COULD MICROPLASTICS BE SILENTLY WRECKING MALE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH?

Microplastics are everywhere – in the water we drink, the food we eat, and even the air we breathe. These tiny plastic particles (measuring less than 5 millimeters in size) have pervaded every corner of our environment, from the deepest oceans to mountaintops. In recent years, scientists have made a startling discovery: microplastics have also infiltrated the human body, turning up in organs and fluids where we never expected to find plastic. They’ve been detected in human blood, lungs, placentas, breast milk, and seminal fluid. In fact, a 2024 study found microplastic pollution in every single human testicle sample examined. This raises an unsettling question – could these ubiquitous plastic particles be contributing to health issues, including the well-documented decline in male fertility?

Male reproductive health has been on the decline for decades, with studies reporting significant drops in average sperm counts and quality worldwide. The causes behind this trend are likely multifactorial. Experts increasingly suspect that environmental factors play a major role. Alongside known culprits like heat, pesticides, and hormone-disrupting chemicals, microplastics have emerged as a new potential threat to fertility. Physicians, scientists, and patients alike are now asking: What exactly are microplastics, how do they get inside us, what can they do to the male reproductive system, and – perhaps most importantly – can we do anything to get rid of them or prevent future generations from being affected?

In this evidence-based exploration, we’ll answer several questions. We’ll delve into what microplastics are and how we’re exposed to them every day. We’ll discuss the latest research on microplastics in the human body and their potential impact on male fertility – from animal studies to cutting-edge human clinical findings. We’ll also consider whether our bodies can eliminate these tiny intruders and outline steps we can take to protect ourselves and future generations. Throughout, the tone will remain conversational and accessible, but rooted firmly in scientific evidence. Whether you’re a physician, medical student, concerned patient, or simply a curious reader, this deep dive will arm you with knowledge about microplastics and male fertility – a topic that is rapidly evolving as new research sheds light on these invisible pollutants.

What Are Microplastics?

Microplastics are, as the name implies, microscopic pieces of plastic. By convention, the term refers to plastic fragments smaller than 5 millimeters (about 0.2 inches) in length – roughly the size of a sesame seed or smaller. Within this category, scientists sometimes distinguish nanoplastics, which are infinitesimally small plastics less than 1 micrometer (1000 nanometers) in size. Essentially, microplastics are the breakdown products of the billions of tons of plastic material that humans have manufactured over the past century. Because plastics don’t biodegrade in the same way organic materials do, they tend to persist in the environment. Over time, sunlight, heat, and mechanical forces cause larger plastic debris to fragment into smaller and smaller pieces – eventually becoming micro- and nanoplastics. As one Stanford researcher aptly put it, “plastic never goes away – it just breaks down into finer and finer particles”.

Not all microplastics start off as large items, however. Some are intentionally produced at small sizes. These are often called primary microplastics, and they include things like the microbeads that were once common in cosmetic scrubs and toothpastes, resin pellets (nurdles) used as raw material in plastic manufacturing, and synthetic fibers shed from textiles. Secondary microplastics are those formed by the degradation of bigger plastic objects – think of a plastic water bottle fragmenting over years in the ocean, or tire rubber particles produced by wear on roadways. Both types contribute to the soup of microplastics in our environment.

Microplastics come in a wide variety of polymer types. Common polymers identified include polyethylene (PE, used in plastic bags and bottles), polypropylene (PP, in bottle caps and food containers), polystyrene (PS, in Styrofoam and packaging), polyvinyl chloride (PVC, in pipes and many products), polyethylene terephthalate (PET, in drink bottles and polyester clothing), and even polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, better known as Teflon, used in non-stick cookware) – among others. These names might sound technical, but they’re basically the common plastics all around us. Over time, pieces of all these materials can become microscopic shreds and specks.

Because microplastics are so small and light, they easily disperse through air and water. Researchers estimate that 10 to 40 million metric tons of microplastic particles are released into the environment each year, and this number is projected to double by 2040 if current trends continue. From city dust to remote wilderness, microplastics have infiltrated every ecosystem on Earth. They’ve been found in Arctic snow, deep ocean trenches, drinking water reservoirs, and agricultural soils. In essence, we now live in a world blanketed by an invisible confetti of plastic.

How Do Microplastics Get Inside Us?

Given that microplastics are everywhere, it’s no surprise that they regularly find their way into the human body. There are three main routes by which we’re exposed: ingestion (eating and drinking), inhalation (breathing), and dermal contact (touching or absorption through skin). Let’s break down each of these pathways and how they contribute to our internal “microplastic load.”

1. Ingestion (Eating and Drinking): Most of our microplastic exposure likely comes through consuming food and beverages. Tiny plastic particles have been detected in all sorts of edibles. For example, sea salt from various parts of the world often contains microplastics, presumably because ocean water (polluted with plastics) leaves behind those particles when it evaporates to form salt. Seafood can be a source as well – marine organisms like fish and shellfish can ingest microplastics in the ocean, and those particles can end up in the seafood that reaches our plates. Even produce isn’t entirely off the hook; there’s evidence that crops can take up microplastic particles from soil via their roots, meaning fruits and vegetables might harbor some plastics internally (though research on this is still emerging).

Drinking water is another major source. Both tap water and bottled water have been shown to contain microplastics. In fact, some studies suggest bottled water has especially high levels – likely from particles leaching or scraping off the plastic bottle itself. One analysis of various bottled water brands found microplastic contamination in the majority of samples tested, sometimes tens to hundreds of particles per liter. If you brew your coffee or tea using plastic-containing equipment (for instance, a single-use plastic tea bag or a coffee maker with plastic components), that can add microplastics to your drink. A headline-grabbing report even noted that a single plastic tea bag, when steeped in hot water, released billions of nanoplastic particles into the tea – though it’s an extreme example, it highlights how heat and wear can accelerate the shedding of microplastics from consumer products.

Over time, all these small exposures add up. One research estimate suggested that adults might ingest on the order of tens of thousands of microplastic particles per year just from dietary sources and household dust, not even counting what’s in the air. Another widely cited analysis (from the University of Newcastle, Australia) posited that people could be consuming about 5 grams of plastic per week – roughly the weight of a credit card. While there’s some debate about the exact figures (and some scientists argue those numbers may be overestimates), the general point is clear: we are each inadvertently swallowing a substantial quantity of microplastics over time. For children, exposures might be even higher relative to body weight. Young children tend to put things in their mouths and ingest more dust (from crawling on floors, etc.), and some estimates suggest that kids could be consuming a few times more microplastic particles per kilogram of body weight compared to adults. For instance, one study calculated that children might ingest around 5,000 particles per kilogram of body weight each year, versus about 1,500 particles per kilogram for adults. In simpler terms, because kids are smaller, even a similar environmental exposure leads to a higher dose per pound of body weight – and kids’ behaviors can expose them to more dust and plastics (think of a toddler gnawing on a plastic toy).

2. Inhalation (Breathing In): The air around us contains microplastics as well. Fibers from synthetic clothing and textiles are a major contributor – every time we do laundry with polyester, nylon, or acrylic fabrics, microscopic fibers shed and can become airborne or end up in wastewater. Indoors, dust particles often carry microplastics from carpets, furniture, and household items. Outdoors, wind can transport microplastic dust over long distances. We end up breathing these particles in, and some can deposit in our airways or even deep in the lungs. Studies have found microplastic fibers in human lung tissue, including in people exposed to high levels of dust (like textile factory workers). Everyday life also brings inhalation exposures: one study found that just by being in certain environments (for example, standing on a busy road or even sitting in a typical home), a person could inhale several to many microplastic bits per hour – tiny lint fibers, fragments from vehicle tire wear, or particles from brake dust (tires and brake pads contain synthetic polymers too).

3. Dermal Contact (Skin): Compared to eating and breathing, skin absorption is thought to be a relatively minor route for microplastics – our skin is a pretty good barrier. However, there are specific scenarios where microplastics might directly contact our skin or be inadvertently ingested after skin contact. Many cosmetics and personal care products used to contain microbeads (tiny plastic beads added for exfoliation or texture) – facial scrubs, body washes, even some toothpastes. When you used those products, you were essentially rubbing microplastics onto your skin or teeth. While the larger beads wouldn’t penetrate the skin, any residue not rinsed off could potentially be swallowed accidentally, and there was concern about them washing down the drain and entering waterways (which is why several countries, including the US, have banned plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics). Beyond microbeads, some glitters and makeup products contain small plastic particles that could be absorbed around delicate areas (like eyes or lips) or swallowed if they get into your mouth. There’s also emerging research on whether very tiny nanoplastic particles could possibly infiltrate the skin barrier (especially if the skin is damaged), but for now ingestion and inhalation are considered far more significant pathways.

In summary, we get microplastics inside us mainly by eating, drinking, and breathing. You can picture it this way: every day we consume food and water that may have invisible plastic “seasoning,” and we inhale air that carries invisible plastic “dust.” Over a lifetime, this constant exposure means that microplastics accumulate in our bodies. It’s a bit unsettling to realize, but as one medical article succinctly stated, “whether we know it or like it, our bodies are polluted by tiny fragments of plastic”.

Microplastics Inside the Body – Where Do They Go?

Swallowing or inhaling a microplastic particle is just the beginning of its journey. What happens next? Do these particles pass straight through, or do they linger and lodge in our tissues? Researchers are actively investigating these questions, and while many details are still being uncovered, here’s what we know so far about the fate of microplastics inside the human body.

Many microplastics likely pass through the digestive tract and exit, but not all. When we ingest microplastic particles (say, on our food), especially larger ones (in the range of tens to hundreds of microns), a good portion are thought to simply move along our gastrointestinal tract and get excreted in feces. Indeed, scientists have found microplastics in human stool samples around the world. In one pilot study that gained international attention, stool from volunteers in Europe and Asia was analyzed and every single sample contained microplastics – with an average of about 20 particles per 10 grams of stool, including common polymers like PP, PE, PET, and others. Another study found an average of 3–7 microplastic pieces per gram of stool. These findings confirm that what goes in often comes out (which is somewhat reassuring). Even infants are not exempt: microplastics have been detected in newborns’ first stool (meconium), indicating that babies are already carrying plastic particles they likely ingested in utero.

However, the fact that many microplastics are expelled in feces does not mean all of them harmlessly transit our guts. The smaller the particle, the greater the chance it can cross into body tissues. Scientific experiments suggest that particles under a certain size (perhaps in the low micrometer range and smaller, especially nanoplastics) can penetrate the gut lining. Our intestinal wall isn’t full of big open holes – it’s designed to absorb nutrients, but tiny particles can exploit cellular uptake pathways or squeeze between cells. Once across the gut barrier, microplastics could enter the bloodstream or lymphatic system. From there, they might circulate and potentially lodge in various organs.

Indeed, microplastics have been discovered in human blood circulation and in vital organs, proving that some particles do penetrate internal barriers. A 2022 study made headlines by reporting microplastics in human blood samples – around 80% of tested individuals had detectable plastic particles in their blood, including PET and polystyrene fragments. This was the first evidence that plastic particles can travel in our circulatory system. Further, autopsy studies and tissue analyses have identified microplastics in organs such as the lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen, and even the heart and brain. For example, one scientific review found reports of microplastics in lung tissue (likely from inhalation), and even in human brain tissue (possibly crossing from bloodstream into the brain). Plastic particles have been found in lymph nodes (which filter lymphatic fluid) and in the intestine’s tissue itself in patients who had colon resections, suggesting the gut wall can retain some of these particles.

Particularly relevant to our focus, microplastics have shown up in reproductive organs and fluids. Researchers in Italy in 2020 conducted a small study charmingly titled “Plasticenta” – and as that portmanteau implies, they looked for microplastics in human placentas. They did indeed find microplastic fragments (ranging about 5–10 microns in size) in placental tissue from several healthy women. Some fragments were on the fetal side of the placenta, some on the maternal side, and some in the placental membranes, indicating that these particles had navigated through the highly selective barrier of the placenta. If microplastics are in the placenta, it raises the likelihood that they could reach the developing fetus – hence the saying that today’s babies might be “born pre-polluted.” In fact, as noted earlier, microplastics have been detected in meconium (the first feces of a newborn), confirming that fetuses are exposed to these particles during gestation.

Moving to male reproductive organs, the presence of microplastics there has been demonstrated in recent studies. We mentioned earlier the 2024 investigation from the University of New Mexico in which 23 human testicular tissue samples (obtained during autopsies) were analyzed – and every single sample contained microplastics. The researchers found a dozen different types of plastic polymers in the testes, including PE, PVC, and others. What’s more, the concentration of microplastics in human testis tissue was measured to be around 329 micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue on average. To put that in perspective, that’s nearly one-third of a milligram of plastic per gram of testis tissue – a surprisingly high burden. For comparison, they also tested canine (dog) testes and found about 123 micrograms per gram in dogs, meaning the human samples had roughly three times higher plastic levels. This was an eye-opening finding, as it suggests modern humans might accumulate more microplastics in their bodies than even other mammals living alongside us (perhaps due to our longer lifespans and broader exposures).

Microplastics have also been measured in human semen (ejaculated fluid). In 2023 and 2024, a few pioneering studies examined semen samples from men for microplastic content. One study of 45 men in China found microplastics in about 76% of semen samples tested. On average, there were about 17 microplastic particles per gram of semen, with sizes mostly in the tens of micrometers range. They detected up to 15 different polymer types, with PET (commonly found in polyester and beverage bottles) being the most abundant, accounting for about 36% of particles. Another investigation in Italy found eight types of plastic in semen samples of men from a highly polluted region. And most recently, a larger multi-center study in 2024 (which we’ll discuss in detail later) confirmed multiple microplastic types present in both semen and even in urine of adult men. The detection in urine suggests that some microplastics circulate through the bloodstream and get filtered out by the kidneys into urine – in other words, microplastics can travel systemically in the body.

In summary, once microplastics enter our body, some fraction is likely excreted in feces (and perhaps urine), but a portion can persist and deposit in tissues. Particles small enough to cross gut or lung barriers can end up lodged in organs like the liver, spleen, or – of concern here – the testes. The human body does not have a specialized mechanism to break down plastic, so particles that become stuck in tissues might remain for a long time, potentially causing local irritation. Autopsy data showing microplastics in organs, and biopsies finding them in reproductive fluids, underscore that these foreign particles are indeed accumulating in us. As Dr. Desiree LaBeaud at Stanford stated, finding microplastics in placenta, breastmilk, semen, and infant stool means “we’re born pre-polluted.” It’s a sobering thought – our generation and the next are living with an internal pollution that didn’t exist a century ago.

Now that we know microplastics can reside within the body, the critical question is: What are they doing in there?Specifically, how might microplastics affect our health and, focusing on our topic, male fertility?

What Do Microplastics Do to the Body (and Reproductive Health)?

Research on the health effects of microplastics is still in the early stages, but evidence is mounting that these particles are not biologically inert hitchhikers – they can cause harm to living tissues. Studies in laboratory animals and cells have linked microplastic exposure to a variety of adverse outcomes: inflammation, oxidative stress, tissue damage, disrupted metabolism, and even altered development of organs. For example, in fish and birds, ingesting microplastics has been shown to weaken their immunity and make them more prone to infections. In mice, microplastics can induce gut inflammation and imbalance the gut microbiome. When human cells in petri dishes are exposed to microplastics, researchers have observed cell death and signs of toxicity at high concentrations. One recent review concluded that microplastic exposure is “suspected to harm reproductive, digestive and respiratory health” based on the available data, and may even have links to certain cancers.

It’s important to note that direct evidence in humans is still limited, because it’s not easy to study microplastic effects in large human populations yet. However, some early clinical studies have hinted at concerning associations. For instance, a study published in New England Journal of Medicine in 2024 examined people who had undergone surgeries for clogged arteries: it found that those patients who had microplastic particles embedded in their arterial plaques were more likely to suffer heart attacks or strokes in subsequent years compared to those without plastics in their plaque. While that doesn’t prove the microplastics caused the cardiovascular events, it raises alarms that microplastics inside blood vessels might contribute to chronic disease processes. Overall, medical science is in a race to catch up with this stealthy pollutant; it’s clear we are exposed, but we are still illuminating the full spectrum of health impacts.

Given our focus on male fertility, let’s delve specifically into what research so far tells us about microplastics and the male reproductive system. Could microplastics be partly responsible for declining sperm counts and other male fertility problems? Here’s what the evidence indicates:

Animal Studies – A Warning Sign: Much of our understanding comes from animal experiments, which allow scientists to control exposure and directly observe effects on reproduction. Repeatedly, studies in rodents (mice and rats) and other model organisms have shown that consuming or inhaling microplastics can impair male reproductive health. For example, male mice fed polystyrene microplastics in their diet for several weeks exhibited significant declines in sperm count and sperm motility (movement), along with an increase in abnormal sperm (misshapen heads and tails). Under the microscope, the testes of microplastic-exposed mice often show histological damage – meaning the tissue structure is altered or injured. Researchers have observed changes like degeneration of the seminiferous tubules (the structures in the testes where sperm are produced), fewer spermatogenic cells (the cells that develop into sperm), and signs of cell death (apoptosis) in the testes of animals exposed to microplastics.

Multiple studies also document that microplastics can trigger oxidative stress in the testes. Oxidative stress refers to an imbalance where harmful reactive oxygen species (ROS) build up and can damage cells. Sperm are particularly vulnerable to oxidative damage, which can harm their DNA and motility. In rats exposed to microplastics, markers of oxidative stress and inflammation increase in the testicular tissue. Concurrently, levels of key antioxidants and protective enzymes in the testes (like superoxide dismutase or glutathione) often decrease, implying the natural defense systems are overwhelmed. This oxidative onslaught is one plausible mechanism by which microplastics harm sperm production and quality.

Another mechanism suggested by animal research is hormonal disruption. The male reproductive system is under tight hormonal control (primarily testosterone and other signals that regulate sperm production). Some studies have found that microplastic exposure can lower testosterone levels in male mice or disrupt the expression of genes involved in hormone pathways. This could happen because certain chemicals in plastics are known endocrine disruptors – for example, additives like phthalates or bisphenol A (BPA) can leach from plastic particles and interfere with hormone receptors. Additionally, microplastics might cause local inflammation in organs like the testes, which can indirectly alter hormone production.

One notable mouse study in 2023 focused on very small plastics – polystyrene nanoplastics – and reported that chronic exposure led to premature cellular aging (senescence) in the sperm-producing cells of the testes, via disrupting a vital cell growth pathway (the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway) responsible for cell survival and proliferation. Essentially, the microplastics accelerated the aging and dysfunction of the cells that generate sperm, resulting in fewer and less healthy sperm. This kind of finding at the molecular level reinforces what the higher-level observations show: microplastics can directly damage the machinery of reproduction in animals.

It’s not just adult exposure that matters. Alarmingly, experiments have shown that if pregnant female rodents are exposed to microplastics, their male offspring can be affected in utero. Prenatal exposure to microplastics has been linked to altered development of the male reproductive tract in offspring. For instance, male pups might be born with smaller testes or fewer sperm-producing cells because microplastics (or the chemicals associated with them) interfered with normal developmental signals while the fetus was growing. This raises the possibility that microplastics could have transgenerational effects – impacting fertility potential before a male is even born.

To sum up the animal data: microplastics have consistently demonstrated reproductive toxicity in males, causing reduced sperm counts, poor sperm motility, abnormal sperm morphology, tissue damage in testes, oxidative stress, cell death, and hormone disturbances. These findings in animals served as an early warning that warranted investigating humans as well.

Human Evidence – Emerging but Concerning: Studying the effects of microplastics on human fertility is challenging (we can’t exactly feed people plastic particles and see what happens). However, researchers have cleverly started to gather observational evidence. The first step was to establish that microplastics are indeed present in human reproductive fluids, which we’ve covered – they are present in semen and even testis tissue. The next step is to see if there’s a correlation between microplastic exposure and semen quality or fertility outcomes among men. Two key studies in 2023-2024 addressed this question:

• A 2024 multi-site study in China (Zhang et al., published in eBioMedicine) recruited over 100 men who were visiting fertility clinics for evaluation. These researchers went to great lengths to avoid contamination – collecting semen samples in glass containers and analyzing them with special microplastic detection techniques. They measured not only the sperm parameters (count, concentration, motility, morphology) but also the microplastics in each man’s semen (and even in their urine). The results were striking: every single participant had some microplastics detected in his semen. On average, each man’s semen contained 3 to 5 different types of plastic particles (and some had up to 7 types). The most common polymer found was polystyrene (PS), present in 100% of men, but other frequent ones included polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, PET, and notably PTFE (Teflon). When they analyzed the semen quality against microplastic exposure, they discovered a clear trend: men who had a greater variety of microplastic types in their semen tended to have worse sperm quality. In particular, exposure to PTFE (the Teflon-associated polymer) showed the strongest association with impaired fertility measures. Men with detectable PTFE in their samples had on average lower total sperm counts and fewer motile sperm. The study reported a dose-response relationship – meaning the more types of microplastics a man was exposed to, the more his sperm count and motility declined. Those exposed to six different kinds of microplastics had significantly lower sperm counts and motility than those exposed to only two or three kinds. After adjusting for other factors like age, smoking, and BMI, having PTFE in the body was linked to a reduction of total sperm count by about 15% and a reduction in sperm concentration by about 7% (in terms of regression coefficients). Perhaps most striking, the data suggested that the presence of PTFE increased the odds of a man having poor semen quality by over 4-fold. In other words, the men with Teflon-related microplastics were several times more likely to fall into subfertile ranges of sperm count.
• A 2023 study in Shanghai, China (Hu et al., published in Toxics) looked at 45 men and similarly found microplastics in the majority of semen samples. They identified 15 polymer types; interestingly, in that study the plastic that showed a possible effect was PET (polyethylene terephthalate) – men with PET in their semen had lower progressive motility of sperm (averaging ~21% motile vs ~35% in those without PET, p = 0.056). While that particular association just missed statistical significance, it pointed in the same direction: microplastics in semen = worse sperm movement. They didn’t see a strong link to sperm count in that smaller sample, but the authors concluded that microplastic exposure “might have adverse impacts on male reproductive health” and urged larger studies.
• Adding to the evidence, the study of human testicular tissue (Hu et al., 2024 in Toxicological Sciences) found that in canine testes, higher levels of one plastic polymer, PVC, correlated with lower sperm counts in those animals. For the human testis samples, they couldn’t measure sperm (since those tissues were preserved from autopsy), but the dog data strongly suggest a link between plastic burden in the testis and reduced sperm production. PVC (polyvinyl chloride) is a plastic used in countless products (pipes, packaging, etc.) and often contains additives like phthalates, which are known endocrine disruptors. The researchers noted that PVC can release chemicals that “interfere with spermatogenesis and cause endocrine disruption”. In other words, it’s biologically plausible that having bits of PVC in the testis could harm the process by which sperm are made, either through local chemical effects or by inciting inflammation.

All these human findings, while relatively new, draw a consistent picture: men today carry microplastics in their reproductive organs, and those with higher exposure show signs of sperm dysfunction. Dr. Bogdan Doroftei and colleagues, in a 2025 comprehensive review of microplastics and human fertility, summed it up by saying there is a “growing number of evidences” implicating environmental pollutants like microplastics in the decline of reproductive function. They pointed out that microplastics have been detected in key human samples (blood, placenta, seminal fluid), indicating continuous exposure and even the capacity for these particles to penetrate barriers and possibly transfer across generations. Their review of animal studies echoed what we described: microplastics induce gonadal (testicular) changes, oxidative stress, cell death, and hormonal disturbances, all of which can impair fertility. The fact that this aligns with the human epidemiological observations strengthens the case that microplastics are not just innocent bystanders in our bodies.

Mechanisms – How Might Microplastics Harm Sperm? Scientists are actively investigating how microplastics physiologically affect the male reproductive system. From current knowledge, several plausible mechanisms have been proposed and supported by evidence:

• Oxidative Stress and Inflammation: Microplastics can generate reactive oxygen species and trigger inflammatory reactions in tissues. In the testes, oxidative stress can damage the delicate sperm cells and the spermatogenic epithelium (the lining of the tubules where sperm develop). Studies have found that microplastic exposure activates stress-related molecular pathways such as the c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) and p38 MAPK pathways in testes, which are often turned on by cellular stress. Additionally, microplastics may prompt the body to produce pro-inflammatory signaling molecules like NF-κB, IL-1β, and IL-6, which have been linked to higher rates of abnormal sperm and inflammation in the reproductive tract. Chronic inflammation in the testes can impair sperm production and also damage mature sperm, reducing their function.
• Endocrine Disruption: Many plastics contain additives (plasticizers, stabilizers, flame retardants) that are known endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). As microplastic fragments sit in the body, they might leach these small molecule chemicals. For example, PVC often contains phthalates – chemicals that can mimic or block hormones. PTFE (Teflon) can release perfluorochemicals when degraded, which have been linked to hormonal and metabolic disturbances. Microplastics might also adsorb external pollutants (like pesticides or PCBs) onto their surfaces and carry them into the body. These chemicals could interfere with the hormones that regulate reproduction. In men, a key concern is lowering testosterone or altering the delicate balance of hormones needed for sperm production. The 2024 Chinese study suggested microplastics might “interfere with the synthesis and secretion of testicular steroid hormones”, which would impair spermatogenesis (sperm creation).
• Physical Disruption and Cell Damage: Microplastics are foreign particles; if they lodge in tissues, they could cause physical irritation or even cell death in that area. Think of tiny splinters of plastic stuck in an organ – immune cells might attack them or produce scar tissue around them. In the testes, if microplastics provoke local immune responses, it might break down the immune privilege that the testes normally maintain (the body usually tries to keep the immune system somewhat isolated from sperm because they can be seen as foreign). Breaching that can lead to autoimmune reactions against sperm. Also, if microplastics accumulate in the epididymis (the duct where sperm mature and are stored), they might mechanically interfere with sperm maturation or mobility.
• Autophagy and Cellular Pathways: There is research indicating microplastics can disturb cellular cleanup processes like autophagy (where cells remove damaged components). A recent study reported that when microplastics reach rodent testes, they can trigger excessive autophagy and cell loss in sperm-forming cells. The result is fewer viable cells to produce sperm. Disrupted autophagy can also lead to accumulation of defective cell parts, contributing to cellular dysfunction.
• Transport of Other Toxins or Microbes: Some have hypothesized that microplastic particles might act as Trojan horses, ferrying pathogenic microbes or toxic heavy metals into the reproductive tract. For instance, certain bacteria or fungal spores can hitchhike on microplastics in the environment; if those particles end up in the body, they might deliver unwanted passengers. This area is still speculative, but researchers have noted microplastics could potentially help carry infectious agents or environmental toxins deeper into tissues than they’d otherwise get.

It’s likely that multiple mechanisms are at play simultaneously. The bottom line is that microplastics present a multi-faceted assault on biological systems: they stress cells chemically and physically, they disrupt hormonal signals, and they elicit inflammation. The male reproductive system, with its high rate of cell turnover (new sperm are generated constantly) and its need for precise hormonal regulation, may be particularly vulnerable to such disturbances.

It must be mentioned that not every man with microplastics in him will be infertile; fertility is influenced by many factors (genetics, lifestyle, other toxic exposures, etc.). But microplastics could be one additional burden tipping some men into subfertility. Given that male infertility cases often have no easily identifiable cause, environmental exposures like microplastics are now high on the list of suspects when a work-up finds no genetic or anatomical explanation.

To put things in perspective: the decline in sperm counts over the last 50–60 years has roughly coincided with the explosion of plastic production and usage worldwide. This parallel isn’t proof of causation, but it’s a compelling coincidence. Dr. Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist who studies reproductive trends, famously pointed out that the curve of rising plastic chemical production matches the downward curve of human sperm counts since the mid-20th century. Plastic-related chemicals (like phthalates and BPA) have already been implicated in male reproductive issues; now the plastics as physical particles themselves are under scrutiny.

In summary, while we are still uncovering the details, the evidence to date suggests microplastics can negatively affect male fertility by reducing sperm quantity and quality. Animal studies provide direct causative evidence, and emerging human data show strong associations between microplastic exposure and poorer semen parameters. This is a worrisome realization – tiny plastic bits, which we didn’t even know we were consuming until recently, might be silently undermining reproductive health.

Having covered the problem, it’s natural to ask what can be done about it. Once microplastics are in our bodies, can we get rid of them? And on a broader scale, how do we prevent future generations from carrying this plastic burden?

Can We Get Rid of Microplastics From Our Bodies?

If you’ve made it this far, you might be feeling a bit alarmed at the idea that you have invisible plastic pieces lodged in various organs. It’s a reasonable concern: nobody likes the thought of being internally littered with plastic debris. So, is there any way to cleanse or detoxify the body of microplastics? Or are we stuck with them for life?

The honest truth is that medical science currently has no established, routine method to remove microplastic particles from human tissues. Once these particles have been absorbed into organs, it’s challenging to extract them. They’re too small to pick out surgically (you can’t exactly pluck 10-micron fibers out of lung tissue easily), and because they are not dissolved chemicals but solid particles, typical detox approaches (like chelation therapy for heavy metals) don’t apply.

That said, our bodies do have some natural processes that help eliminate foreign particles:

• Gut Excretion: As mentioned earlier, a lot of ingested microplastics will be excreted in feces. So maintaining healthy bowel movements ensures you’re clearing out whatever plastic your digestive system can eject. Some research suggests that a high-fiber diet might help speed the transit of not only food but also any particulate contaminants through the gut, potentially reducing absorption. While not specific to microplastics, it’s generally true that good digestive regularity is beneficial for minimizing contact time with any ingested toxins.
• Mucociliary Clearance (for Lungs): Our respiratory tract has mechanisms to trap and expel inhaled particulates. Tiny hairs and mucus in the airways capture dust (and microplastic bits) and move them upward, where we eventually cough them out or swallow them (leading them to the gut for disposal). So, some microplastics inhaled into the lungs might get cleared by this system over time, especially if they’re in the bronchial tubes. However, very small particles that reach deep into the lungs or translocate into lung tissue may not be easily removed and could stay embedded for long periods.
• Immune Cell Action: Certain immune cells (like macrophages) roam the body and engulf foreign particles or debris. They might ingest microplastics in tissues. But this is a double-edged sword: while macrophages can clear some debris, if they consume something indigestible like plastic, they can become “foamy” or die, potentially causing inflammation or leaving the plastic behind. Still, it’s possible that over years, immune processes could slowly corral some microplastics and transport them to organs like lymph nodes, liver, or spleen, which are filtration sites. In fact, some studies indicate microplastics that enter the bloodstream may get filtered out by the liver and spleen and eventually excreted in bile (and thus feces)health.com. The efficiency of this is not well quantified, though.

What about actively removing microplastics with medical intervention? This is a nascent field, but there are a few interesting developments:

• Therapeutic Apheresis (Blood Filtration): A very recent pilot study explored using a dialysis-like procedure to filter microplastics from the bloodstream. Therapeutic apheresis is an established medical technology where blood is passed through a machine that can remove certain components (it’s used in some autoimmune diseases to remove antibodies, for example). In this experimental approach, scientists ran patients’ blood through a filter and indeed found microplastic-like particles in the filter effluent, suggesting they physically strained out some plastics. The study (published in 2025 in the journal Brain Medicine) was very small and preliminary, but it proved a concept: in the future, we might use blood-cleaning devices to reduce the body’s microplastic load. The authors cautioned that more research is needed to verify how effective it is and whether removing microplastics this way will improve health outcomes. It’s also worth noting that unless we stop new exposure, filtering blood might be like mopping the floor while the tap is still overflowing – you could clear some microplastics out, but you might re-accumulate them if you continue eating and inhaling more daily (as one commenter quipped, “you will quickly become recontaminated after all your time and expense” if the environment remains polluted).
• Future Medications or Supplements: At present, there is no pill that “flushes out” microplastics. Some companies might market detox supplements claiming to cleanse plastics, but these are not backed by solid science specifically for microplastics. In theory, compounds that bind to plastic surfaces could help aggregate them for removal, or substances that bolster the body’s own clearance pathways (like inducing certain enzymes or bile production) could marginally help. However, this is speculative. One area being researched is whether antioxidants or anti-inflammatory nutrients might mitigate the damage from microplastics (rather than physically removing the plastics, reducing the harm they cause). For example, could a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids or certain polyphenols counteract the oxidative stress triggered by microplastics? Animal studies have shown some protective effects of antioxidant supplements against microplastic-induced toxicity, but translating that to human recommendations is premature.
• Surgical Removal: In extreme cases, if microplastics form large deposits or stones (not that we know they do, but imagine, say, a cluster of plastics in the appendix or gallbladder), surgery could remove that focus. But this is more a thought experiment than a practical solution for the diffuse presence of microplastics.

Given these realities, the pragmatic approach is to focus on prevention and minimizing further exposure, which we’ll cover in the next section. Our bodies may gradually eliminate some portion of microplastics (especially if we reduce ongoing intake), and encouragingly, the harmful chemicals associated with plastics (like certain plasticizers) do get metabolized and excreted over time if exposure stopshealth.com. For instance, BPA levels in the body drop fairly quickly once one stops ingesting BPA. So, avoiding more intake of microplastics and their additives will allow our natural clearance mechanisms to slowly chip away at the existing burden.

It’s also important to keep perspective: while the thought of microplastics inside us is unsettling, the known health risks come from the interactions (inflammation, etc.) they cause, which likely correlate with high levels of exposure. By cutting down exposure, you likely reduce the risk and perhaps allow the body to maintain a sort of equilibrium.

In summary, we currently cannot magically “detox” microplastics from our bodies, but staying hydrated, eating a fiber-rich diet, and avoiding additional exposure may help our system clear some of them gradually. New medical innovations like blood filtration are on the horizon and might one day become a specialized option for those with high contaminant loads, but they are not routine yet. Therefore, the most sensible strategy is to prevent as many microplastics as possible from entering in the first place.

Preventing Microplastic Exposure: Protecting Future Generations

The issue of microplastics is not just a personal health concern – it’s a generational challenge. If current trends continue, future generations will be born into an environment even more saturated with microplastics than today. As Dr. Xiaozhong “John” Yu, who led the study finding microplastics in all those human testes, pointed out: the men in his study (average age 35) grew up in the 1980s-90s when there was less plastic in the environment, “the impact on the younger generation might be more concerning” now that there is far more plastic pollution around. In other words, a child born today will likely accumulate more microplastics over their lifetime than any of us have, unless we take action to change the trajectory.

Preventing microplastic exposure requires efforts on multiple levels: individual behavioral changes, healthcare guidance, industry innovation, and policy interventions. Here, we’ll outline practical steps and broader strategies that can help reduce microplastic exposure for ourselves and our communities, thereby protecting fertility and health in the long run.

Personal Steps to Reduce Microplastic Exposure

While no one can completely avoid microplastics (they are truly ubiquitous), you can certainly minimize your intake by being mindful in daily life. Many of these measures have the added benefit of reducing exposure to harmful chemicals associated with plastics as well. Consider incorporating the following habits:

• Drink Filtered Tap Water: Instead of bottled water (which often contains microplastics from the bottle and cap), use filtered tap water. A good home water filter (such as an activated carbon block or reverse osmosis system) can remove a significant portion of microplastics. This not only cuts down your own ingestion of plastic particles but also reduces demand for single-use plastic bottles.
• Avoid Heating Food in Plastic: Heat can cause plastics to shed microparticles and leach chemicals. Use glass or ceramic containers for microwaving food. Prefer stovetop or oven methods with metal or glass cookware instead of plastic microwave meals when possible. If you do use plastic wrap or covers, remove them before reheating food. Also, avoid pouring very hot liquids into plastic cups or bottles – use a ceramic mug or stainless steel tumbler for your coffee/tea.
• Choose Plastic-Free Food Storage: Opt for glass, stainless steel, or food-grade silicone storage containers rather than plastic containers. When storing leftovers or dry goods, these alternatives will not shed microplastics into your food. If you do use plastic containers, don’t use ones that are scratched or worn (old, degraded plastic sheds more particles) and replace them periodically.
• Limit Consumption of Highly Processed/Packaged Foods: Some processed foods could have higher microplastic content either from packaging or additives. For example, tea bags made of nylon or PET can release microplastics, so prefer loose-leaf tea or paper tea bags. Sea salt is known to contain microplastics; you might opt for mined rock salt for lower chance of contamination (though sea salt’s health impact from microplastics is still probably minor, it’s an easy swap). When possible, buy foods in bulk or in non-plastic packaging. Even things like chewing gum often contain synthetic polymers – yes, many gums are essentially edible plastics, so consider more natural gums if you chew a lot.
• Be Selective with Seafood: Seafood is nutritious, but certain seafood (especially filter feeders like oysters or small fish that are eaten whole with their digestive tract) may carry microplastics. You don’t need to eliminate seafood, but sourcing from cleaner waters or moderating consumption of species known to have higher microplastic load (some studies found shellfish can have a few micrograms of plastic per gram of tissue) could modestly reduce intake.
• Use Natural Fabrics and Laundry Filters: Our clothing is a huge contributor to microfibers in the environment. Whenever synthetic clothes (polyester, acrylic, nylon, etc.) are washed, they shed countless tiny fibers. Using a wash bag (like the “Guppyfriend” bag) or installing a microfiber filter on your washing machine can capture a lot of these fibers, preventing them from going down the drain. Additionally, choosing clothes made of natural fibers (cotton, wool, hemp, etc.) when feasible means fewer microplastic fibers to begin with. Not only will you be polluting less, but you’ll also have fewer synthetic fibers floating around in your home’s air and dust that you could inhale.
• Dust and Vacuum Regularly: Indoor dust accumulates microplastics from all the shedding sources. Using a vacuum with a HEPA filter and dusting surfaces with a damp cloth (which traps dust instead of making it airborne) can reduce the amount of microplastic-laden dust you breathe in. This is especially important if you have crawling babies or toddlers in the house, as they stir up and ingest more dust. Good ventilation can also help disperse indoor airborne particles.
• Switch Away from Non-Stick Cookware: Traditional non-stick pans are often coated with PTFE (Teflon). Over time and with high heat, these pans can flake or release micro- and nano-particles of PTFE, which might end up in your food. If you have old, scratched non-stick cookware, consider replacing it. Alternatives include cast iron, stainless steel, or newer ceramic-coated pans. If you do use non-stick, use low to medium heat and avoid scraping the surface with metal utensils to minimize releasing particles. Given the study linking PTFE exposure to reduced sperm counts, this could be a meaningful change for male reproductive health.
• Mindful Consumer Choices: Many personal items like cosmetics, toothpaste, and paints contain microplastic ingredients (look for words like “polyethylene” or “polypropylene” in ingredient lists). Opt for products that don’t use microbeads or polymer fillers. For example, use exfoliants with natural abrasives (sugar, salt, apricot shell, etc.) instead of plastic microbeads (though as noted, microbeads are largely outlawed in many countries now). If you use period products, note that some pads and tampons have plastic fibers; 100% cotton products are available as an alternative to reduce direct mucosal exposure to plastic.

By implementing these steps, individuals can significantly cut down their microplastic intake. One Stanford physician emphasized that while “avoiding microplastics is impossible,” individuals can take steps to reduce their exposureand thereby likely reduce potential harm. None of us can escape all plastics – but even small changes in daily habits can trim some sources of exposure, much like wearing a filter mask reduces air pollution inhalation.

Medical and Public Health Measures

Healthcare providers can play a role by staying informed and counseling patients on environmental reproductive health. For instance, fertility specialists might start taking environmental exposure histories that include questions about plastics (e.g., “Do you frequently heat food in plastic or drink from plastic bottles?”) and advise on changes as part of optimizing preconception health. There’s also a need for standardized methods to measure microplastics in human samples. If clinicians could easily test, say, microplastic levels in semen or blood, it might become a new biomarker of exposure – similar to how we can test for lead or other pollutants. This is still in the research realm, but developing reliable tests is a priority identified by experts.

Public health messaging is just beginning to include microplastics. In the future, we may see guidelines for parents about sterilizing baby bottles (e.g., avoiding shaking formula in plastic bottles with very hot water, since a study showed that can release millions of microplastic particles into the milk). In fact, one study in 2020 found that formula-fed babies might ingest millions of microplastic particles a day if fed from polypropylene bottles – prompting recommendations to prepare formula in non-plastic containers or let it cool before transferring to plastic bottles. Educating populations about these subtleties can help reduce exposures during critical windows like infancy and pregnancy.

Policy and Industry Solutions

Ultimately, preventing microplastic exposure long-term means reducing plastic pollution at its source. This requires broad societal action:

• Reducing Single-Use Plastics: Governments and companies can phase out unnecessary single-use plastic items (bags, straws, cutlery, certain food packaging) that often end up as litter and break into microplastics. Many jurisdictions have started bans or fees on plastic bags and straws. These efforts need expansion and innovation to find eco-friendly alternatives (like biodegradable materials) that truly decompose without leaving microplastic residue.
• Microfiber and Microbead Regulation: The Microbead-Free Waters Act in the US (2015) and similar laws in other countries have banned plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics – a win for reducing one source of microplastics. Attention is now turning to microfibers from clothing. Some places are considering requiring filters on new washing machines to catch microfibers, or encouraging the fashion industry to innovate fabrics that shed less. Supporting such regulations and technological solutions can drastically cut the amount of new microplastic entering waterways. For example, France has mandated that by 2025 all new washing machines must have filters for microfibers – a policy that could become a model globally.
• Better Waste Management and Recycling: A lot of plastic pollution comes from inadequate waste disposal – plastics escaping landfills, overflowing trash in cities, or being dumped into rivers. Improving waste management infrastructure so that plastic trash is contained and processed (and increasing actual recycling rates) will help curb the creation of secondary microplastics. Recycling itself needs advancement; currently, many plastics aren’t effectively recyclable and degrade in quality, eventually becoming waste. Investing in recycling technology or alternative materials (like truly compostable bioplastics) can reduce future microplastic generation.
• Environmental Cleanup Initiatives: Cleaning up existing pollution can help on the margins. Efforts to remove plastics from oceans (like the Ocean Cleanup project targeting the Great Pacific Garbage Patch) could indirectly reduce microplastics because removing larger debris now prevents it from degrading into microplastics later. Locally, reducing plastic litter through community clean-ups, proper trash disposal, and preventing plastics from entering storm drains and waterways will help stem microplastic formation.
• Research and Innovation: We should support research into novel ways to degrade or capture microplastics. Scientists are investigating certain microbes and enzymes that can break down plastics. For instance, a bacterium called Ideonella sakaiensis was discovered that eats PET plastic – researchers are working to harness such organisms or enzymes to tackle plastic waste. If one day we could spray an enzyme that safely degrades microplastics in wastewater or soil, that would be revolutionary. Likewise, research into non-plastic materials for consumer goods (like biodegradable composites or silicon-based materials that don’t form microplastics) is crucial.
• Monitoring and Standards: Governments could establish standard monitoring of microplastic levels in drinking water, foods, and consumer products, similar to how we monitor for other contaminants. Setting safety thresholds (though science first needs to determine what levels might be “safe”) could drive industries to keep microplastic contamination below certain limits. Already, the World Health Organization has reviewed microplastics in drinking water and called for more research, though they concluded initial findings didn’t yet indicate a widespread health risk – but that was before we knew the full extent of microplastics in the body. It’s likely that as evidence mounts, regulatory bodies will update guidelines to address microplastics explicitly.

Protecting future generations will ultimately require a cultural shift away from our heavy reliance on disposable plastics. Every bit of plastic not produced, or properly captured and recycled, is a bit less microplastic in the future. It’s a daunting challenge because plastic is deeply integrated in modern life, and it has many benefits (cheap, versatile, hygienic). However, awareness is growing. As the “godfather of microplastics,” Dr. Richard Thompson (who first coined the term microplastics in 2004), has emphasized – we “can’t carry on” with business as usual; we have to rethink how we use and dispose of plastics to stop the flood of microplastics.

On an encouraging note, many of the steps to reduce microplastic exposure dovetail with general environmental and health improvements. By cutting down plastic use, we also often reduce fossil fuel usage (since plastics are petroleum-based), and we decrease exposure to other hazardous chemicals in plastics. By eating fresh, less packaged foods and drinking clean tap water, we also promote overall wellness. So, the fight against microplastics can be framed as part of a broader movement for a healthier planet and healthier people.

Dr. Yu from the microplastics-in-testes study gave a balanced advice: “We don’t want to scare people… We want to provide the data and make people aware. We can make our own choices to better avoid exposures, change our lifestyle and behavior.” This encapsulates the approach – informed awareness without panic. By being aware, we can take commonsense steps to protect ourselves and advocate for systemic changes to protect everyone.

Conclusion: Tiny Particles, Big Implications

Microplastics may be tiny, but their implications for human health – and specifically male fertility – are huge. We’ve learned that these specks of plastic are not just an environmental eyesore; they have infiltrated our bodies and could be affecting the very ability to create life. The emerging scientific evidence, gathered over the last few years, paints a concerning picture: microplastics are present in male reproductive organs, and higher levels of exposure are associated with lower sperm counts and poorer sperm quality. In animal studies, microplastics have demonstrated direct harm to the testes and sperm, through mechanisms of oxidative stress, inflammation, and hormonal disruption. It’s increasingly plausible that the decline in male fertility observed over the past half-century has an environmental component – and that microplastics and the chemicals they carry are key suspects contributing to this trend.

The notion that modern men might have plastic particles lodged in their testicles (as bizarre as that sounds) underscores just how profoundly human biology and industrial pollution are intertwined in the 21st century. It serves as a wake-up call that our disposable lifestyle has invisible, unintended consequences. What we throw away doesn’t truly go away – it comes back to us in our food, water, and even in our bodies.

The good news is that awareness is the first step towards change. Researchers, physicians, and public health experts are now actively investigating microplastics, and each new study brings clarity to the risks and how we might mitigate them. There is a growing consensus that we need to develop standardized methods to detect microplastics in humans and the environment, to better understand the scope of exposure and track our progress in reducing it. By identifying microplastics as a potential reproductive hazard, we can integrate that knowledge into medical guidance – for example, counseling couples who are trying to conceive on how to minimize exposure, or including environmental history as part of male infertility evaluations.

On an individual level, we don’t have to wait for policy changes to take action. You can make simple switches in daily life (filtered water, less plastic use in food handling, etc.) that not only reduce microplastic intake but also often improve overall health. These changes, scaled across populations, can make a meaningful difference. On a societal level, supporting policies and innovations that reduce plastic pollution will be crucial. This can range from pushing for better waste management in your community, to choosing products from companies committed to sustainable packaging, to educating others about why these little plastics matter.

We started by asking whether we can get rid of microplastics and how to prevent future generations from having them. In our bodies, complete removal is difficult, but by stopping further exposure we give our bodies a fighting chance to heal and perhaps gradually clear out some of the burden. In the world, preventing future generations from being contaminated means turning off the tap of plastic pollution now. It’s a formidable task, but not an insurmountable one, especially as new technologies and a wave of public support come into play.

For physicians and healthcare providers, the topic of microplastics offers an opportunity to practice preventive medicine on a broad scale. It reminds us that reproductive health is connected to environmental health – an integrative view that is at the heart of modern public health thinking. Counseling patients on lifestyle improvements that reduce microplastic exposure can be part of a holistic approach to improving fertility and well-being.

For patients and the general public, knowledge is empowering. Rather than feeling helpless that “everything causes cancer or infertility these days,” understanding specific risks like microplastics allows targeted changes. It transforms vague anxiety into concrete action. Yes, microplastics are virtually everywhere, but as we’ve detailed, there are tangible ways to minimize contact with them.

In conclusion, microplastics represent a novel challenge of our industrial age – tiny pollutants with potentially far-reaching effects on male fertility and beyond. While research is still catching up to fully delineate the risks, the prudent approach is to apply the precautionary principle: reduce exposure where we can, even as we push for more answers. The story of microplastics and male fertility is still being written by scientists across the globe, but one thing is clear: what’s good for the planet (reducing plastic pollution) is good for human reproductive health too. By addressing the microplastic problem, we not only preserve the environment for future generations, we also help ensure those future generations can be born healthy in the first place.

Ultimately, tackling microplastics is about respecting the interconnectedness of our health and our environment. Tiny particles though they are, microplastics have delivered a big message: our health is woven into the fabric of the world we live in, down to the microscopic level. It’s on us – physicians, patients, and citizens alike – to heed that message and act so that we leave a healthier legacy, free of microplastic pollution, for those who come after us.

---

References 

1. Doroftei B, Savuca A, Cretu A-M, et al. Microplastics and human fertility: A comprehensive review of their presence in human samples and reproductive implication. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2025;303:118939.
2. Daniels D, Eberhardt AB. Climate change, microplastics, and male infertility. Curr Opin Urol. 2024;34(5):366-370.
3. Hu CJ, Garcia MA, Nihart A, et al. Microplastic presence in dog and human testis and its potential association with sperm count and weights of testis and epididymis. Toxicol Sci. 2024;200(2):235-240.
4. Carrington D. Microplastics found in every human testicle in study – scientists say discovery may be linked to decades-long decline in sperm counts. The Guardian. May 20, 2024. Accessed October 29, 2025.
5. News-Medical. Study finds microplastics in semen and urine, linking PTFE exposure to lower sperm count. . October 1, 2024. Accessed October 29, 2025.
6. Zhou Y, Wang J, Shi H, et al. The presence of microplastics in human semen and their associations with semen quality. Toxics. 2023;13(7):566.
7. Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, et al. Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. 2021;146:106274. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.
8. Brahney J, Hallerud M, Heim E, Hahnenberger M, Sukumaran S. Plastic rain in protected areas of the United States. Science. 2020;368(6496):1257-1260.
9. Jenner LC, Rotchell JM, Bennett RT, Cowen M, Tentzeris V, Sadofsky LR. Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using µFTIR spectroscopy. Sci Total Environ. 2022;831:154907.
10. Amereh F, Babaei M, Eslami A, Fazelipour S, Rafiee M. The emerging risk of exposure to nano(micro)plastics on endocrine disturbance and reproductive toxicity: from a hypothetical scenario to a global public health challenge. Environ Pollut. 2020;261:114158.
11. An R, Yang W, Li Y, Zhang X, Zhou Q, Jiang G. Inflammatory responses induced by microplastics in animal models: Current understanding and potential impacts on reproductive health. J Hazard Mater. 2021;417:126035.
12. Yong CQY, Valiyaveettil S, Tang BL. Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics in mammalian systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1509.
13. Yang S, Zhou X, Lei K, Li H, Fan D. Microplastics in human fluids and tissues: Detection, risks, and mitigation. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2023;34(9):579-591.
14. World Health Organization (WHO). Microplastics in drinking water. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. (WHO/CED/PHE/WSH/2019.6).
15. Savchuk K. What the science says: Microplastics and our health. Stanford Medicine News. January 29, 2025. Accessed October 29, 2025.