SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The neurotoxic threat of micro- and nanoplastics: evidence from In Vitro and In Vivo models.

Arch Toxicol · 2025-06-03

DOI: 10.1007/s00204-025-04091-3PMID: 40459748

Open accessSystematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Micro- and nanoplastics (MPs/NPs), ubiquitous contaminants in ecosystems and food chains, have emerged as a significant concern due to their potential neurotoxic effects on human health. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the existing literature, which included 26 studies providing evidence from cellular and animal studies on the risks posed by MPs/NPs to the nervous system. In vitro studies reveal that MPs/NPs can disrupt the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, penetrate neurons and glial cells, impair cell membrane integrity, and induce cytotoxic effects. These plastic particles trigger oxidative stress, inflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction, alter signaling pathways, and disrupt neuronal communication, potentially leading to neurological dysfunction, cognitive deficits, and neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Animal models corroborate these findings, demonstrating behavioural changes, memory impairment and neurotransmitter imbalances following exposure to MPs/NPs. Although the evidence in humans is limited, the growing body of hazard data underlines the potential risks associated with chronic exposure and accumulation of MPs/NPs in the nervous system. This highlights the urgent need for further research to elucidate the mechanisms of neurotoxicity, as well as stringent regulatory measures to restrain plastic pollution and safeguard neurological health.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.