Plastic versus Polyester

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
41

This is a comment about how “stuff” gets into the human body. Not to any one poster in particular.

In general, the human body is separated from the external environment by skin or mucus membranes.
These are PHYSICAL barriers.

The skin is IMPERMEABLE, with a few exceptions: anionic, fat soluble particles (smoking patches, birth control) and glands that excrete sweat, oils, etc.

Mucus membranes (conjunctiva, nasal, respiratory, esophageal, gut lining, etc) function as gatekeepers, allowing some particles in (or out) while keeping other stuff out.
IMPERMEABLE, selectively permeable and semi permeable.
Active transport chooses specific particles for transport (using energy, ATP) across/through the membrane. Selective permeability.
Diffusion, semi permeable, allows small n very small particles to move “slowly” through the membrane.
Osmosis is rapid diffusion of WATER through the membrane. Selective permeablility for water.

Emulsified fats, chylomicrons, are intentionally transported into the lymphatic system, via lacteals in the gut microvilli. Active transport.

The lacteals bypass the digestive venules and associated “protective structures” Peyers patches n digestive lymph nodes, directly into the lymphatic system, and into the body.

Unless the patient has “leaky gut”. Ie big holes in the mucus membrane. Crones, IBS, diverticulitis, etc. Large particles get through the barrier

Back to micro plastics n how they enter the body. My speculation:
Some might be small enough to diffuse through the membranes. Remember, the membrane is made up of cells, each with a cell membrane.
Or perhaps are anions n aggregate with fats n chylomicrons.

Some might mimick nutrients for which there are active transport processes.

:disguised_face::prohibited::owl:
:man_gesturing_no:t4:
ralph

2 Likes
42

This is about waste products.

But that aside for a moment.

When you cook mixed vegetables you want them cut the same size so they cook more evenly. But polymer fibers are not the same size of a coke bottle.

43

We are actually talking Nanoplastics.

Yes, microplastics are small enough to potentially enter the body. They can be ingested through contaminated food and water, inhaled through the air, and even absorbed through the skin, especially in the case of smaller nanoplastics.

Here’s why their size matters:

  • Microplastics: Defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters.
  • Nanoplastics: Even smaller, below 1 micrometer (1,000 nanometers).
  • Ingestion and Inhalation: Microplastics can pass through the digestive tract and respiratory system, potentially entering the bloodstream and other organs.
  • Dermal Contact: Smaller microplastics, especially nanoplastics, may be able to penetrate the skin barrier.
  • Cellular Infiltration: Nanoplastics are particularly concerning as they can infiltrate cells.
  • Detection in the Body: Microplastics have been found in various organs and tissues, including blood, lungs, gut, fec(word not allowed), and reproductive tissues.
2 Likes
44

This Google AI query was a no brainer

Nanoplastics originate from both plastic bottles and polyester clothing, but polyester clothing washing is considered a major source. While plastic bottles can release nanoplastics as they degrade and break down, synthetic fabrics like polyester, nylon, and acrylic release vast amounts of micro and nanoplastic fibers during washing, which then enter wastewater and ecosystems.

Bonus points

Yes, cotton can break down into smaller particles, including microparticles and even nanoparticles, but it’s not the same as synthetic materials like polyester. Cotton, being a natural, biodegradable fiber, breaks down in a natural process, unlike synthetic fabrics which can contribute to microplastic pollution. While cotton itself doesn’t inherently shed microplastics, it can shed fibers during washing, which can become smaller and potentially enter the environment. Additionally, cotton can be used to create nanomaterials for specific applications, like nanoparticles in antimicrobial coatings.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

Cotton is a natural fiber that breaks down in the environment through natural decomposition processes, unlike synthetic plastics which can persist for hundreds of years.

2 Likes
45

The synthetic plastics that last forever are polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride. They are not used in fibers. Polyesters have ester linkages that are easy to break. Probably true of nylon, a polyamide. As to “acrylic” acrilan and Orlon are polyacrylonitrile. Usually used as imitation wool. Orlon was a Dupont trademark but Google says it is now abandoned. Acrilan is Monsanto’s Chemstrand trademark, now owned by Solutia (acquired by Eastman Chemical) and shown as abandoned. Probably no longer made in USA.

2 Likes
46

What the hell does this mean?

47

Things are built to be treated by nature and the law differently

48

It occurs to me that if tires are a major source, then inhalation may be a major pathway.

DB2

2 Likes
49

[image]

[image]

+10

Yes, tire wear can result in both microplastics and nanoplastics. Tire wear particles, which are primarily composed of rubber and other synthetic materials, are considered microplastics when they are between 1 μm and 5 mm in size, and nanoplastics when they are less than 1 μm. Studies have shown that tire wear generates a range of particle sizes, from nanometers to several hundred micrometers, contributing to the problem of plastic pollution.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

Studies have indicated that tire wear is a significant source of microplastics in the environment, contributing a substantial portion of the total microplastic load.

Research has shown that tire wear produces particles of various sizes, including microplastics and nanoplastics, with the smaller particles being more easily aerosolized and dispersed.

Tire wear particles, both micro and nano, can accumulate on roads, enter waterways, and be dispersed into the air, posing environmental risks.

Because of their small size, nanoplastics can potentially penetrate biological membranes, raising concerns about their potential health impacts.

50

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) adversely affects student performance (e.g., Ebenstein et al., 2016, Carneiro et al., 2021, Zhang et al., 2018, Deng et al., 2023, Yao et al., 2023). In particular, Ebenstein et al. (2016) employed data on matriculation examination outcomes and city-level PM2.5 concentrations in Israel during 2000–2002 to assess the impact of PM2.5 exposure on exam success. Their findings indicate that a 10-unit increase in PM2.5 concentration, measured by the Air Quality Index (AQI), corresponds to a 0.40-point reduction in exam scores (on a 0–100 scale) when accounting for student fixed effects. Moreover, they demonstrate a lasting consequence of this decrease, leading to a diminished likelihood of students pursuing university education.

We investigate the causal effects of very short-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 air pollution on students’ performance in Finland. Conducting a nationwide panel study covering over 370,000 high-school matriculation exams from 253 schools between 2006 and 2016, we incorporate hourly air pollution measures from the nearest monitoring stations. The panel structure of Finnish matriculation exams, wherein students undertake multiple exams in various courses, allows us to observe test scores for each student across different exams taken on varying dates within the same schools.

source: The impact of ambient PM2.5 air pollution on student performance: Evidence from finnish matriculation examinations - ScienceDirect

Mike

4 Likes
51

Weird, fascinating, and surprisingly credible.

1 Like
52

OK, so students should wear effective masks in class, on the way to school, or everywhere. Schools should install very high efficiency air filters to collect and remove all microparticals from the air.

Is it worth the investment? Likely to happen? Money would be better spent on teaching the 3Rs to all children.

53

Or…perhaps just reduce plastics in our lives, either by elimination or substitution.

I know, I know, equally unlikely to happen since this would involve big government and big companies working together and there is also an environmental aspect, too, which nearly forecloses any discussion. We certainly wouldn’t solve the problem as individuals - look at said mask views here and during COVID.

Pete

2 Likes
54

OK, but there are zillions of other microparticals out there. Most have not been tested but likely to have similar effects. Remember pollen and house dust, cat dander, and on and on.

Benefits are likely to be minuscule.

1 Like
55

That study was for younger people.

What is problematic; the people who have a plastic sized spoon in their brains are us. You sure you are against action?

56

I’m for the same rules for all materials.

Classical example is alcohol. It’s a known human carcinogen. If treated as a chemical, you would wear a moon suit to enter a bar. Alcohol would be under a fume hood. Employees dangerously exposed.

57

And there’s radon, also a known human carcinogen. If the usual safety limits were applied, almost all indoor spaces would be off-limits.

DB2

58

A purity test.

The reason nothing will get any support.

Wait till we have three plastic spoons in each brain, then outlaw alcohol as an I told you so.

59

When a doctor uses a chemo drug on camcer s/he does not think why not use asprin and coke a cola. After all it’s all good.