The Ubiquitous Microplastics: The Unseen Threat and Why Data Matters

A few years ago, I returned to academia to help establish a new interdisciplinary centre on water technology and policy. At the time, an emerging issue caught my attention: microplastic pollution. Back then, we knew very little about its impacts. In fact, we did not even have reliable and standardized tools to measure microplastics. So I reached out to colleagues in environmental engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, chemistry, ocean science, and public policy to ask: what can we do about it?

Fast forward to today: the evidence has grown. We now find microplastics not only in oceans, rivers, and soils, but also in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and even in human blood, tissues, and organs. Microplastics are ubiquitous, but our understanding of their long-term impacts on health, ecosystems, and food systems is only just beginning to emerge. This raises an urgent question:

What do we need to better assess microplastics so we can design effective solutions?

Samples of microplastics in the environment: (a) Micrographs of particles retained on the filter paper after initial sample processing. Suspected microplastics found included: (b) red filament tangled with a transparent wrap; (c) a gray fragment; (d) a dark filament; and (e) a foam pellet with a green fragment. (Samples collected in the aqueous systems of Hong Kong, 2021)

What are microplastics and where do they come from?

Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than 5 mm (nanoplastics are even smaller) — fragments often invisible to the eye but increasingly visible in science. They are everywhere: oceans, soils, food, and air. Their sources are disturbingly ordinary. Larger plastics like packaging, bags, and bottles break down with sunlight and weather. Washing synthetic clothing releases fibers into wastewater. Tire wear sheds particles onto roads. Paints, coatings, and cosmetics contribute more. Recent studies show that disposable face masks from the pandemic are releasing both microplastics and chemicals such as bisphenol B into the environment.

Why should we care?

Why does it matter? Why do we need to care? The impacts and science of microplastics are still emerging, but the picture is troubling—and getting sharper with every new study.

• Human health impacts: A 2025 Italian study detected polyethylene and PVC microplastics embedded in human carotid artery plaques; patients with plastics present faced a 4.5-fold higher risk of heart attack, stroke, or death within three years. Other research has found microplastics in human lungs, placentas, and blood, raising concerns about long-term accumulation. Harvard researchers warn that micro- and nanoplastics are increasingly being associated with cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, and neurological symptoms. The smallest nanoplastics are particularly worrisome: their size allows them to cross biological barriers such as the placenta and potentially the blood–brain barrier. This opens the possibility of subtle but widespread impacts on child development and neurological health—an area of science still in its infancy.

• Food security risks: Beyond human health, microplastics threaten the foundations of agriculture. A recent study demonstrated that particles lodged in soils can impair photosynthesis in staple crops such as wheat, rice, and maize, reducing productivity by 4 – 14%. Microplastics also alter soil’s basic chemistry — affecting pH, water retention, and nutrient cycles — which not only lower yields but also makes crops more vulnerable to droughts and pests, undermining food security in regions already at risk.

• Damage to ecosystem: In marine and freshwater systems, filter-feeders like mussels accumulate microplastics, leading to inflammation, oxidative stress, and even genetic damage. Because mussels, clams, and oysters are a key food source for millions of organisms upper in the ocean food chain, this contamination threatens both ecosystems and food chains. Microplastics also act as “sponges” for pollutants and pathogens, ferrying toxic chemicals or microbes into ecosystems. Their persistence means that once released, they circulate for decades—cycling between soil, rivers, oceans, air, and living organisms.

• 
  

Taken together, these findings suggest that microplastics are not just an environmental nuisance but a cross-cutting risk to human health, food systems, and biodiversity. The challenge is that our ability to detect and quantify them — especially at the nanoscale — still lags behind the science pointing to their risks. Without reliable, standardized assessment tools, we are almost certainly underestimating both exposure and the consequences.

The data gap

Here is the paradox:

microplastics are everywhere, but we don’t yet have enough reliable, comparable, or comprehensive data on microplastics to fully understand the risks or design effective solutions.

A few thoughts:

• Inconsistent measurement methods: Studies use different size thresholds, sampling protocols, and analytical techniques (from spectroscopy to staining), making it almost impossible to compare results across regions. Some focus on particles above 100 µm, while others attempt to capture nanoplastics under 1 µm. Without common standards, global datasets remain fragmented.

• Nanoplastics remain a blind spot: These are the particles most likely to cross biological barriers and cause harm, yet they are also the hardest to measure. Current technologies lack the sensitivity to reliably detect them at scale, leaving a major unknown in exposure and toxicity assessments.

• Limited exposure data for humans: We know microplastics are turning up in blood, lungs, placentas, and even arteries, but we don’t yet know how much exposure the average person has on a daily or lifetime basis, or how levels differ across geographies, diets, or occupations.

• Uneven environmental monitoring: Oceans are better studied than soils, freshwater systems, or the atmosphere, even though recent evidence suggests soils may actually store more microplastics than oceans, and airborne microplastics could represent a growing inhalation risk.

• Geographic imbalances: Most studies come from Europe, North America, and East Asia. Regions with high plastic leakage — such as parts of Africa, South Asia, and small island states—are underrepresented, leaving policymakers in those areas with little evidence to inform regulation.

• Chemical complexity overlooked: Plastics are not just polymers; they contain additives, plasticizers, flame retardants, and stabilizers. These chemicals can leach out or change as plastics weather, yet most monitoring still focuses only on the physical particles.

  
  

Without standardized methods, long-term monitoring, and global coverage, we risk flying blind — unable to set meaningful thresholds, evaluate health risks, or measure progress under a global plastics treaty.

Who is stepping up: GPML and the Global Plastics Hub

No single researcher, company, or government can solve this problem alone. Two global initiatives are helping to close the gap:

• The Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter (GPML), led by UNEP, brings together governments, scientists, NGOs, and businesses. Its Data Hub is building a shared digital platform to curate global data on plastics production, flows, and pollution.

Global Plastics Hub (Credit: GPML)

• The OECD Global Plastics Outlook provides country-level data, economic modeling, and policy scenarios. It underpins the reports that give policymakers tools to evaluate circular economy strategies.

Together, they complement each other: GPML as a multi-stakeholder partnership and knowledge broker; the OECD Hub as a quantitative evidence base. Both are critical as negotiations continue on a legally binding UN plastics treaty.

Concluding Remarks

Microplastics are not just environmental contaminants — they are a systematic challenge that cuts across health, food security, ecosystems, and climate resilience. The urgency is clear, but solutions will only move forward if grounded in comprehensive and reliable data. That means standardized methods, global monitoring networks, and targeted investment to close geographic and technological gaps.

At the same time, the microplastics story is not only a crisis, but is also a chance to rethink how we design, use, and govern materials. Plastics have delivered immense economic value, but their unchecked proliferation shows the cost of ignoring externalities. If we can build the infrastructure to track microplastics across their life cycle, we can also design smarter circular systems, reduce waste at the source, and create incentives for innovation in materials science.

This will not happen through science alone. Policymakers must create the regulatory frameworks, businesses must adapt supply chains, investors must fund scalable solutions, and researchers must continue to push the boundaries of detection and risk assessment. The platforms being built by UNEP and the OECD are important steps toward this collaborative future, but they need broader participation and stronger political will to succeed.

Ultimately, the real question is not whether microplastics are a problem. The question is whether we can mobilize the data, governance, and innovation fast enough to turn today’s emerging science into tomorrow’s solutions. If we succeed, we won’t just be managing pollution — we’ll be reshaping how societies think about materials, health, and resilience in the 21st century.

[First published on Substack "Ginci Insights" on September 23, 2025: https://gincinno.substack.com/p/the-ubiquitous-microplastics-the?r=2cxt8s]