We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Using simple to more robust in vitro methods based on human pulmonary models to evaluate the acute and subacute toxicity of micro- and nanoplastics derived from 3D printing materials
AI summary Read the abstract
3D printing can shed tiny plastic particles (micro- and nanoplastics) that people may breathe in, so scientists tested how these particles affect lung cells in the lab. Simple, short-term tests showed no harm, but a more advanced model that mimics real human lung tissue over a longer period (28 days) did show damage from repeated exposure — suggesting that quick, basic lab tests might miss real health risks from breathing in these plastic particles. This highlights the need for better, more realistic testing methods to understand the true dangers of microplastics as 3D printing becomes more common.
Mechanical recycling and other processes involved in the end-of-life treatment of 3D-printed plastic polymers can lead to the generation of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs). As the use of these materials continues to grow, the mechanical degradation of plastics from 3D printing may increase human exposure to MNPs, raising concerns about potential health risks for users and environmental impacts. One of the main routes of exposure to MNPs is via inhalation. For regulatory purposes, most of inhalation studies have been performed using rodents and following the OECD TG 412, however, these models do not accurately mimic the physiology of the human pulmonary system. As alternative, New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) based on human in vitro models have been used lately, providing simple and valuable, and physiologically relevant tools for research. In this work, simple in vitro models using Calu-3 and TK6 cells were exposed for 24 h (acute) and the advanced primary human epithelial MucilAir™ model was exposed for 24 h (acute) and 28 days (sub-acute, adapting the OECD TG 412) to MNPs made of polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), PP + silver nanoparticles (PP + Ag) and PC + single wall carbon nanotubes (PC + SWCNT). The results showed no significant toxicity of MNPs in acute exposures using the Calu-3 and TK6 models. In contrast, significant effects were observed along time after acute and subacute exposure of MucilAir™ to the different MNPs. These results indicate that robust in vitro models such as MucilAir™ may represent a valuable NAM for acute and sub-acute inhalation toxicity studies.
More Papers Like This
Evaluating the toxicity of polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics in human bronchial epithelial cells: differences and challenges using aerosol and suspension exposures
AI summary Read the abstract
Scientists exposed human lung cells to tiny plastic particles (the kind found in air pollution) using two different lab methods, and both showed signs of inflammation in the cells—though the cells didn't die or show classic damage signals. This matters because it adds to growing evidence that breathing in microplastics may trigger low-level lung inflammation, but it also shows that how scientists test these effects in the lab can change the results, so more consistent research is needed before we know exactly how risky everyday plastic exposure really is.
Evaluating the toxicity of polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics in human bronchial epithelial cells: differences and challenges using aerosol and suspension exposures
AI summary Read the abstract
Scientists exposed human lung cells to tiny plastic particles (the kind found in air pollution) using two different lab methods, and both showed the cells reacted with inflammation, though the exact signals differed depending on how the plastics were delivered. While the plastics didn't kill the cells or trigger cell damage, the inflammatory response suggests inhaling microplastics could irritate lung tissue over time, but scientists still need to agree on the best way to test this in labs before we know exactly how risky real-world exposure is.
Can the impact of micro- and nanoplastics on human health really be assessed using in vitro models? A review of methodological issues
AI summary Read the abstract
This review examines whether lab-based cell studies can reliably predict how micro and nanoplastics affect human health. The authors found significant inconsistencies in how researchers choose plastic particle types, doses, and exposure methods, making it hard to compare results across studies. The paper calls for standardized testing protocols so that lab findings can more accurately reflect real-world microplastic exposure risks to people.
Pulmonary hazards of nanoplastic particles: a study using polystyrene in in vitro models of the alveolar and bronchial epithelium
AI summary Read the abstract
Lab tests on human lung cell models found that polystyrene nanoplastics did not cause immediate cell death but did interfere with key lung functions like surfactant and mucus production and immune signaling. This means standard toxicity tests may underestimate the real danger of inhaling nanoplastics, and researchers need to look beyond simple cell survival to understand the true health effects on the lungs.
Advancing the hazard assessment of nanoplastic exposure under environmentally realistic conditions using human in vitro models
AI summary Read the abstract
Scientists testing realistic nanoplastics (like those from plastic bottles, not just lab-grade plastic beads) on human cells found they can cause cell damage, inflammation, and DNA harm—and these effects get worse with long-term exposure and when combined with other pollutants like cigarette smoke. This matters because most safety studies use short, simplified tests with idealized plastic particles, meaning real-world nanoplastic exposure from our food, water, and air could pose bigger health risks than previously thought.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.