When it comes to microplastic absorption in the human body, the smallest particles pose the biggest unknowns. While research shows that larger plastic particles mostly pass through our digestive systems, a comprehensive 2025 research review emphasizes a troubling gap: nanoplastics under 1 micrometer are absorbed at higher rates than larger microplastics, yet our current detection methods cannot adequately measure them in food, water, or human tissues.
This means we likely face far more nanoplastic exposure than we realize, and we cannot yet determine what health effects, if any, result from chronic accumulation of these ultra-small particles.
Particle Size Determines Everything
The fundamental finding across multiple authoritative sources is clear: particle size is the primary factor determining whether ingested plastics can cross the intestinal barrier and enter the body.
Large Particles Cannot Be Absorbed
Particles larger than approximately 150 micrometers (0.15 millimeters) cannot cross the gut wall under normal conditions, according to the European Food Safety Authority and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. These particles are excreted in feces without entering the bloodstream.
Mid-Sized Microplastics Show Limited Absorption
For particles in the 1.5 to 150 micrometer range, absorption is extremely limited. Current estimates based on animal studies suggest approximately 0.3% or less of particles in the 1-10 micrometer range may cross the gut barrier. This means more than 99% of mid-sized microplastics are eliminated without absorption.
However, this 0.3% figure comes from rodent experiments, and human data remain extremely limited. We cannot be certain these percentages apply to humans.
Nanoplastics: Higher Absorption, Inadequate Detection
Here lies the critical concern: particles smaller than approximately 1 to 1.5 micrometers show markedly higher absorption rates than larger microplastics. The research review notes that "absorption increases as particle size decreases," with nanoplastics able to cross the intestinal barrier more readily and potentially distribute to organs including liver, spleen, kidney, and brain.
While the majority of even nanoplastics are still eliminated rather than absorbed, a substantially larger minority enters circulation compared to bigger particles. Precise absorption percentages for nanoplastics in humans remain unknown due to measurement challenges.
The Detection Problem
The most significant limitation in nanoplastic research is analytical. Current methods cannot reliably detect and quantify particles below approximately 1 micrometer in complex matrices like food or biological tissues.
This creates a troubling knowledge gap: nanoplastics are the size range most likely to be absorbed, yet they're the size range we can least effectively measure. As one analysis notes, when microplastics are found in the environment, far more undetected nanoplastics are likely present as well, since particle counts scale inversely with size.
We may be substantially underestimating total plastic particle exposure by focusing measurement efforts on larger, more easily detected microplastics while missing the nanoplastic fraction that poses the greatest absorption risk.
What Happens to Absorbed Particles
Research has detected plastic particles in human blood, placental tissue, and atherosclerotic plaques. The particles found in these tissues tend to be small (under about 1 micrometer), consistent with size-dependent absorption patterns.
However, critical uncertainties remain:
The analytical methods for detecting microplastics in human tissues are still being refined. Contamination during sample collection or analysis is a concern, and some reported findings have faced methodological questions.
More importantly, finding particles in tissue does not establish causation of harm. No causal relationship between microplastic presence and specific health effects has been proven in humans. We do not know whether the particles found in tissues cause damage, remain inert, or are eventually cleared by the body.
The particles' presence confirms that some absorption and distribution occurs, particularly for smaller sizes, but health implications remain speculative.
The Human Data Gap
Nearly all absorption data come from animal studies, primarily in rodents. Research in mice demonstrates that polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics can induce intestinal barrier dysfunction through oxidative stress and epithelial cell damage, potentially increasing permeability beyond normal levels.
However, these are animal models exposed to controlled doses in laboratory settings. Whether findings translate to humans consuming environmental mixtures of plastic particles remains uncertain. Human physiology may differ in ways that affect absorption rates or particle distribution.
The research consistently emphasizes this limitation: conclusions are based heavily on animal studies which may not perfectly reflect human responses.
Factors That May Increase Absorption
Certain conditions could increase particle uptake beyond baseline rates:
Compromised Gut Integrity: Inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, or general intestinal inflammation increases gut permeability. Animal studies suggest this "leaky gut" state may allow greater particle translocation, though human data are lacking.
Oxidative Stress: Research shows that plastic particles can generate reactive oxygen species in intestinal tissue, potentially damaging cells and increasing barrier permeability. Some evidence suggests nanoplastics may enhance absorption of larger microplastics when present together.
Age: Infants may have more permeable intestinal barriers due to developmental immaturity, potentially allowing higher absorption. This remains an open research question with limited data.
For healthy adults under normal conditions, the gut barrier appears to block most particle absorption. But individual variation based on health status, genetics, diet, and microbiome has not been characterized.
What We Don't Know
The research emphasizes major knowledge gaps:
- Actual human absorption rates for particles of various sizes
- Long-term health effects of chronic low-level accumulation
- Detection and quantification methods for nanoplastics
- True extent of nanoplastic exposure (likely underestimated)
- How real-world mixtures of particle sizes, shapes, and types behave compared to laboratory-tested single particles
- Individual variation in absorption and health responses
- Whether particles accumulate over decades or are eventually cleared
- Cumulative effects of lifelong exposure beginning in infancy
These are not minor caveats. They represent fundamental uncertainties about exposure levels, absorption rates, and health outcomes.
Current State of Evidence
The research draws several conclusions within the limits of available data:
Particle size is the dominant factor in determining absorbability. Larger particles (over 150 micrometers) are not absorbed. Mid-sized microplastics (1.5-150 micrometers) show very limited absorption, on the order of 0.3% or less based on animal studies. Smaller particles, particularly nanoplastics under 1 micrometer, demonstrate higher absorption rates, though still a minority of total ingested dose.
The intestinal barrier provides substantial defense against particle uptake under normal, healthy conditions. Multiple protective mechanisms—mucus layer, tight junctions, epithelial cells—work to block particle translocation.
However, the nanoplastic fraction represents the greatest uncertainty. These particles are absorbed most readily yet measured least effectively. We likely have more exposure than current data suggest, and we cannot determine health implications from information that is incomplete.
Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence
The research is careful not to equate lack of proven harm with proof of safety. As the field notes, microplastic research is relatively new. Detection methods are evolving. Long-term epidemiological studies tracking health outcomes across decades of exposure do not yet exist.
What we can say is that current evidence does not demonstrate overt toxicity in humans at measured exposure levels. What we cannot say is that chronic accumulation of nanoplastics poses no health risk.
The science is still developing. Our understanding will improve as analytical methods advance, human studies expand, and longitudinal data accumulate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the research emphasize nanoplastics as the biggest concern?
The research identifies nanoplastics (particles smaller than approximately 1 micrometer) as the primary area of concern for two reasons: they show the highest absorption rates across the intestinal barrier, and current analytical methods cannot adequately detect or quantify them. This combination means we likely have more nanoplastic exposure than we realize, and these are precisely the particles most capable of entering systemic circulation and potentially reaching organs.
What does "0.3% absorption" actually mean?
The 0.3% figure comes from animal studies measuring how much of an ingested dose of particles in the 1-10 micrometer range crosses from the gut into the body. If you consume 1000 particles in this size range, approximately 3 would be absorbed while 997 would be excreted. However, this percentage is from rodent experiments and may not directly apply to humans. Additionally, smaller particles (nanoplastics) have higher absorption rates not captured by this 0.3% estimate.
Why are the absorption estimates based on animal studies rather than human data?
Controlled absorption studies in humans would require feeding people known doses of plastic particles and then measuring distribution in tissues—ethically and practically challenging research. Most data come from rodent models where researchers can control doses, sacrifice animals at specific timepoints, and directly measure particle distribution in organs. The limitation is that animal physiology may differ from human physiology in ways that affect absorption. The research consistently acknowledges this uncertainty.
If most particles aren't absorbed, why is this still a concern?
Even if only a small percentage of ingested particles are absorbed, several factors maintain concern: we likely consume plastic particles daily over decades (chronic exposure); the smallest particles showing highest absorption are poorly measured (underestimated exposure); we don't know if absorbed particles accumulate or are cleared; we don't know long-term health effects; and individual variation means some people may absorb more than average rates suggest. The research emphasizes these unknowns rather than providing reassurance.
What happens to the small fraction of particles that are absorbed?
Research has detected plastic particles in human blood, placental tissue, liver, spleen, kidney, and atherosclerotic plaques. The particles found tend to be at the smaller end of the size spectrum (under 1 micrometer), consistent with size-dependent absorption. However, we don't know how long particles persist in tissues, whether they cause damage, whether they're eventually cleared, or what concentration would be needed to cause health effects. Detection confirms distribution occurs but doesn't establish health consequences.
How reliable are the particle size thresholds (150 micrometers, 1.5 micrometers)?
These thresholds represent approximate boundaries based on current evidence, not precise cutoffs. The 150 micrometer upper limit for any gut absorption and the 1.5 micrometer threshold for systemic distribution appear across multiple authoritative sources. However, biological systems rarely have sharp boundaries—individual variation, particle properties, and gut health status could affect these thresholds. The research presents them as general principles supported by available data, not absolute rules.
Why can't we measure nanoplastics effectively?
Current analytical techniques for identifying and quantifying plastic particles have resolution and detection limits. As particle size decreases below approximately 1 micrometer, they become increasingly difficult to distinguish from other environmental particles and biological materials in complex samples like food or tissue. Methods that work well for larger microplastics cannot reliably detect nanoscale particles. This is an active area of method development, but current limitations mean nanoplastic exposure is poorly characterized.
Does having inflammatory gut disease increase absorption of microplastics?
Animal studies suggest that conditions compromising intestinal barrier integrity (inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, general inflammation) may increase particle translocation beyond normal rates. The mechanism would be increased gut permeability allowing particles that normally wouldn't cross to penetrate the barrier. However, this is based on animal models and theoretical extrapolation—direct human data are lacking. The research notes this as a plausible concern requiring further study.
Are infants and children at higher risk?
This is unknown. Infant intestinal barriers are less mature than adult barriers, theoretically allowing greater permeability. Children also have behavioral patterns (hand-to-mouth contact, floor play) that might increase exposure. However, definitive data on whether children absorb more particles or face greater health risks are not available. The research identifies this as an important knowledge gap given potential lifelong exposure beginning in early development.
What would need to happen for us to understand health risks better?
The research identifies several needs: development of validated analytical methods for detecting and quantifying nanoplastics in food and biological samples; human absorption studies (to the extent ethically feasible); long-term epidemiological studies tracking health outcomes in relation to measured exposure levels; understanding of whether absorbed particles accumulate or are cleared over time; studies on local effects in the gastrointestinal tract; research on individual variation factors; and investigation of real-world mixed exposures rather than single particle types in laboratory settings.
References
- Janzik R, Böl G-F, Sieg H, et al. Microplastics: State of the Evidence on Health Effects and Public Perception. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2025;122(31-32):546-553. PMID: 40853331. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620896/
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA Journal 2016;14(6):4501. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4501 or https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40007823/
- BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment). Microplastics: Facts, Research and Open Questions (FAQ of 5 June 2019). https://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/microplastics-facts-research-and-open-questions.pdf
- Hirt N, Body-Malapel M. Immunotoxicity and intestinal effects of nano- and microplastics: a review of the literature. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2020;17(1):57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7661204/
- Huang R, et al. Underestimated health risks: polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics jointly induce intestinal barrier dysfunction by ROS-mediated epithelial cell apoptosis. Particle & Fibre Toxicology. 2021;18(1):20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8186235/
- Paul MB, et al. Micro- and nanoplastics—current state of knowledge with the focus on oral uptake and toxicity. Nanoscale Adv. 2020;2:4350–4367.
- Leslie HA, et al. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International. 2022;163:107199.
- Ragusa A, et al. Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. 2021;146:106274.
- Marfella R, et al. Microplastics and nanoplastics in atheromas and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:900–910.
This article synthesizes findings from current scientific research on microplastic and nanoplastic absorption, emphasizing the uncertainties and knowledge gaps identified by researchers. Given the evolving nature of this field and significant limitations in current data, conclusions should be understood as preliminary. This information is for educational purposes and should not replace medical advice from qualified healthcare providers.
0 comments