Microplastics found in reproductive fluids

This study presents some very interesting, but unfortunately not unexpected results for scientists. In brief, microplastics were found in both follicular fluid and seminal plasma, i.e. in both male and female reproductive organs. These findings were found in a high proportion of the subjects analysed.

It should be noted that this is a preliminary study, as the authors warn, due to the small sample size, but also due to the absence of complementary analyses such as, for example, an exploration of the association between the presence of microplastics and markers of inflammation in the reproductive tracts, or an association with the level of exposure of the subjects to microplastics in their environment.

However, the main conclusions of the study, i.e. that there is a high proportion of men and women who have microplastics in their reproductive tracts, are in line with and reinforce the findings of other research.

This study reveals the existence of microplastics in reproductive fluids. These substances were found in 69% of follicular fluid samples from 25 women and 30% of semen samples from 18 men.

The press release, however, refers to 29 females and 22 males, with slightly higher percentages of the presence of microplastics*.

Although previous published studies have demonstrated the presence of microplastics in reproductive fluids, this work studies selected polymers, of which polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is the most frequently found in 69% of follicular fluid samples and 41% of semen samples. These results are supported by sound methodology and demonstrate how the increased use of plastics in everyday life can affect the reproductive system in humans.

The main limitation of the study is the low number of cases. However, as direct evidence of the effects of microplastics on human health is still scarce, this study opens a research avenue in this area to assess the risk of the presence of microplastics on human reproduction. Of particular concern is the ability of these particles to act as vectors for other pollutants, such as persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals, which can adsorb on their surfaces and be transported into the body.

In conclusion, this work underlines the need for future studies to fully understand the risks posed by microplastics on reproductive health and to inform on the danger of their routine use.

Without information on the sizes of the microplastic particles observed, it is challenging to interpret how meaningful this data is.  There is a high potential for samples to become contaminated with microplastic throughout the sampling, laboratory processing, and analysis procedures.  If stringent steps to minimise this are taken, other clues such as the size of the particles observed can be used to rule out such contamination, with there being a greater likelihood for smaller particles (<0.001 mm > 0.01 mm) being absorbed and redistributed around the body.  It is not a surprise that microplastics have been found – they are everywhere, even in the lab – but the data provided do not support that they are there as a result of human exposure as opposed to methodological artefact and must be interpreted with caution at this early stage.