0
Systematic Review ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 1 ? Systematic review or meta-analysis. Synthesizes findings across many studies. Strongest evidence. Environmental Sources Food & Water Marine & Wildlife Nanoplastics Sign in to save

Adverse Effects of Nanoplastics Administration on the Metabolic Profile and Glucose Control in Mice

Current Developments in Nutrition 2025 1 citation ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 53 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Amy Parkhurst, Amy Parkhurst, Ming-Fo Hsu, Fawaz G. Haj

Summary

This systematic review examines how nanoplastic exposure in mice affects metabolism and blood sugar control. The findings suggest that ingesting nanoplastics may disrupt metabolic processes and glucose regulation in mammals, raising concerns about potential links between everyday plastic exposure and metabolic health conditions like diabetes in humans.

Body Systems
Models
Study Type Review

Results: We identified and screened 76,587 articles, of which 10,884 were included.Research addressed agricultural processes for crops (73% of articles), seafood (21%) and meats (8%) from more than 140 countries.Most research assessed cadmium (68%), followed by lead (44%), arsenic (24%), and mercury (15%).Most articles on crops (57%) focused on soil, soil amendments, and fertilizer.Whereas most articles on seafood (49%) and meat (39%) were related to weather and the environment, including pollution.Five agricultural process categories from each domain were determined to be research gaps.For crops, these were planting and field maintenance (6% of articles), microbial inoculation (5%), harvesting (2%), washing, storage, and waste management (2%), and pest control (1%).Gaps for seafood were on feed (9%), medications and feed additives (3%), chemotherapeutants in water (1%), fertilizer (0.4%), biologics and hormones to induce spawning (0.1%).For meats, gaps included egg production (4%), housing (3%), milk production (2%), reproduction (1%), and farm management, waste, and production scale (0.4%).Conclusions: Our study identified several research gaps warranting further investigation, as well as areas where existing evidence might be sufficient to warrant systematic review to inform future policies related to reducing heavy metal contaminants in the global food supply.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper