence is a broad, intense emission of light that can swamp the weak, distinct Raman scattering signal.²⁰

• The "Black Box" of Software: To counter this, researchers use software to subtract the fluorescent baseline. However, critics argue that aggressive mathematical subtraction can create artifacts—false peaks that look like data but are merely ghosts of the algorithm. Furthermore, commercially available automated counting software can misinterpret these artifacts as plastic particles, leading to massive overestimation of particle counts.²²

3. The Crisis of Validity: Methodological Flaws in Key Studies

The "bombshell" report in the Guardian did not arise in a vacuum; it was the culmination of mounting peer-reviewed criticism targeting specific, influential studies. By examining these controversies, we can trace the fault lines of the current crisis.

3.1 The Brain Study: "A Joke" or a Revelation?

The study in question, Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains (Campen et al., published in Nature Medicine, 2025), presented some of the most alarming data in the history of the field.²³

• The Findings: The study analyzed brain tissue from decedents in 2016 and 2024. It reported that MNP concentrations had risen significantly over the eight-year period and were significantly higher in patients with dementia. The headline figure was a concentration of nearly 0.5% plastic by weight in the frontal cortex.⁸

• The Critique: Dr. Dušan Materić’s dismissal of this study as a "joke" is rooted in the Py-GC-MS lipid interference issue described above.⁹ The brain is a lipid-rich organ. The study reported that the primary polymer found was Polyethylene (PE). Since PE's pyrolysis signature is nearly identical to that of fatty acids, and the brain is full of fatty acids, the critique suggests that the "rising trend" of plastic might actually be an artifact of varying lipid content or preservation methods between the 2016 and 2024 cohorts. If the sample preparation did not achieve 100% lipid removal—a notoriously difficult task in brain tissue without destroying the plastic—the "plastic" measured was actually the brain itself.¹¹

• The Visualization Defense: The authors defended their work by noting they also used Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) to visualize "shards" of plastic.²³ However, TEM provides only morphological data (shape), not chemical data. Critics argue that protein aggregates, lipid crystals, or other organic debris can easily look like "shards" under an electron microscope. Without robust chemical confirmation free of interference, the visual data is ambiguous.

3.2 The NEJM Heart Study: The Missing Blanks

In March 2024, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Marfella et al. linking microplastics in carotid artery plaques to a 4.5-fold increase in heart attack, stroke, or death.²⁵

• The Findings: The study found Polyethylene in 58.4% of plaques and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) in 12.1%.²⁶

• The Critique: The primary criticism here is "background contamination." The samples were carotid plaques removed surgically in an operating theater. Operating theaters are intense plastic environments: surgeons wear synthetic gowns and gloves; patients are draped in plastic; instruments are packaged in plastic; air is filtered through plastic.

• The "Blank" Failure: Dr. Frederic Béen pointed out that the study failed to utilize rigorous "procedural blanks" from the operating room.¹ A procedural blank would involve opening a container in the operating room, waving a scalpel through the air, and processing that "empty" sample. If plastic appears in the blank, it proves the environment is contaminating the sample. Without this control, it is impossible to know if the plastic was in the artery or fell onto the artery during the surgery. The correlation with health outcomes (more death in plastic-positive patients) is the study's strongest defense, but critics argue this could be a spurious correlation—perhaps patients with more calcified (harder to remove) plaques required more vigorous surgery, exposing the tissue to the air for longer, thus accumulating more contamination.⁹

3.3 The Blood Study: "Fresh" vs. "Contaminated"

Prof. Marja Lamoree’s 2022 study was the first to report plastics in human blood.⁵

• The Findings: A mean concentration of 1.6 µg/ml.

• The Critique: This study is listed among the 18 papers criticized by Rauert for potential methodological weaknesses regarding interference.¹

• The Defense: Prof. Lamoree has vigorously defended the work, arguing that blood collection via venipuncture is a closed system (needle to vacutainer) that minimizes airborne contamination far better than surgical tissue collection.¹ Furthermore, the detection of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) in blood is harder to dismiss as lipid interference than PE, as PET has a unique chemical backbone that does not resemble fatty acids. However, the detection of PE in blood remains subject to the same lipid caveats as other tissues.¹³

3.4 The Reproductive System: Fertility and Formulas

Studies by Campen and others have found MNPs in human testes and placentas, linking them to the global decline in sperm counts.¹

• The Critique: Similar to the brain, the testes are complex, lipid-rich biological matrices. The concern is that the "pervasive" presence of plastic reported might be an overestimation due to the misidentification of endogenous steroids or lipids. If the correlation between "plastic" and sperm count is actually a correlation between "obesity/lipid profile" and sperm count, the causality is completely different. The lack of standardized extraction protocols for reproductive tissue makes cross-study comparison nearly impossible.²⁸

4. Biological Plausibility: The "Volume" Argument

Beyond the chemical forensics, there is a question of basic biological plausibility. Dr. Cassandra Rauert and others have raised a simple but devastating question: If the brain really contained 0.5% plastic by weight, would the patient still be functioning?.¹

4.1 The Mass Problem

A concentration of 4,917 µg/g (approx. 5 mg/g) is enormous in toxicological terms. For comparison, heavy metal poisoning (like lead or mercury) is fatal at concentrations orders of magnitude lower (parts per million or billion).

• Mechanical Disruption: If 0.5% of the brain's mass were solid plastic shards, the mechanical disruption to the soft tissue of the cortex would likely be visible to the naked eye, or at least obvious in standard histopathology. The fact that pathologists have not been reporting "plastic sand" in brains for decades suggests that either the plastic is nano-scale and invisible, or the mass estimates are wrong.

• Nano vs. Micro: The study claimed to see particles <200 nm. To achieve 0.5% mass with such small particles would require trillions of particles per gram. The surface area of that much nanoplastic would be immense, likely triggering an immediate, catastrophic inflammatory response (anaphylaxis or acute encephalitis) incompatible with life, let alone a slow progression of dementia.¹

4.2 The Barrier Problem

The body is defended by the Gut-Blood Barrier, the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), and the Placental Barrier.

• Transport Mechanisms: We know that particles larger than a few micrometers generally cannot cross these barriers passively. They require "paracellular" transport (slipping between cells) or "transcytosis" (being engulfed and spat out by cells).³

• The Limit: While nanoplastics (<0.1 µm) can theoretically cross the BBB, the efficiency of this transport is extremely low. The idea that large microplastics (10-20 µm) are finding their way into the brain or deep tissues in milligram quantities defies current physiological understanding of barrier permeability. Critics argue that finding such large particles is a red flag for contamination—likely dust falling from the lab air.¹

5. The Societal and Policy Implications

The scientific uncertainty described above has collided violently with the political reality of the "plastic crisis."

5.1 The Lancet Commission

In August 2025, the Lancet Commission on Health and Plastics released a landmark report declaring that plastics are responsible for $1.5 trillion in health damages annually.¹ This report relies heavily on the "internal exposure" narrative to justify its urgency.

• The Risk: If the foundational studies of bioaccumulation are proven to be artifacts of contamination, the credibility of the entire Commission report could be undermined. This creates a "dangerous" opening for industrial lobbyists.

5.2 "Polluting the Well"

Researchers interviewed by the Guardian expressed fear that faulty evidence is "polluting the well" of scientific discourse.¹ If the plastics industry can successfully frame the "plastic brain" study as a "joke," they can extend that skepticism to all plastic health research.

• The "Tobacco Playbook": This mirrors the strategy used by the tobacco industry: find one flawed study, blow it out of proportion, and claim that "the science is unsettled."

• The Counter-Argument: However, experts emphasize that even if bioaccumulation is lower than reported, the production and disposal of plastics (burning, leaching additives, air pollution) remain incontrovertibly harmful.² The health crisis exists independent of whether the plastic is in our brains or just poisoning our air.

6. The Path to Standardization: A QA/QC Revolution

The "bombshell" of 2026 is not an end to microplastic research, but a call for its maturation. The field is currently in a "Wild West" phase where every lab uses different digestion protocols, different instruments, and different standards for what counts as "plastic."

6.1 The "Clean Room" Requirement

To produce data that can withstand scrutiny, human tissue analysis must move toward "clean room" standards similar to forensic DNA analysis or trace metal analysis.

• Procedural Blanks: It must become mandatory to run blanks at every stage: sampling, transport, digestion, and analysis. If the blank is not clean, the data is invalid.¹⁰

• Spiked Recoveries: Labs should regularly "spike" samples with known amounts of plastic to prove their method can recover it without destroying it, and conversely, process plastic-free biological samples to prove they don't generate false positives.

6.2 Multimodal Confirmation

The era of relying on a single method (just Py-GC-MS or just FTIR) is over.

• The Triangulation Standard: A robust finding should require triangulation:

• Mass: Py-GC-MS (with lipid removal validation).

• Chemistry: Raman or FTIR (with fluorescence/protein correction).

• Visual: SEM/TEM (to confirm particle morphology).Only when a particle is weighed, chemically fingerprinted, and photographed can we be sure it is real.24

7. Conclusion

The controversy of January 2026 serves as a vital corrective. The scientific community has likely overestimated the mass of plastic accumulating in human organs due to the insidious technical challenges of lipid interference and background contamination. The vision of a "plastic brain" composed of 0.5% polyethylene is almost certainly a phantom of the instrumentation—a "joke" of chemistry, as critics labeled it.

However, this does not absolve plastic. The presence of some level of micro- and nanoplastics in human fluids and tissues remains supported by the weight of evidence, particularly in blood and placentas where detection methods have been more robust. Furthermore, the toxicological threat of plastics—via additives, endocrine disruption, and environmental degradation—remains acute.

The "bombshell" is a warning against scientific hubris. In our rush to define the extent of the Anthropocene's impact on our bodies, we must not let urgency override accuracy. The future of the field depends on a return to the unglamorous basics of analytical chemistry: controls, blanks, and the rigorous exclusion of false positives. Only then can we truly know how much of the world has entered us.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Analytical Methodologies and Vulnerabilities

Methodology	Primary Function	Key Advantage	Critical Vulnerability in Human Tissue
Py-GC-MS	Mass Quantification	Provides total mass of plastic (μg/g), crucial for toxicology.	Lipid Interference: Fatty acids decompose into hydrocarbon chains identical to Polyethylene (PE) markers. 11
FTIR Spectroscopy	Chemical Identification	Non-destructive; identifies polymer type.	Protein Overlap: Amide I bands in proteins (1650 cm-1) mask or mimic plastic carbonyl signals. Size limit >10 μm. 15
Raman Spectroscopy	High-Res Identification	Can detect particles down to 1 μm.	Fluorescence: Biological tissues fluoresce under lasers, blinding the detector. Software correction can create false peaks. 20
LDIR (Laser Direct Infrared)	Rapid Imaging	Scans large areas quickly.	Resolution: Limited spatial resolution; cannot detect nanoplastics; surface-only analysis. 31

Table 2: Summary of Contested "First Detection" Studies

Target Tissue	Study Reference	Reported Findings	The "Bombshell" Critique
Brain	Campen et al. (Nature Medicine, 2025)	0.5% plastic by weight; higher in dementia patients.	False Positive: Brain lipids identified as Polyethylene by Py-GC-MS. "Joke" concentration. 9
Arteries	Marfella et al. (NEJM, 2024)	MNPs in carotid plaque linked to 4.5x stroke/death risk.	Contamination: Lack of operating room blanks; plaque lipids interfering with signal. 1
Blood	Lamoree et al. (Env. Int., 2022)	1.6 μg/ml MNPs in healthy donors.	Methodology: Questioned for potential contamination, though author cites "fresh" sampling defense. 1
Testes	Campen et al. (Tox. Sci., 2024)	3x higher MNPs in humans vs dogs; sperm count link.	Plausibility: Lipid-rich tissue interference; lack of standard extraction protocols. 1

Works cited

1. ‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt

2. World in $1.5tn 'plastics crisis' hitting health from infancy to old age, report warns, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/03/world-in-15tn-plastics-crisis-hitting-health-from-infancy-to-old-age-report-warns

3. Microplastics: Are we facing a new health crisis – and what can be done about it?, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/how-microplastics-get-into-the-food-chain/

4. Microplastics and our health: What the science says - Stanford Medicine, accessed January 13, 2026, https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/01/microplastics-in-body-polluted-tiny-plastic-fragments.html

5. Microplastics found in human blood for first time | Plastics - The Guardian, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/microplastics-found-in-human-blood-for-first-time

6. Effect of microplastics deposition on human lung airways: A review with computational benefits and challenges - NIH, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10826726/

7. Microplastics discovered in human heart | The Water Diplomat, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.waterdiplomat.org/story/2023/09/microplastics-discovered-human-heart

8. Levels of microplastics in human brains may be rapidly rising, study suggests | Plastics, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/03/levels-of-microplastics-in-human-brains-may-be-rapidly-rising-study-suggests

9. Health | Society | The Guardian, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/society/health/2026/jan/13/all

10. Microplastics in the Human Body: Exposure, Detection, and Risk of Carcinogenesis: A State-of-the-Art Review - PubMed Central, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11545399/

11. accessed January 13, 2026, https://medium.com/@axegggl/fact-checking-bioaccumulation-of-microplastics-in-decedent-human-brains-nature-medicine-2025-1650e349dc10#:~:text=Analytical%20Interference%20(False%20Positives)%3A,that%20resemble%20those%20from%20polyethylene.

12. Assessing the efficacy of pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for nanoplastic and microplastic analysis in human blood - UQ eSpace - The University of Queensland, accessed January 13, 2026, https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:f6b2caa

13. Assessing the Efficacy of Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for Nanoplastic and Microplastic Analysis in Human Blood - PubMed, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39851066/

14. FT-IR Spectroscopy Mini-Tutorial: Principles, Practice, and Applications Across Disciplines, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/ft-ir-spectroscopy-mini-tutorial-principles-practice-and-applications-across-disciplines

15. Use and misuse of FTIR spectroscopy for studying the bio-oxidation of plastics - Advanced Light Source, accessed January 13, 2026, https://als.lbl.gov/infrared-site/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2024/03/Use-and-misuse-of-FTIR-spectroscopy-for-studying-the-bio-oxidation-of-plastics.pdf

16. Application of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy in Characterization of Green Synthesized Nanoparticles - MDPI, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/30/3/684

17. The IR spectra of (A) dried keratin, (B) collagen, (C) bovine gelatin... - ResearchGate, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-IR-spectra-of-A-dried-keratin-B-collagen-C-bovine-gelatin-and-D-fish_fig1_370454307

18. Detection of Sub-20 μm Microplastic Particles by Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Comparison with Raman Spectroscopy | ACS Omega - ACS Publications, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.2c07998

19. Detection of Sub-20 μm Microplastic Particles by Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Comparison with Raman Spectroscopy - PubMed Central, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10035019/

20. How Colorants Complicate Raman Spectroscopy of Microplastics: New Insights from Environmental Research, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/how-colorants-complicate-raman-spectroscopy-of-microplastics-new-insights-from-environmental-research

21. Microplastic Analysis Using Raman Spectroscopy - Edinburgh Instruments, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.edinst.com/blog/using-raman-spectroscopy-for-microplastic-analysis/

22. Automatic Identification of Individual Nanoplastics by Raman spectroscopy based on Machine Learning, accessed January 13, 2026, https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/files/296340190/20230622_Accepted_2_manuscript_Automatic_Identification_of_individual_nanoplastics.pdf

23. Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains - PubMed, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39901044/

24. Fact-Checking: Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains (Nature Medicine, 2025) | by Aleksandr Golovin | Medium, accessed January 13, 2026, https://medium.com/@axegggl/fact-checking-bioaccumulation-of-microplastics-in-decedent-human-brains-nature-medicine-2025-1650e349dc10

25. Plastics in the lumen of the carotid arteries - Science Media Centre España, accessed January 13, 2026, https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/plastics-lumen-carotid-arteries

26. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events - PubMed - NIH, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38446676/

27. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood - PubMed, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35367073/

28. Comment on: “Microplastic presence in dog and human testis and its potential association with sperm count and weights of testis and epididymis” | Toxicological Sciences | Oxford Academic, accessed January 13, 2026, https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/206/2/456/7852847

29. Plastics | The Guardian, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/plastic

30. Micro- and Nanoplastics in Alpine Snow: A New Method for Chemical Identification and (Semi)Quantification in the Nanogram Range | Environmental Science & Technology - ACS Publications, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b07540

31. From Collection to Analysis: A Practical Guide to Sample Preparation and Processing of Microplastics | Agilent, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/technicaloverviews/public/te-microplastics-sample-preparation-guide-8700-ldir-5994-7587en-agilent.pdf