An apple a day keeps the doctor..........busy.

Sounds like spreading sewage sludge on farm fields wasn't such a good idea afterall. I was more concerned about the nasty assorted chemicals involved from all the krap people flush down their sinks, but plastics? Hopefully our personal homegrown gardens aren't as bad as commercially grown fruits and veggies.

Plastics are in sewage but the real danger of the sludge is the PFAS (commonly called "forever chemicals"--yet another problem, but not plastic) that was spread on farms, even organic ones. Plastics are everywhere: in the air, in the water, in the ground, in rain and in snow. Plastic has been found in our eyes, our brains, in umbilical cord blood, in snow and ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. It's in shrimp, fish, eggs, and virtually everything you eat. While there might be a little less in home grown products, if it's getting into apples it's in the ground because it's in rain and snow.

Vgkg, surely my post isn't the first time you've heard of plastic being in everything!

^^ I knew it was almost everywhere but first I've heard of it being taken up by plants.

Please disregard this study in china because it produced no results to support the claim of plant uptake, and only questions. After reading the introduction and conclusion it shows there was no scientific evidence but many of these common disclaimers. "MORE CLARIFICATION NEEDED", "MORE DATA REQUIRED", and words such as MAY, COULD and POSSIBLY to indicate they lacked any conclusion at all.

My take, They haven't a clue. First a pure element must be water soluble to allow a plant to allow an Ion exchange. Last I've heard nano particles of plastic are NOT water soluble or a pure element so I plant could not possible uptake plastic. Plants CANNOT take in ions of compound elements, and if a plastic was broken down like PET (polyester) it would become ethylene glycol and then ethylene gas, and the organic compound terephthalic acid, but we can't break it down and if we could there would be no Nano particles of plastic to worry about.

That sounds correct about uptake of microplastics being nonsense, but it is in a reputable journal that does require referees. I could imagine that *molecules* of microplastics might end up in plant tissue, but not macroscopic plastic particles. Nanoplastics are synthetic polymers with dimensions ranging from 1 nm to 1 μm. At the low end of that range, I can imagine them being suspended in fluids that plants take up.

From the abstract:

Conclusively, agricultural practices, climate changes (wet weather and heavy rainfall), and soil organisms play a major role in transporting MPs and NPs in soil. NPs are more prone to enter plant cell walls as compared to MPs. Furthermore, transpiration pull is the dominant factor in the plant uptake and translocation of plastic particles.

Also, this a review of the literature of plant studies published in scientific journals:

We present a critical review of the previous 10 years; most of our cited literature spans the last five years of the effect of MPs and NPs on agroecosystems.

Kevin, I believe you misunderstood the article. No journal would have published any of the articles referenced/reviewed if it were impossible for plants to take up micro (MP) and nano (NP). There is NO question about whether the particles are in the plants. They are. The article reviews years' worth of articles and examines the findings of HOW they got there, not whether. The particles were found in the vegetables--they got there by plant uptake. Look at Table 2: "Accumulation of plastics in plants under different exposure conditions."

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with scientific articles. Scientists always use that terminology of "more clarification needed", etc. It's science speak, and a call for further research. A call for more research doesn't mean that the authors don't know what they're talking about or are guessing.

And I don't care to argue further about whether the article is "real science" or not. It is.

That's right. It's the nanoplastics (NPs), not the microplastics (MPs), that are largely taken up in plants. Microplastics are just too big. The paper actually makes that point clear. Now, chemically, it doesn't matter that much, toxicity-wise, to the extent that this stuff is indeed actually toxic.

Well, thanks for that! I'm going to keep on composting and organically gardening as best I can while I'm still able to!

I kinda think those of us who give it a try, along with shopping at organic farmer's markets are doing our best!

Yes, nancyjane, we do what we can--organic gardening, trying to reduce plastics, etc. But the major part of the problem--the production of more plastic--is out of our hands.

Nanoplastics in particular, but even microplastics to some extent, are largely airborne. No matter how careful you are, if you aren't gardening in a greenhouse with filtered air, you aren't going to keep them out of your beds. But most of the plastic inside you ends up there from breathing. Interesting that plastics in food are largely excreted. Plastics that you breathe in are not.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10146709/

Thanks Dan, I focused merely on cation and anion exchange and determined the uptake of np's would be near impossible. But when you mentioned "particles suspended in fluid" I realized this was a critical oversight on my part so I did a little research on the subject. After many hours of reading I've found that you sir are correct Including the introduction of air borne np's. Nano particles and even micro particles appear to have four pathways into the plant cells. the Endocytosis process, apoplastic transport, crack entry, (believe it or not) and through the stomatal.

Here is a well written published review which is easy to follow with conclusions of the studies overall with critical analysis, and best of all directly to the point.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723067827#bb0470

I'm sorry Laceyvail but the Review you posted was a horrible hack job violating what is normally accepted as a scientific paper. I have no disrespect for you but only for the authors of that review, and it made my head spin it was so bad. The conclusion of hogwash basically was rewritten from their abstract and I hated it but nothing to do with the subject matter, and found the subject interesting so thank you.

I've read more white papers than I care to admit to, including what is acceptable and ethical to be accepted in a journal. An actual study is hard to understand without an extensive scientific background, but a review is to compile and summarize key findings in many studies closely related to the heading, Compare and connect the findings in each study and provide critical analysis of the overall consensus. I don't want to read a review taking me on a tour of history but just circling around the block with the fare running.