INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 587

Microplastic Interference in the Food Chain and Its Adverse

Effects on Human Health: A Review

Ram Krishna Shrivastava, Shubham Meena

and Kirti Gour

Department of Chemistry, Institute for Excellence in Higher Education, Bhopal, India 462016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.140300062

Received: 03 April 2025; Accepted: 09 April 2025; Published: 21 April 2025

Abstract: Nowadays, microplastics are a major environmental concern as it is entering the food chain through the ecosystem. In

this review we have focuses on the current understanding of microplastics in food and their potential health risks to humans. Such

tiny plastic particles are found in various food items like beverages, salt, milk, packaged drinking water, packaged and processed

food items, seafood etc. The prevalent presence of microplastics results from the breakdown of larger plastic waste and from direct

release of microplastics during food production, processing, supply and serving. The intake of microplastics can lead to several

health problems including oxidative stress, excretory problems, immune system related issues and potential carcinogenic impact.

Numerous studies show that microplastics contain harmful chemicals and pathogens, which increase health risks. The toxic effects

of microplastics depend on their size, shape and chemical composition. As smaller particles can pass through the body’s protective

barriers, causing damage to organs. This review provides insights into research work and highlights the urgent need for further

research on the effects of microplastics on human health and also calls for action to reduce plastic pollution in our food.

Keywords: Microplastics, plastic waste, microplastic toxicity, plastic pollution, human health.

I. Introduction

Microplastics are non-degradable, tiny plastic pieces or particles with size ranging from one micrometre to less than five millimetres

and most of them are microscopic

in nature. Microplastics are found in a lot of everyday items like food items, clothing, household

products, bottles, lids, beverages, cigarette butts, bags, cutlery and cleaning supplies etc. They may also present in various

commercial and industrial products

. As the time progresses, microplastics break apart into smaller and smaller pieces and

eventually become tiny fragments that degrade slowly, whether in nature or in our homes. Microplastics are often found in

cosmetics, beauty and personal care products to improve colour, texture or other qualities. Even premium quality beauty products,

toothpastes and shower gels etc. contain these tiny plastic particles but they are not shown on the labels

. The widespread production

and use of plastics has led to the emission of microplastics, which has become a global problem.

The microplastic particles are found everywhere, right from oceans to freshwater and soils

1,3

. The gradual increment of microbeads

and microplastics has created chaotic situation in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Even though

microplastics are tiny, but they have a huge impact on our environment. They are responsible to harm the species at every level of

the food chain. Their impacts on marine life are so alarming that experts warn us as there could be more plastics than fish in the

oceans by 2050

1,2

. As such particles are very dangerous for humans and animals and even for plant kingdom including aquatic

species. The widespread presence of microplastics in our food chain makes them a major factor in contaminating the food we

consume. Single-use plastic items, which we usually use unknowingly, may contain harmful chemicals and can be one of the major

sources of the problem.

As a result, the effects of microplastics on both human and animal health are becoming a growing concern. Generally, excessive

dependence on plastic in almost all sectors, poor waste management and various accidents often result as plastic waste in the air,

soil and water. Plastic waste commonly contains non-biodegradable polymers such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),

polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene (PS). Out of these PE, PP and PET are widely

recycled

1,2,4

. Once plastic in the atmosphere, it breaks down slowly due to exposure to sunlight, physical forces or interactions with

living organisms¹. This breakdown process causes plastics to break down into smaller pieces, named microplastics (MPs) and nano-

plastics (NPs). The scientific community has not yet agreed on a precise definition of microplastics (MP) and nano-plastics (NP).

The scientific community hasn't yet agreed on the exact definitions of microplastics (MPs) and nano-plastics (NPs). Some

researchers classify MPs as particles ranging from 1 µm to 5 mm and NPs from 1 nm to 1 µm

5,6

, while others define NPs as particles

smaller than 100 nm, in line with the European Commission's definition of nanomaterials (1–100 nm) ⁷. For instance, Schwaferts

et al. (2019) categorized MPs as 1 µm to 5 mm, submicron plastics as 100 nm to 1 µm and NPs as 1 nm to 100 nm

7,8

. Based on

standard size prefixes, plastics are usually grouped into categories like mega, macro, meso, micro and nano. Plastics are also

classified into microplastics (MP) and nano-plastics (NP) depending on their origin. Primary MPs are tiny in sizes and are used in

manufacturing processes, industrial cleaners and personal care products such as toothpaste, facial scrubs etc. Whereas on the other

hand, secondary MPs are produced in the environment due to breakdown and fragmentation of larger plastics. Clothing consists

synthetic fibres is also considered a source of secondary MPs

2,3

. Recently, there has been growing interest among scientists and the

public regarding the environmental impacts and potential threats of MP and NP, as evidenced by an approximately 800% increase

in research on the topic over the past five years

II. Sampling Methods and Separating Techniques of Microplastics:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 588

There are three main methods for collecting microplastics from the surroundings i.e. selective, bulk and volume-reduced sampling

methods. Selective sampling involves picking out plastic particles that are visible on the surface of sediments. While this method

works for larger plastics that are easy to see, it might miss smaller or hidden particles. Bulk sampling, on the other hand, involves

collecting all of the sediment, including the microplastics buried inside, giving a more comprehensive sample

. Volume-reduced

sampling takes a bulk sample and reduces it through sieving and filtering to isolate the specific portion needed for analysis

Researchers frequently use trawl nets to collect water samples, while Grab samplers are used to collect sediment. After the

collection, microplastic is separated from the sample through various methods such as density separation, which depends on how

the material floats or sinks, chemical digestion to remove organic matter, sieving or filtration to separate the microplastic particles.

To identify microplastics, visual sorting is often used which is based on their size, shape and colour, but this method can be

inaccurate as some plastics may be unnoticed or misidentified

. Density separation is more effective sampling technique when it

mixes with Nile red solution in which sample mix with density solution to separate microplastic then mix with dyes or stained

solution. This solution then analysed fluorescent microscope

. For atmospheric microplastics, the use of special pumps or portable

samples, usually at a specific flow rate in a prescribed period, is done to collect airborne particles on the fibre filter

11,12

. While

collecting sediment samples from the sea, the first large particles are sieved with a 5 mm mesh to separate, then the microplastic

between 2 mm to 5 mm has to be dry in an oven before sieve again to separate. Oxidative analysis method also suitable method for

soil, biological samples and even for the food samples. In this method hydrogen peroxide is used to oxidised the organic matter in

the sample and then sample is heated at 60°-80°C and then microplastics is obtained on filtration. Oxidative method enhanced the

visibility and identification under microscopic or other analytical techniques

. Another method for sample preparation is enzymatic

digestion method, this use applies enzymes like proteinase, lipase or cellulase in order to digest protein and fat in the sample. This

method is suitable for biological samples like body tissues, meat and fish guts etc.

66, 67.

But this method is slow and more costly than

other chemical digestion method. By using an optical stereo microscope, larger particles can be counted and further using ATR-

FTIR spectroscopy technique for precise identification

11-14

. Although these methods have some limitations. Selective sampling may

not capture all types of microplastics from the environment, small particles may slip through trawl nets and visual identification is

also likely to be inaccurate. These challenges highlight the need for better, more standardized methods for sampling and separating

microplastics, so that accurate and reliable samples can be obtained from different potential sources.

Characterization Methods of microplastics:

As we know, microplastics are made from different types of molecules and polymers. Polypropylene (PP), low-density polyethylene

(LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane and

polystyrene (PS) are among the most common polymers. As these polymers vary in shape, size, colour and material and dissipate

in the environment as microplastics through various sources

1,2

their analysis in a standardized way is very Such difficulties arises

because of complex changes they undergo, contamination and differences in their shape, size and chemical composition

. To

identify and isolate microplastics in tissues, the tissues are first needed to digest. For this purpose, Nitric acid is often used, but it

can degrade certain polymers like polyamide

. Studies have been tested for six different methods to digest tissue, including

potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, peroxydisulfate in sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, pepsin in hydrochloric acid, nitric

acid and nitric acid in perchloric acid. But, most of these methods either degraded the plastics or didn’t break down the tissues

efficiently. One of the best methods in which the tissues are well digested without significantly damaging most of the plastics by

using potassium hydroxide at 60 ° C for 24 hours, except for cellulose acetate

. Another recent method utilises sodium hydroxide

for the digestion of tissue and sodium iodide for separation. The process finishes in about an hour and recovery of the microplastics

is over 95%. However, this method can still change the shape, size and even colour of the recovered microplastics

. A newly

developed method, thermal extraction/desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TED-GC-MS)

, these methods detect

effect of temperature on the chemical and physical properties of the material. TED-GC-Ms working involves heating solid water

samples at high temperatures under atmospheric nitrogen. This process generates decomposed gases, which are analyzed using gas

chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)

to produce chromatograms with mass spectra. These chromatograms are extremely

helpful to identify common microplastics like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),

polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) from tire components

Some other methods such as proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) which identify the material on the basis of their proton

spin in magnetic field and attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) uses the infrared

radiation to creating the spectra of subjected material also used by researchers to identify the plastic fragments and polymer

extracts

11-14

. Molecular spectroscopic techniques are also among the common methods used to identify and characterize

microplastics. The Micro-FTIR can analyse microplastics as small as 5–10 µm

11,16

, while micro-Raman uses laser light scattering

to create a fingerprint of sample and can analyse even smaller particles up to 0.2–0.5 µm

3,13,11,16,17

. In fact, analysing the

microplastics is time-consuming and making it difficult to monitor large quantities. A semi-automated Raman micro-spectroscopy

method, as an alternative method, combined with static image analysis has been used and validated. The morphological parameters

and characterization of the microparticles have also been completed in less than three hours and hence speeds up and simplifies the

process

15-17

. With the use of a liquid nitrogen-cooled mercury cadmium telluride (MCT) detector, the speed, accuracy, resolution

and analytical performance of micro-FTIR can be boosted and further enable it to detect microplastics as small as 10 microns¹¹. But

FTIR spectrometer is limited only hydrate sample and this technique fails to test liquid samples. Still FTIR and Raman spectroscopy

is most favourable technique to identify microplastics in food products Focal plane array (FPA) based reflectance micro-FTIR

imaging, recognised as a novel technique, removes any biases that might come from visually inspection of samples before analysis.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 589

This method can effectively identify various types of microplastics like polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon-6, polyvinyl chloride

and polystyrene¹⁸.

Sources of microplastics in food chain:

The sources of MPs are numerous; the binding agent, which is the basis of most MPs of organic origin, is the reason why most of

them are classified based on the specific material they are made from. However, analysts believe that almost every consumer

product produced recently contains MPs, unexposed. The most common ones are textiles, which release fibers when they are washed

(a T-shirt releases up to 1,900 fibers per washing cycle )

1,2

, packaging (including food packaging) and personal care products

(toothpastes, shampoos, shower gels, body lotions and creams etc.)

. Fibers are released into the environment through effluent and

wastewater and have been found to gather up on beaches, muddy riverbanks and even in the ocean

2,3

. These fibres have been

present in the environment for over two hundred years. Studies show that their microplastics composition and carbon dating go

back to around 1704, suggesting that microplastics existed even before plastic products were widely produced and used.

Researchers in the year 2006, reported 2.3 million microplastics in sediment and seawater samples from the Seine River, which

serve nearly 8.2 million people. It has been observed that the microplastics are spread by wind, rains, sewage and stormwater

discharges significantly and can contribute to their presence in water bodies over time

. Apart from that, several disposable items

like tea and coffee cups, containers, water bottles, beverage containers and many others items frequently contain plastics and break

down into microplastic particles over time

3,4

. Unknowingly, these microscopic particles often enter in our body through food and

drinks, especially from the items packaged, cooked or stored in plastics. Plastic items like soft drink, water and juice bottles, milk

containers and grocery bags etc. are likely to release microplastic, especially when they used repeatedly or exposed to sunlight

17,19

Similarly, as sources of microplastics, frozen food packaging, tetra pack milk cartons and yogurt containers slowly break down and

get mixed into food¹¹. A huge list of household products like detergent and shampoo bottles, plastic kitchen items such as freezer

bags, lunch boxes and storage containers also prone to release microplastics when exposed to heat or used in the microwave or

placed in direct sunlight

. Products like potato chip bags, plastic cutlery, cling wraps and snack wrappers release microplastics

directly into food through direct contact, while kitchen staples such as rice, flour, sugar etc. when stored in plastic bags are also

prone to get contaminated. The personal care products like toothpaste, hair oils and other cosmetics often containing plastic

microbeads and capable to contaminate the wastewater systems, which ultimately can impact the aquatic food sources

. Plastic in

agricultural practices is often used in many ways such as irrigation pipes, packaging of fertilizers, moisture protection film,

polyhouses, storage and transportation of food products. These plastic items have a high risk of becoming a source of microplastics

and may eventually enter in to the food chain directly or indirectly

1,3

Above studies confirms that microplastic particles are everywhere and they can exist in the air, soil, drinking water, food and in

water bodies. The wastewater treatment and filtration plants can’t filter these tiny particles, so they remain in the environment.

Researchers are continuously in quest to find out whether the contamination happens before or after the food is packaged or prepared

and also applies to water. There are major concerns about microplastics that exists in plastic bottles

20,21

Some of the common food products that have been found and reported to contain microplastics are as follows:

Packaged drinking water: Numerous studies have shown that microplastics are present in packaged drinking water which is

commonly stored in plastic bottles and such bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

20,21

. In one of the investigations,

a sample size of 30 bottles have been picked and selected 3 bottles from each of 10 different brands. To ensure the accuracy in the

results, included three procedural blanks in the testing process. Surprisingly, microplastics were detected in every sample that was

analyzed. The concentration of microplastics ranged from 3.16 ± 0.7 particles per litre to 1.1 ± 0.8 particles per litre. The type and

quality of the plastic material used in the bottles, appeared as microplastics. Soft and easily squeezable bottles made of thin and

easily deformable plastics released more microplastic particles, but these particles were smaller in size. In contrast, harder and less

flexible plastic bottles released larger fragments of microplastics

, but in smaller quantities. It means that the quality of the bottle

plays an important role in the microplastic contamination levels

. The microplastics can also interact with microalgae which are

found in the water. When the smaller microplastic particles of different densities come into the contact of microalgae, they may

stick to the surfaces of microalgae and disrupt their normal functions by blocking the pores on it. When their pores are covered, it

limits the transfer of energy, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nutrients. That can negatively affect the health and function of microalgae,

which are an important part of aquatic ecosystems

22,23

Table Salt: Recent research has found that the most table salt brands in Africa are contaminated with microplastics²⁴. A study in

South Korea, tested 39 brands of salt and found microplastics in 36 of them. This study laid a foundation as it is the first to connect

microplastic contamination to table salt of the regions with high levels of plastic pollution

1,14

. The findings highlighted the

widespread presence of microplastics in Table salt, which is an essential food ingredient used worldwide daily, In another study in

China, analysed 16 brands of table salt and found varying levels of microplastic particles depending on the source of the salt. Sea

salt had the highest levels, with 550–681 microplastic particles per kilogram. Lake salt contained 43–364 particles per kilogram,

while rock salt had about 204 particles per kilogram

. The types of microplastics identified in these studies are polyethylene and

polypropylene. These two types of plastics are commonly used in packaging or emerged in the source through contamination.

Significantly, the contamination of table salt is not limited to aquatic sources but the manufacturing process itself poses a

momentous risk of introducing microplastics into the final product

. This suggests that both environmental pollution and industrial

practices may contribute to the problem.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 590

Honey: It is also a commonly used household product and get contaminated through various sources. A detailed study of 19 honey

samples collected from France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Mexico revealed that all the honey samples contained non-pollen

particles. These included both coloured and transparent fibres and particles. To identify whether the fibers were natural, such as

cellulose or chitin or synthetic, researchers used fuchsine and rose bengal stains. The fibres and fragments that did not absorb these

stains were confirmed to be synthetic polymers. On average, the honey samples contained 166 ± 147 fibers per kilogram and 9 ± 9

other fragments per kilogram

. Similarly, in another study researchers analysed 47 honey samples collected from supermarkets

and beekeepers. It found 10 to 336 fibres per kilogram and 2 to 82 other fragments per kilogram of honey. Interestingly, fibres were

also found at the plant level, with an average presence of 77.9%. This suggests that these particles first contaminate flower nectar

then get transferred to beehives and eventually end up into honey consumed by humans

25,26

. The synthetic fibres identified in the

honey included materials commonly used in industries like polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide and

polytetrafluoroethylene

. These fibres also originate from various other sources such as sewage, the abrasion of clothing and the

fragmentation of larger plastic items under environmental conditions like sunlight, oxygen, temperature and humidity. These

evidences highlight the growing issue of microplastic contamination in the environment, which is now making its way into human

food chain through products like honey.

Sea food: The consumption of seafood is one of the ways humans are exposed to microplastics. As of 2015, seafood accounted for

6.7% of all protein consumed worldwide and 17% of animal protein intake

27,28

. The global seafood trade in 2016 was valued at

$132.6 billion.

Over 90% of seafood consumed in the world was imported from the regions where the levels of plastic pollution in the oceans is

high

13,14,29

. The seafood production can be divided into two main types i.e. farmed and wild-caught. The farmed seafood or

aquaculture involves raising fish and shellfish in controlled environments such as ponds, tanks or selected water bodies. These

controlled conditions may reduce the risk of microplastic exposure. Generally, farmed seafood has shorter lifespans as compared

to wild-caught seafood, giving less time for microplastics to accumulate in their bodies. However, there is limited research on the

differences in microplastic levels between farmed and wild-caught seafood. Either directly or indirectly, through the food chain

number of marine organisms can ingest microplastics. For example, small organisms like plankton and larvae which are at the

bottom of the food chain, can ingest microplastics.

28,30,31

Larger animals such as fish and invertebrates may consume these smaller

organisms, resulting in microplastics accumulating in their bodies. Studies have shown that microplastics can also move through

the food web, as seen in predatory fish like Crucian carps

. Many other marine species that humans commonly consumed, including

invertebrates, crustaceans and various fish have been found to contain microplastics

13,14

. The microplastic particles are often

concentrated in their digestive tracts. Bivalves like mussels and clams, as well as small fish that are eaten whole, pose a higher risk

for humans to be exposed to microplastics because when consumed, the entire organism, including their digestive track, is ingested.

As seafood to be a major source of protein worldwide, it is important to recognize and address their issues of contamination

13,27

Other foods: Microplastic contamination has also been found in various other types of food, including dietary staples like rice

Rice is a globally consumed food and a primary source of nutrition for millions of people. Several studies in Australia have detected

microplastics in both uncooked and instant rice. The predominant types of microplastics found in these samples include

polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

3,4

. In addition to rice, vinegar which is a common

ingredient in food preparation, especially in Chinese cuisine has also been found to contain microplastic fragments. A study

conducted in Iran identified fragments of polyethylene (PE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) in vinegar

. Microplastic

contamination is not confined to solid foods but is also present in beverages like milk

. A study detects the polypropylene

microplastics in 16 samples of skimmed milk powder of 8 different European countries and reported that in the majority of

microplastics particles in milk are PE, PS, PET

. Another study found microplastics of different fragments in milk packets

Studies have observed microplastics in a variety of drinks, including energy drinks, soft drinks and even wine

. These findings

highlight the pervasive nature of microplastic pollution in the human food chain and raise concerns about its potential impact on

health.

Toxic effect of microplastic on human health:

According to current studies on microplastic particles present in human body, it has confirmed that such particles ingested in human

body through different routes and damage the body organs

. Researchers investigated that the microplastics can permeate

biological barriers, including the blood-brain barrier and can create neurological imbalance, cardiac, respiratory and dermatological

disorders as well

. Numerous in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that micro and nano-plastics can significantly impact

the human body, leading to physical stress, tissue damage, apoptosis, necrosis, inflammation, oxidative stress, immune system

responses etc. The following impacts have been investigated by researchers:

Inflammation: An in vitro study investigated the effects of polystyrene particles of varying sizes on human A549 lung cells and

found that larger particles, measuring 202 nm and 535 nm, induced significant inflammatory responses. According to study the

larger particles with a size of 64 nm, triggered higher levels of IL-8 expression as compared to smaller particles

. This study also

suggests that the size of the particles is one of the important factors in causing inflammation. Likewise, research on unaltered or

carboxylated polystyrene nanoparticles revealed substantial upregulation of IL-6 and IL-8 gene expression in human gastric

adenocarcinoma, leukaemia and histiocytic lymphoma cells. Such results suggest that the inflammation may be causes due to the

particles' composition or just their presence, rather than their surface charge

33,34

. Another study observed that how two types of

polystyrene particles carboxylated and amino-modified, each 120 nm in size, affected human macrophages. It has been reported

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 591

that even though no changes were found in the expression of M1 markers, such as CD86, NOS2, TNFα, and IL-1β, the presence of

these particles decreased the expression of the scavenger receptors CD163 and CD200R in M2 macrophages, as well as IL-10

release. Amino-modified particles further impaired E. coli phagocytosis in both M1 and M2 macrophages, whereas carboxylated

particles selectively affected only M1 phagocytosis. It has mentioned that the carboxylated particles increased protein mass in both

types of macrophages, promoted the release of TGFβ1 in M1 macrophages and increased ATP levels in M2 macrophages

. The

unmodified polyethylene particles, ranging from 0.3 µm to 10 µm in size, have been shown to cause murine macrophages to produce

higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, like IL-6, IL-1β and TNFα

. The studies on long-term use of polyethylene prostheses

have revealed that wear particles, typically between 0.2 µm and 10 µm

35-38

, build up in the tissue around the prostheses and trigger

the release of inflammatory substances like TNFα, IL-1 and RANKL. These factors not only promote bone resorption but also

increase the risk of prosthesis failure

. In the cases of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene implants, high concentrations of

polyethylene particles have detected in the tissues surrounding the implant, along with a significant presence of macrophages which

indicates an active inflammatory response

33,63,67

. In the cases, where titanium alloy hip replacements failed, polyethylene particles

of averaging 530 nm in size, have identified as the main type of wear debris in the interfacial membranes

. Such findings highlight

the harmful impact of polyethylene wear particles on the stability of the joint and the health of surrounding tissues. To overcome

these challenges, metal-on-metal joints replacement have been a growing preference among specialists, with the aim of minimizing

the negative impacts associated with polyethylene debris.

Oxidative Stress and Apoptosis: Many in vitro studies have established that the polystyrene nanoparticles have harmful effects

on cells, including causing oxidative stress, apoptosis (programmed cell death) and autophagic cell death, depending on the type of

cell involved

63,64,66

. For example, amine-modified polystyrene nanoparticles were found to strongly interact with mucin, a protective

protein in the intestinal lining and this interaction led to cell death in both mucin-secreting and non-mucin-secreting intestinal

epithelial cells

. Likewise, cationic polystyrene nanoparticles trigger the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and induce

stress in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), a cell structure responsible for protein folding, in mouse macrophages and lung epithelial

cells. Due to this method, the buildup of misfolded proteins, ultimately led to autophagic cell death in RAW 264.7 macrophages

and BEAS-2B lung epithelial cells

40,41

. Studies also reported that, both unmodified and modified polystyrene nanoparticles have

been found to induce cell death i.e. apoptosis in various human cell types, including those from the lungs, leukaemia cells and

cancer cells from the colon

and lungs

42-45

. These nanoparticles were also shown to influence the ROS levels by regulating long

non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) like linc-61, linc-50, linc-9 and linc-2 in the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans

. Even though

these studies demonstrated significant toxic effects in controlled laboratory settings, similar outcomes were not always observed in

animal models. For example, when mice exposed to a mixture of microplastics via oral intake, there is no severe toxicity observed

in major organs like liver, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys or testes

47,70

. However, some studies did report harmful effects, such as liver

inflammation, neurological problems

, reduced body and liver weight and decreased mucin production in the colon

49,63

. While,

other studies found disruptions in metabolism, including amino acid and bile acid metabolism

50,51

and changes in the gut microbiota

composition

52,53,67

, which plays a main role in digestion and overall health. Interestingly, long-term effects such as changes in lipid

metabolism were also seen in the offspring of mice exposed to microplastics

54,66

Metabolic Homeostasis: Recent studies have highlighted that inflammation and apoptosis are not only caused through

microplastics and nano-plastics but are also responsible to disrupt cellular metabolism in both laboratory and animal models. For

example, polystyrene nanoparticles have been shown to interact with cell membranes and interfere with signalling systems in airway

epithelial cells. Similarly, negatively charged carboxylated polystyrene nanoparticles (20 nm) activated basolateral K

ion channels

in human lung cells, leading to a sustained increase in short-circuit currents

. This effect was due to the activation of ion channels

and the stimulation of chloride (Cl

−

) and bicarbonate (HCO

−

) ion release⁵⁵. One of the studies suggested that the polystyrene

nanoparticles, measuring 30 nm, formed large vesicle-like structures in the endocytic pathways of macrophages and cancer cells

such as A549, HepG-2 and HCT116. This interrupted vesicle transport and blocked the distribution of proteins involved in cell

division, resulting in the formation of abnormal binucleated cells

. Furthermore, positively charged polystyrene nanoparticles

disrupted iron transport in the intestines and affected the ability of cells to take nutrients after short-term oral exposure

. In another

studies, mice that were fed polystyrene microparticles (5 µm and 20 µm) for 28 days and it has been observed that these particles

accumulated in the liver, kidneys and gut. It was interesting to observed that larger particles were spread across all tissues, while

smaller particles were more concentrated in the gut

. Further, tissue analysis revealed the signs of inflammation, presence of fat

droplets and major disruptions in energy and lipid metabolism. Including lower levels of ATP, the mice also showed signs of

oxidative stress and neurotoxic effects, cholesterol and triglycerides in the liver, along with reduced catalase enzyme activity. It has

been also reported that, there was an increase in biomarkers like LDH, SOD, GSH-Px and AchE

58,59,60

. When pregnant mice

exposed to microplastics, it has showed imbalances in their gut microbiota, weakened intestinal barriers and metabolic disorders.

These effects were not only limited to the mothers but also caused long-term metabolic changes in their offspring, affecting both

the F1 and F2 generations

61,62

. The changes in gut microbiota composition, reduced mucus production in the intestines, lower

expression of ion transporter genes and disrupted lipid metabolism are among the key findings. These metabolic changes are evident

in changes in triglyceride and cholesterol levels in the blood and liver tissues of exposed animals

60,62,66,67

Strategies to mitigate microplastics:

Microplastics pollution is a serious concern for human civilization as well as the environment and it is omnipresent throughout the

ecosystem, particularly in air, water and foods. Therefore, there is an urgent need to adopt a comprehensive approach to address

microplastics pollution. The United Nations also laid down suggestive measures in terms of UN Sustainable Goals to maintain the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 592

sustainability of our planet. Now, it is joint responsibility of governments, policy makers and implementing agencies to ensure the

safe production, disposal and monitoring of plastics. So that, at every possible stage, the contamination of microplastics can be

minimized. Researchers have suggested various techniques for the removal of microplastics from environment. In order to remove

polypropylene and other polymer particles from water bodies like river, ponds and lakes, the natural light and ZnO nanoparticles

as a photo catalyst have been used

. ZnO nanoparticles makes the microplastics more hydrophilic or can easily remove by filter

after partial degradation. In place of plastic based disposable items, alternative disposable articles made with natural ingredients

should be promoted. Such ecofriendly initiatives can help us to avoid the direct chances of microplastics contamination in food. In

air, the major sources of microplastics are textile industries and transport. The textile industries must use specific filters to prevent

microplastics dispersion in the environment. To get clean air prominently, we have to promote plantation which can provide further

natural filters to us.

III. Conclusion

The review studies revealed that the microplastics are highly resistant to degradation and remain in the environment for a long time.

Microplastics are found in all ecosystems, including the air, soil and water. Now, they are also universally present in human food

chain like in sea foods, drinking products and dietary foods etc. There is an urgent need to take global action to reduce the usage of

plastic. As the studies suggested that, there is no effective way to remove microplastics from the food chain and entire ecosystem.

The overuse of plastic worldwide worsens their buildup in natural ecosystems. Harmful chemicals and pollutants that stick to

microplastics can harm humans in the many ways like inflammation, oxidative stress, disfunctions of organs and metabolic

homeostasis. However, there is a huge gape to fully understand the toxicity of microplastics in humans and still there is no safety

limits have been set for the presence of microplastics in the human body. At the same time, extracting and analysing microplastics

is a complicated, challenging and time-consuming task. The methods used so far to digest and extract microplastics from tissues or

from other samples are not yet standardized, which can lead to inaccurate results due to chemical changes and degradation during

the processing of samples. Even after microplastics are isolated from tissues, cosmetics, water, sediment or food items, confirming

their presence requires expensive equipment and specialized skills. Hence, there is a need to develop simpler, viable, economical

and user-friendly methods that do not require advanced expertise. Presently developed methods like FTIR, Raman etc. should

ideally quantify microplastics in food for quality control and safety, as well as in the environment, within a shorter time frame.

These analytical techniques can be making more advance and accurate by combining with artificial intelligence and nano

technology. As the interaction between humans and microplastics increases day by day, advances in measurement techniques will

become crucial in the future. To better understand the threats posed by microplastics to human health and the environment, we need

improved, standardised and advanced methods to assess exposure, risk and impacts

. Finally, as said “Prevention is better than

cure”, it is significant to focus on reducing the amount of microplastics in the environment. As a part of the United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals, additional efforts and approaches are needed worldwide to reduce plastic use.

Reference

1. Kibria, G., Haroon, A.K.Y., Nugegoda, D., Siddique, M.A.M., (2023), Microplastic Pollution and Risks. Toxicity,

Ecosystem, Water, Food, Air and Human Health. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur 342001, Rajasthan, India (314 pages.

ISBN: 978-93-94645-57-8).

2. Boucher, J., & Friot, D. (2017), Primary microplastics in the oceans: A global evaluation of sources. IUCN.

https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.01.en

3. Burrueco Subirà, D. (2022), Development and testing of methods for extraction and characterization of microplastics from

food products, Master’s thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.

4. Plastics Europe, Plastics-The facts (2020), An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data; Plastic

Europe: Bruxelles, Belgium.

5. Chamas, A.; Moon, H.; Zheng, J.; Qiu, Y.; Tabassum, T.; Jang, J.H.; Abu-Omar, M.; Scott, S.L.; Suh, S. (2020),

Degradation Rates of Plastics in the Environment. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 3494–3511.

6. González-Pleiter, M.; Tamayo-Belda, M.; Pulido-Reyes, G.; Amariei, G.; Leganés, F.; Rosal, R.; Fernández-Piñas, F.

(2019), Secondary nanoplastics released from a biodegradable microplastic severely impact freshwater environments.

Environ. Sci. Nano 6, 1382–1392.

7. Frias, J.P.G.L.; Nash, R. (2019), Microplastics: Finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138, 145–147.

8. Stark, M. (2019), Letter to the Editor Regarding “Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a

Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris”. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 9.

9. 9.Cerasa, M.; Teodori, S.;Pietrelli, L. (2021), Searching Nanoplastics: From Sampling to Sample Processing. Polymers,

13, 3658.

10. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. (2012), Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of

the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 3060–3075.

11. Vitali, C., Peters, R. J. B., Janssen, H.-G., Nielen, M. W. F., & Ruggeri, F. S. (2022), Microplastics and nanoplastics in

food, water and beverages, part II: Methods. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 157, 116819.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2022.116819

12. Cella, C.; La Spina, R.;Mehn, D.; Fumagalli, F.; Ceccone, G.;Valsesia, A.; Gilliland, D. (2022), Detecting Micro- and

Nanoplastics Released From Food Packaging: Challenges And Analytical Strategies. Polymers, 14, 1238.

https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14061238

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 593

13. Wu, D.; Lim, B.X.H.; Seah,I.; Xie, S.; Jaeger, J.E.; Symons, R.K.;Heffernan, A.L.; Curren, E.E.M.;Leong, S.C.Y.; Riau,

A.K.; et al.(2023), Impact of Microplastics on the OcularSurface. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 24,

3928.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043928

14. Kuttykattil, A., Raju, S., Vanka, K. S., Bhagwat, G., Carbery, M., Vincent, S. G. T., Raja, S., & Palanisami, T. (2022),

Consuming microplastics? Investigation of commercial salts as a source of microplastics (MPs) in diet. Environmental

Science and Pollution Research.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22101-0

15. Frère, L.; Paul-Pont, I.; Moreau, J.; Soudant, P.; Lambert, C.; Huvet, A.; Rinnert, E. (2016), A semi-automated Raman

micro-spectroscopy method for morphological and chemical characterizations of microplastic litter. Mar. Pollut. Bull.,113,

461–468.

16. Hernandez LM, Xu EG, Larsson HCE, Tahara R, Maisuria VB, Tufenkji N (2019), Plastic Teabags Release Billions of

Microparticles and Nanoparticles into Tea, Environ Sci Technol. ;53(21):12300-12310. Doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02540.

17. Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Lu, X.;Zhang, H.; Jia, Z. (2023), Simulation and Characterization of Nanoplastic Dissolution under

Different Food Consumption Scenarios, Toxics,11, 550. https://doi.org/10.3390/ toxics 11070550

18. Tagg, A.S.; Sapp, M.; Harrison, J.P.; Ojeda, J.J. (2015), Analytical Chemistry, Identification and quantification of

microplastics in wastewater using focal plane Array-Based Reflectance Micro-FT-IR Imaging, Vol 87, Issue 12.

19. Hussain, K. A., Romanova, S., Okur, I., Zhang, D., Kuebler, J., Huang, X., Wang, B. Fernandez-Ballester, L., Lu, Y.,

Schubert, M., & Li, Y. (2023). Assessing the release of microplastics and nanoplastics from plastic containers and reusable

food pouches: Implications for human health. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(9), 9782–9792.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c01942

20. Reimann, C.; Birke, M.; Filzmoser, P. (2012), Temperature-dependent leaching of chemical elements from mineral Water

bottle materials. Appl. Geochem., 27, 1492–1498

21. EU Directive 98/83/EC of 3rd November (1998), on the quality of water intended for human consumption. Off. J., 330,

32–54.

22. Antonelis, K.; Huppert, D.; Velasquez, D.; June, J. Dungeness (2023), Crab Mortality Due to Lost Traps and a Cost–

Benefit Analysis of Trap Removal in Washington State Waters of the Salish Sea. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag, 31, 880–893.

23. Mason, S.A.; Welch, V.G.; Neratko, J. (2018), Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled Water. Front. Chem., 6, 1–

17.

24. Fadare, O.O.; Okoffo, E.D.; Olasehinde, E.F. (2021), Microparticles and microplastics contamination in African table

salts. Mar. Pollut.Bull., 164, 112006.

25. Liebezeit, G.; Liebezeit, E.(2015), Origin of Synthetic Particles in Honeys. Polish J. Food Nutr. Sci., 65, 143–147.

26. Diaz-Basantes, M.F.; Conesa, J.A.; Fullana, A. (2020), Microplastics in Honey, Beer, Milk and Refreshments in Ecuador

as Emerging Contaminants. Sustainability, 12, 5514.

27. Smith, M., Love, D. C., Rochman, C. M., & Neff, R. A. (2018). Microplastics in seafood and the implications for human

health. Current Environmental Health Reports, 5(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z

28. Fisheries of the United States, Current Fishery Statistics (2015), https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ Assets/ commercial/fus/

fus15/ documents/FUS2015.pdf

29. Lusher A, Hollman P, Mendoza-Hill J. (2020), Microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture: status of knowledge on their

occurrence and implications for aquatic organisms and food safety. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper

;(615).

30. Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Goodhead R, Moger J, et al. (2013), Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton.

Environ Sci Technol.;47(12):664655.

31. Lee K-W, Shim WJ, Kwon OY, Kang J-H. (2013), Size-dependent effects of micro polystyrene particles in the marine

copepod Tigriopus Japonicus. Environ Sci Technol.;47(19):11278–83.

32. Makhdoumi, P.; Naghshbandi, M.; Ghaderzadeh, K.; Mirzabeigi, M.; Yazdanbakhsh, A.; Hossini, H. (2021), Micro-plastic

occurrence in bottled vinegar: Qualification, quantification and human risk exposure. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot., 152,

404–413.

33. Lehner, R., Weder, C., Petri-Fink, A., & Rothen-Rutishauser, B. (2019). Emergence of Nanoplastic in the Environment

and Possible Impact on Human Health. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(4), 1748–1765.

34. Cverenkárová, K.;Valachoviˇcová, M.; Mackul’ak, T.;Žemliˇcka, L.; Bírošová, L.(2021) Microplastics in the Food Chain.

Life, 11,1349. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/life11121349

35. Green, T.R.; Fisher, J.; Stone, M.; Wroblewski, B.M.; Ingham, E. (1998) Polyethylene particles of a ’critical size’ are

necessary for the Induction of cytokines by macrophages in vitro. Biomaterials, 19, 2297–2302.

36. Veruva, S.Y.; Lanman, T.H.; Isaza, J.E.; Freeman, T.A.; Kurtz, S.M.; Steinbeck, M.J. (2017), Periprosthetic UHMWPE

Wear Debris Induces Inflammation, Vascularization and Innervation After Total Disc Replacement in the Lumbar Spine.

Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 475, 1369–1381.

37. Suñer, S.; Gowland, N.; Craven, R.; Joffe, R.; Emami, N.; Tipper, J.L. (2016), Ultrahigh molecular weight

polyethylene/graphene oxide nanocomposites: Wear characterization and biological response to wear particles. J. Biomed.

Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater., 106, 183–190.

38. Massin, P.; Achour, S. (2017), Wear products of total hip arthroplasty: The case of polyethylene. Morphologie, 101, 1–8.

39. Shanbhag, A.; Jacobs, J.; Glant, T.; Gilbert, J.; Black, J.; Galante, J.(1994), Composition and morphology of wear debris

in failed uncemented total hip replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surgery. Br. Vol., 76, 60–67.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 594

40. Chiu, H.-W.; Xia, T.; Lee, Y.-H.; Chen, C.-W.; Tsai, J.-C.; Wang, Y.-J. (2015), Cationic polystyrene nanospheres induce

autophagic cell Death through the induction of endoplasmic reticulum stress. Nanoscale, 7, 736–746.

41. Xia, T.; Kovochich, M.; Liong, M.; Zink, J.I.; Nel, A.E. (2008), Cationic Polystyrene Nanosphere Toxicity Depends on

Cell-Specific Endocytic and Mitochondrial Injury Pathways. ACS Nano, 2, 85–96.

42. Liu, X.; Tian, X.; Xu, X.; Lu, J. (2018), Design of a phosphinate-based bioluminescent probe for superoxide radical anion

imaging in living cells. Luminescence, 33, 1101–1106.

43. Paget, V.; Dekali, S.; Kortulewski, T.; Grall, R.; Gamez, C.; Blazy, K.; Aguerre-Chariol, O.; Chevillard, S.; Braun, A.;

Rat, P.; et al. (2015), Specific Uptake and Genotoxicity Induced by Polystyrene Nanobeads with Distinct Surface

Chemistry on Human Lung Epithelial Cells and Macrophages. PLoS ONE, 10, e0123297.

44. Ruenraroengsak, P.; (2015), Tetlntial bioreactivity of neutral, cationic and anionic polystyrene nanoparticles with cells

from the human alveolar compartment: Robust response of alveolar type 1 epithelial cells. Part. Fibre Toxicol, 12, 1–20.

45. Thubagere, A.; Reinhard, B.M. (2010), Nanoparticle-Induced Apoptosis Propagates through Hydrogen-Peroxide-

Mediated Bystander Killing: Insights from a Human Intestinal Epithelium In Vitro Model. ACS Nano, 4, 3611–3622.

46. Zhao, Y.; Xu, R.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Rui, Q.; Wang, D. (2021), Induction of protective response to polystyrene

nanoparticles associated with dysregulation of intestinal long non-coding RNAs in Caenorhabditis elegans. Ecotoxicol.

Environ. Saf., 212, 111976.

47. Stock, V.; Böhmert, L.; Lisicki, E.; Block, R.; Cara-Carmona, J.; Pack, L.K.; Selb, R.; Lichtenstein, D.; Voss, L.;

Henderson, C.J.; et al. (2019), Uptake and effects of orally ingested polystyrene microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo.

Arch. Toxicol., 93, 1817–1833.

48. Deng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lemos, B.; Ren, H. (2017), Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses

suggest widespread Health risks of exposure. Sci. Rep., 7, 46687.

49. Lu, L.; Wan, Z.; T.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. (2018), Polystyrene microplastics induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and hepatic lipid

metabolism disorder in mice. Sci. Total Environ., 631, 449–458.

50. Jin, Y.; Lu, L.; Tu, W.; Luo, T.; Fu, Z. (2019), Impacts of polystyrene microplastic on the gut barrier, microbiota and

metabolism of mice. Sci. Total Environ., 649, 308–317.

51. Luo, T.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, C.; Wang, X.; Zhou, J.; Shen, M.; Zhao, Y.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. (2019), Maternal exposure to

different sizes of polystyrene microplastics during gestation causes metabolic disorders in their offspring. Environ. Pollut.,

255, 113122.

52. Luo, T.; Wang, C.; Pan, Z.; Jin, C.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. (2019), Maternal Polystyrene Microplastic Exposure during Gestation

and Lactation Altered Metabolic Homeostasis in the Dams and Their F1 and F2 Offspring. Environ. Sci. Technol., 53,

10978–10992.

53. Zhao, Y.; Xu, R.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Rui, Q.; Wang, D. (2021), Induction of protective response to polystyrene

nanoparticles associated with dysregulation of intestinal long non-coding RNAs in Caenorhabditis elegans. Ecotoxicol.

Environ. Saf., 212, 111976.

54. Hirt, N.; Body-Malapel, M. (2020), Immunotoxicity and intestinal effects of nano- and microplastics: A review of the

literature. Part. Fibre Toxicol., 17, 1–22.

55. McCarthy, J.; Gong, X.; Nahirney, D.; Duszyk, M.; Radomski, M. (2011), Polystyrene nanoparticles activate ion transport

in human Airway epithelial cells. Int. J. Nanomed., 6, 1343–1356.

56. Xia, L.; Gu, W.; Zhang, M.; Chang, Y.-N.; Chen, K.; Bai, X.; Yu, L.; Li, J.; Li, S.; Xing, G. (2016), Endocytosed

nanoparticles hold endosomes and stimulate binucleated cells formation. Part. Fibre Toxicol, 13, 63.

57. Mahler, G.J.; Esch, M.B.; Tako, E.; Southard, T.L.; Archer, S.D.; Glahn, R.P.; Shuler, M.L. (2012), Oral exposure to

polystyrene nanoparticles Affects iron absorption. Nat. Nanotechnol, 7, 264–271.

58. Deng, Y.; Zha (2017), Microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread Health risks of exposure. Sci.

Rep., 7, 46687.

59. Stock, V.; Böhmert, L.; Lisicki, E.; Block, R.; Cara-Carmona, J.; Pack, L.K.; Selb, R.; Lichtenstein, D.; Voss, L.;

Henderson, C.J.; et al. (2019), Uptake and effects of orally ingested polystyrene microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo.

Arch. Toxicol, 93, 1817–1833.

60. Lu, L.; Wan, Z.; Luo, T.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. (2018), Polystyrene microplastics induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and hepatic

lipid metabolism Disorder in mice. Sci. Total Environ., 631, 449–458.

61. Luo, T.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, C.; Wang, X.; Zhou, J.; Shen, M.; Zhao, Y.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. (2019) Maternal exposure to different

sizes of Polystyrene microplastics during gestation causes metabolic disorders in their offspring. Environ. Pollut., 255,

113122.

62. Luo, T.; Wang, C.; Pan, Z.; Jin, C.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. (2019), Maternal Polystyrene Microplastic Exposure during Gestation

and Lactation Altered Metabolic Homeostasis in the Dams and Their F1 and F2 Offspring. Environ. Sci. Technol., 53,

10978–10992.

63. Kadac-Czapska K, Ośko J, Knez E, Grembecka M. (2024), Microplastics and Oxidative Stress-Current Problems and

Prospects, Antioxidants (Basel). May 8;13(5):579. doi: 10.3390/antiox13050579.

64. Saurabh Shukla, Sakshum Khanna, Kushagra Khanna, (2025), Unveiling the toxicity of micro-nanoplastics: A systematic

exploration of understanding environmental and health implications, Toxicology Reports, Volume 14.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 595

65. J. Jeyavani, K.A. Al-Ghanim, M. Govindarajan, G. Malafaia, B. Vaseeharan (2024), A convenient strategy for mitigating

microplastics in wastewater treatment using natural light and ZnO nanoparticles as photocatalysts: A mechanistic study,

Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, Volume 267.

66. Eunju Jeong, Jin-Yong Lee, Mostafa Redwan (2024), Animal exposure to microplastics and health effects: A review,

Emerging Contaminants, Volume 10, Issue 4.

67. Antònia Solomando, Xavier Capó, Carme Alomar, Elvira Álvarez, Montserrat Compa, José María Valencia, Samuel Pinya,

Salud Deudero, Antoni Sureda, (2020), Long-term exposure to microplastics induces oxidative stress and a pro-

inflammatory response in the gut of Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758, Environmental Pollution, Volume 266, Part 1,

68. E. Visentin, C.L. Manuelian, G. Niero, F. Benetti, A. Perini, M. Zanella, M. Pozza, M. De Marchi (2024),

69. Characterization of microplastics in skim-milk powders, Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 107, Issue 8,Pages 5393-5401.

70. Badwanache, Pratiksha; Dodamani, Suneel (2024), Qualitative and quantitative analysis of microplastics in milk samples.

Indian Journal of Health Sciences and Biomedical Research KLEU 17(2): p 150-154, DOI:

10.4103/kleuhsj.kleuhsj_343_23

71. Gurusamy Kutralam-Muniasamy, V.C. Shruti, Fermín Pérez-Guevara, Priyadarsi D. Roy (2023), Microplastic diagnostics

in humans: “The 3Ps” Progress, problems, and prospects”, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 856, Part 2.-0-