Microplastics in the body: the measurement debate

A 2026 study in the European Heart Journal detected micro- and nanoplastics in the blood of 84% of heart attack patients, versus 40% of people with chronic coronary disease and 32% of those with normal arteries. It included 61 patients. The authors are clear that it shows association rather than cause, and separate scientists are debating how reliably plastics can be measured in human tissue at all.

What did the 2026 heart study find?

The European Society of Cardiology summary describes an observational comparison of blood samples from the coronary circulation and from peripheral blood in 61 patients at two Italian hospitals, split into three groups. Detection rates were 84% in heart attack patients, 40% in chronic ischaemic heart disease and 32% in normal coronary arteries.

The authors say the results do not prove that microplastics cause heart attacks, but reveal a strong association between environmental exposures, microplastics in blood and cardiovascular disease. An accompanying editorial notes the study was limited by sample size and that substantial uncertainties remain.

A separate April 2026 study in Nature Health, as summarised by gastroenterologist Emeran Mayer, found micro- and nanoplastics in essentially all brain samples from 113 people with brain tumours and 5 healthy donors, with more in tissue around tumours. Its authors suggest tumours damage the blood-brain barrier, allowing plastic to accumulate, not that plastic causes tumours.

Can microplastics be measured reliably in human tissue?

That is the live scientific argument. Some earlier high-profile studies used pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry, which vaporises a sample and analyses the fumes. ConsumerAffairs reports that critics, including Dušan Materić of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, argue biological fats can produce signals that mimic plastics such as polyethylene, and that brain tissue is around 60% fat. A January 2025 study concluded the method is “currently unreliable for detecting some common plastics in human samples.”

Detection rates depend on the method, and methods differ across studies.

It also helps to separate two exposures. This post is about particles found in the body. Chemical additives such as BPA and phthalates are a different set of evidence, covered in HYDRA’s posts on plasticizers and health and reducing them at home. Being clear about what was measured, in whom, and how is the point.

The bottom line

• In 61 patients, plastic was detected in the blood of 84% of heart attack patients, 40% with chronic ischaemic heart disease and 32% with normal coronary arteries.
• The authors say this shows association, not cause, and note the small sample size.
• Some scientists question whether common lab methods can reliably distinguish plastics from body fat, so detection figures need cautious reading.