Skip to main content

Microplastics, environment and child health

The substantial increase in scientific studies [1] in recent years has clarified and evidenced that the use of plastic material, widely employed in daily life due to the advantages it offers with respect to other materials, can cause environmental damage. In particular, several studies have focused on microplastics (MPs), defined on the basis of a size smaller than 5 mm. MPs are subdivided into two groups [2]: primary MPs, used both industrially as plastic pellets and in personal care products (i.e. toothpastes, nail polishes, sun creams, scrubs, bath gels) [3] and secondary MPs, derived from the plastic waste dispersed into the environment which undergoes progressive degradation because of photo and thermo-oxidative processes and mechanical abrasion [4]. These latter derive mainly from industrial packaging and textile fibers released into the washing water from machine-washed clothing [2]. Overall, it is estimated that between 75,000 and 300,000 t of microplastics are released into the environment each year in the EU alone [5]. It must also be borne in mind that MPs can release complex mixtures of chemicals into the environment as many types of additives are used in the industrial production of plastics to provide specific features (for example flame retardants, UV stabilizers, heat stabilizers, and plasticizers) [6]. Moreover, due to their hydrophobic surface, MPs can adsorb and concentrate to a high degree hydrophobic organic contaminants (HOCs) such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) [7]. They also accumulate heavy metals such as cadmium, zinc, nickel, and lead [8].

Several studies have shown the presence of MPs in marine waters [9], in terrestrial soil [10], in the air [11] and in tap water [12] in highly populated areas as in regions far from inhabited centers [13]. In other words, MPs are so ubiquitous [14] that scientists have suggested that they will represent an index of the geological era we are experiencing that some geologists define as anthropocene [15]. In addition, various researches have recently shown that MPs can be introduced into the human body, and are found in human organs and tissues [16].

Most commonly MPs are introduced into the body orally, and have been detected in several foods. Most studies have focused on foods of marine origin including invertebrates, crustaceans, and fish [17, 18] but MPs have been found also in sea salt coming from different countries [19], primarily fragments but also filaments and films. Moreover, polyethersulfone and polysulfone have been reported as common types of MPs detected in branded milk samples [20] and have been found in bottled water, honey, beer, plastic teabags and soft drinks in addition [21,22,23] as well as in fruit and vegetables (particularly in apples and carrots) [24]. Moreover, MPs have been identified in the feces of human volunteers [25]. Based on the consumption of foodstuff, bottled water and on inhalation it has been estimated that a person’s yearly intake in the USA is within a range from 39000 to 121000 particles of MPs [26]. The second mode of introduction of the MPs into the body is through inhalation. Using a Breathing Thermal manikin, Vianello et al. [27] concluded that MPs represent a non-negligible fraction of indoor airborne particulate, which can be both inhaled and ingested. Finally, the possibility of skin absorption should be considered even if there is no definitive evidence to prove this. Further experiences/studies on this aspect would be useful and are warranted [28].

At this stage the logical and fundamental question is: “what are the real risks of disease for humans having ascertained the presence of MPs within the body?” Based on current knowledge this question remains unanswered. However, although currently we are unable to give an exact answer, one must take into consideration the wide range of results obtained from studies in vitro and in animals, including mammals, that have allowed to understand how ingested microplastics pass the intestinal barrier leading to the hypothesis of possible negative effects on human health.

Some recent papers have reviewed in detail the most significant results of this research [29, 30]. As exhaustively summarized by Plata et al. [28], the experimental data have shown that the toxic action occurs by causing: chronic inflammation, changes in the immune response, neurotoxic effects and/or serving as a vector for mycroorganisms and /or toxic chemicals. It should be mentioned also that these actions may require a bioaccumulation phase and do not present in a short frame-time. Moreover, a very unexplored field, that must be investigated, are possible changes induced by MPs on the human microbiota which today is considered of great importance for the effects it can have on various immunological and metabolic disorders [31, 32].

Therefore, today there is a need to develop research on the impact that MPs can have on human health, avoiding easy mass-media alarmism and setting up work based on shared methodologies [33, 34] that also take into account the total exposure (exposome) that an individual can have towards plastic substances in general and /or towards chemical substances contained in plastics but not only in these [35].

As pediatricians, however, we must emphasize that research must also take into account the peculiarities of the developmental age. Children and adolescents have different sensitivity to chemicals than adults and this varies in the different stages of life [36,37,38]. supporting the need for specific methodologies [39].

Particular attention must be given to fetal life. It has been shown for the first time [40] that MPs can pass the placenta barrier which we already know is permeable to various potentially toxic substances [41].

We know from studies on the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease hypothesis how epigenetic modifications during fetal life can induce disease in adulthood [42,43,44].

In conclusion, current knowledge on the possible short and long term consequences of exposure to MPs on the health of children and adults should prompt to deepen further the relationships between environment and health. It would be desirable for pediatric scientific societies to take greater responsibility towards environmental issues both at the research level and at the training level of pediatricians.

Finally, it may be useful to remember that even at this time when the viral pandemic is rightly attracting the maximum attention a question to be asked is whether and how the spread of the virus could also be favored by environmental pollution [45, 46]. The necessary use of face-masks has also opened the issue of these being a source of microplastics [47, 48].

Availability of data and materials



  1. 1.

    Qin F, Du J, Gao J, Liu G, Song Y, Yang A, et al. Bibliometric profile of global microplastics research from 2004 to 2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;5(17):5639–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Wu P, Huang J, Zheng Y, Yang Y, Zhang Y, He F, et al. Environmental occurrences, fate, and impacts of microplastics. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019;184:109612–28.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Napper IE, Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC. Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;99(1-2):178–85.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Song YK, Hong SH, Jang M, Han GM, Jung SW, Shim WJ. Combined effects of UV exposure duration and mechanical abrasion on microplastic fragmentation by polymer type. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(8):4368–76.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council,the european economic and socialcommittee and the committee of thr regions A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy Brussels, 16.1.2018 COM. 2018; 28 final.

  6. 6.

    Smith M, Love DC, Rochman CM, Neff RA. Microplastics in seafood and the implications for human health. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2018;3:375–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Scopetani C, Cincinelli A, Martellini T, Lombardini E, Ciofini A, Fortunati A, et al. Ingested microplastic as a two-way transporter for PBDEs in Talitrus saltator. Environ Res. 2018;167:411–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wright SL, Kelly FJ. Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ Sci Technol. 2017;12:6634–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barboza LGA, Dick Vethaak A, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;133:336–48.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rillig MC, Lehmann A. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science. 2020;368(6498):1430–1.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chen G, Feng Q, Wang J. Mini-review of microplastics in the atmosphere and their risks to humans. Sci Total Environ. 2020;10:703.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tong H, Jiang Q, Hu X, Zhong X. Occurrence and identification of microplastics in tap water from China. Chemosphere. 2020;252:126493–500.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bergmann M, Mützel S, Primpke S, Tekman MB, Trachsel J, Gerdts G. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci Adv. 2019;8:1157–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Barnes DK, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2009;1526:1985–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Do Sul IJA, Corcoran PL, Barnosky AD, Cearreta A, et al. The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a stratigraphic indicator of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene. 2016;13:4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, Locaputo V, Uricchio VF. A detailed review study on potential effects of microplastics and additives of concern on human health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;4:1212–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Carbery M, O'Connor W, Palanisami T. Trophic transfer of microplastics and mixed contaminants in the marine food web and implications for human health. Environ Int. 2018;115:400–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, Miller JT, et al. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci Rep. 2015;24:14340–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Karami A, Golieskardi A, Keong Choo C, Larat V, Galloway TS, Salamatinia B. The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different countries. Sci Rep. 2017;6:46173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kutralam-Muniasamy G, Pérez-Guevara F, Elizalde-Martínez I, Shruti VC. Branded milks - are they immune from microplastics contamination? Sci Total Environ. 2020;20:714–23.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wang YL, Lee YH, Chiu IJ, Lin YF, Chiu HW. Potent impact of plastic Nanomaterials and micromaterials on the food chain and human health. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;5:1727–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Shruti VC, Perez-Guevara F, Elizalde-Martínez I, Kutralam-Muniasamy G. First study of its kind on the microplastic contamination of soft drinks, cold tea and energy drinks-future research and environmental considerations. Sci Total Environ. 2020;726:138580–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Toussaint B, Raffael B, Angers-Loustau A, Gilliland D, Kestens V, Petrillo M, et al. Review of micro-and nanoplastic contamination in the food chain. Food Addit Contam. 2019;36(5):639–73.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Oliveri Conti G, Ferrante M, Banni M, Favara C, Nicolosi I, Cristaldi A, et al. Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population. Environ Res. 2020;187:109677–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Schwabl P, Köppel S, Königshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T, et al. Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a prospective case series. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(7):453–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, Dower JF, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Human consumption of microplastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(12):7068–74.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Vianello A, Jensen RL, Liu L, Vollertsen J. Simulating human exposure to indoor airborne microplastics using a breathing thermal manikin. Sci Rep. 2019;17:8670–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ. 2020;702:134455–13463.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Chang X, Xue Y, Li J, Zou L, Tang M. Potential health impact of environmental micro- and nanoplastics pollution. J Appl Toxicol. 2020;4:4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jiang B, Kauffman AE, Li L, McFee W, Cai B, Weinstein J, et al. Health impacts of environmental contamination of micro- and nanoplastics: a review. Environ Health Prev Med. 2020;25(1):29–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Fackelmann G, Sommer S. Microplastics and the gut microbiome: how chronically exposed species may suffer from gut dysbiosis. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;143:193–203.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Lu L, Luo T, Zhao Y, Cai C, Fu Z, Jin Y. Interaction between microplastics and microorganism as well as gut microbiota: a consideration on environmental animal and human health. Sci Total Environ. 2019;667:94–100.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Jeong J, Choi J. Adverse outcome pathways potentially related to hazard identification of microplastics based on toxicity mechanisms. Chemosphere. 2019;231:249–55.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Shruti VC, Pérez-Guevara F, Elizalde-Martínez I, Kutralam-Muniasamy G. Toward a unified framework for investigating micro (nano) plastics in packaged beverages intended for human consumption. Environ Pollut. 2021;268(Pt A):115811–23.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Rist S, Carney Almroth B, Hartmann NB, Karlsson TM. A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics. Sci Total Environ. 2018;626:720–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Etzel RA. The special vulnerability of children. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020;227:113516–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Grandjean P, Abdennebi-Najar L, Barouki R, Cranor CF, Etzel RA, Gee D, et al. Timescales of developmental toxicity impacting on research and needs for intervention. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2019;125(Suppl 3):70–80.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Smerieri A, Testa C, Lazzeroni P, Nuti F, Grossi E, Cesari S, et al. Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate metabolites in urine show age-related changes and associations with adiposity and parameters of insulin sensitivity in childhood. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117831.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Tanner E, Lee A, Colicino E. Environmental mixtures and children's health: identifying appropriate statistical approaches. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(2):315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O, et al. Plasticenta: first evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Env Int. 2021;146:106274–82.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Street ME, Bernasconi S. Endocrine-disrupting Chemicals in Human Fetal Growth. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(4):1430–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Goyal D, Limesand SW, Goyal R. Epigenetic responses and the developmental origins of health and disease. J Endocrinol. 2019;242(1):T105–19.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Heindel JJ, Vom Saal FS, Blumberg B, Bovolin P, Calamandrei G, Ceresini G, et al. Parma consensus statement on metabolic disruptors. Environ Health. 2015;14(1):54–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Street ME, Angelini S, Bernasconi S, Burgio E, Cassio A, Catellani C, et al. Current knowledge on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) from animal biology to humans, from pregnancy to adulthood: highlights from a National Italian Meeting. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(6):1647.

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Parashar N, Hait S. Plastics in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: protector or polluter? Sci Total Environ. 2020;759:144274–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gallo M, Street ME, Guerra F, Fanos V, Marcialis MA. A review of current knowledge on pollution, cigarette smoking and covid-19 diffusion and their relationship with inflammation. Acta Biomed. 2020;91:e2020148.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Dharmaraj S, Ashokkumar V, Hariharan S, Manibharathi A, Show PL, Chong CT, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic face mask waste: a blooming threat to the marine environment. Chemosphere. 2021;272:129601.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Anastopoulos I, Pashalidis I. Single-use surgical face masks, as a potential source of microplastics: do they act as pollutant carriers? J Mol Liq. 2021;326:115247.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references





Author information




Both authors contributed equally to the conceptualization, research of the Literature and writing of this manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Elisabeth Street.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate


Consent for publication

Both authors have read the final version and consent for publication.

Competing interests

The Authors have no conflict of interest related with this commentary.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Street, M.E., Bernasconi, S. Microplastics, environment and child health. Ital J Pediatr 47, 75 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: