AIMS Microbiology

Microplastics and Probiotics: Mechanisms of Interaction and Their Consequences for Health

Jean Demarquoy — Université de Bourgogne Europe, Institut Agro-INRAe, UMR PAM, 21000 Dijon, France

AIMS Microbiology, 11(2): 388–409 · Published 9 June 2025 · doi:10.3934/microbiol.2025018

What this paper found

This comprehensive review synthesizes evidence that specific probiotic strains can adsorb microplastics, enhance their fecal excretion, and counteract microplastic-induced oxidative stress, inflammation, and gut barrier damage. In mouse models, probiotic co-administration produced striking protective effects against polystyrene microplastic toxicity.

+34% Increased MP excretion
−67% Less intestinal retention
784 Strains screened
6 Key protective mechanisms
Download original PDF

Contents

  1. Abstract
  2. Introduction
  3. Microplastics: Exposure Routes and Health Implications
  4. Probiotics and Gut Health: Role in Combating Pollutants
  5. In Vitro: Microplastic Impact on Probiotic Viability
  6. In Vivo: Gut Microbiome Changes Under MP Exposure
  7. Mechanistic Insights: Microplastic–Probiotic Interactions
  8. Probiotics as a Mitigation Strategy (Human Health)
  9. Knowledge Gaps and Conclusions
  10. References
Section 1

Abstract

Microplastics (MPs), synthetic polymer particles less than 5 mm in size, are an emerging contaminant with implications for both human and ecosystem health. Being widespread in food and water sources, MPs can disrupt gastrointestinal integrity, alter the microbiota composition, and provoke oxidative and inflammatory responses.

Probiotics, live microorganisms known for their gut health benefits, are now being explored for their ability to mitigate these effects. This review synthesizes evidence from in vitro and in vivo studies on how MPs impact probiotic viability, adhesion, and biofilm formation, and how certain strains may counter MP-induced toxicity by modulating oxidative stress, immune function, and epithelial barrier integrity.

Additionally, this manuscript discusses emerging applications in environmental microbiology, such as the potential use of native and engineered probiotics for microplastic bioremediation. Although the current data highlight promising avenues, key gaps remain in our understanding of strain-specific mechanisms, long-term efficacy, and real-world applicability.

Section 2

Introduction

Microplastics are synthetic polymer particles smaller than 5 millimeters. They are persistent environmental pollutants with growing relevance to human and ecological health. MPs are ubiquitous in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems and increasingly present in the human food chain[1]Ahmad MF et al. (2024) Are we eating plastic? Science mapping of microplastic pollution in the aquatic food chain. Integr Environ Assess Manag 20: 1800–1811. Open →. Their detection in drinking water, seafood, fruits and vegetables, table salt, and even breast milk[2]Barceló D et al. (2023) Microplastics: Detection in human samples, cell line studies, and health impacts. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 101: 104204. Open → highlights their widespread presence in everyday life.

Upon ingestion, MPs interact with the gastrointestinal tract, where they may persist, translocate, or interfere with the host's biology. In animal models, MPs have been shown to disrupt gut epithelial integrity, alter the composition and diversity of the gut microbiota, induce oxidative stress, and provoke local and systemic inflammation[5]Fröhlich E (2024) Local and systemic effects of microplastic particles through cell damage, release of chemicals and drugs, dysbiosis, and interference with the absorption of nutrients. J Toxicol Environ Health B 27: 315–344. Open →.

Probiotics are defined by the FAO and WHO as "live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host"[6]WHO/FAO (2002) Probiotics in food, health and nutritional properties and guidelines for evaluation.. Common probiotic strains include species of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Bacillus, Saccharomyces, and Enterococcus. Beyond their classical gut health roles, probiotics are being explored for their capacity to mitigate the effects of environmental toxicants, including heavy metals, bisphenol A, and mycotoxins[8]Lázaro Á et al. (2024) Emerging mycotoxins and preventive strategies related to gut microbiota changes. Food Funct 15: 8998–9023. Open →.

Section 3

Microplastics: Exposure Routes and Health Implications

Nature, Size, and Classification

The chemical composition of microplastics typically includes common polymers such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyamide (PA). These materials vary in density, crystallinity, and hydrophobicity, which influence their environmental behavior.

Microplastics range from 1 micrometer to 5 millimeters. Particles smaller than 1 µm are typically referred to as nanoplastics. Particles below 10 µm are of special concern because they are small enough to be taken up by cells and may even cross epithelial barriers, entering systemic circulation and internal organs[13]Wright SL, Kelly FJ (2017) Plastic and human health: A micro issue? Environ Sci Technol 51: 6634–6647. Open →.

Sources and Exposure Pathways

Microplastics enter the human body primarily through ingestion, with lesser contributions from inhalation and dermal contact[23]Prabhu K et al. (2024) In vitro digestion of microplastics in human digestive system. Sci Total Environ 934: 173173. Open →. Both bottled and tap water contain MPs, particularly PET and PP fibers. Seafood, especially filter-feeding organisms such as mussels and oysters, accumulates MPs. Additionally, MPs have been found in table salt[27]Zhang Q et al. (2020) A review of microplastics in table salt, drinking water, and air. Environ Sci Technol 54: 3740–3751. Open →, honey, and dairy products. Infants may be at even higher risk due to plastic-containing feeding bottles[30]Cox KD et al. (2019) Human consumption of microplastics. Environ Sci Technol 53: 7068–7074. Open →.

Diagram showing the origins of microplastics (microbeads, industrial pellets, textiles, tire wear), their environmental dispersal through water, soil, and air, human exposure routes (ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact), and resulting biological effects including gut dysbiosis, inflammation, oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, organ translocation, and immune modulation
Figure 1. Origins, exposure routes, and biological effects of microplastics. Microplastics originate from microbeads, industrial pellets, textiles, and tire wear; they disseminate through water, soil, and air. Human exposure occurs via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. Health effects include gut dysbiosis, inflammation, oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, translocation to organs, and immune modulation.

Health Effects of Microplastics

Experimental data from rodent, zebrafish, and invertebrate models demonstrate that MPs can exert multiple detrimental effects on gastrointestinal and systemic physiology:

  • Gut dysbiosis — decreasing beneficial genera such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium while promoting opportunistic pathogens[32]Jin Y et al. (2019) Impacts of polystyrene microplastic on the gut barrier, microbiota and metabolism of mice. Sci Total Environ 649: 308–317. Open →
  • Epithelial damage — reducing expression of tight junction proteins (occludin, claudin-1), increasing intestinal permeability[33]Lu L et al. (2018) Polystyrene microplastics induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and hepatic lipid metabolism disorder in mice. Sci Total Environ 631–632: 449–458. Open →
  • Inflammatory responses — elevated IL-6 and TNF-α with increased immune cell infiltration[34]Deng Y et al. (2017) Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure. Sci Rep 7: 46687. Open →
  • Oxidative stress — elevated ROS and lipid peroxidation markers (MDA), impaired mitochondrial integrity[35]Li B et al. (2020) Polyethylene microplastics affect the distribution of gut microbiota and inflammation development in mice. Chemosphere 244: 125492. Open →
  • "Trojan horse" effect — MPs function as vectors for adsorbed contaminants including POPs, heavy metals, and antibiotics[36]Bao X et al. (2024) Microplastics derived from plastic mulch films and their carrier function effect on the environmental risk of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 924: 171472. Open →
Key point: The gastrointestinal tract is the first major interface between MPs and the host's biology. Dysbiosis induced by MPs may impair immune function, increase disease susceptibility, and compromise metabolic and neurological health[38]Demarquoy J (2024) Microplastics and microbiota: Unraveling the hidden environmental challenge. World J Gastroenterol 30: 2191–2194. Open →.
Section 4

Probiotics and Gut Health: Role in Combating Pollutants

Beyond their classical health benefits, probiotics have demonstrated the capacity to mitigate toxic effects of various environmental and dietary contaminants. Several Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains have been shown to bind and detoxify heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, primarily via cell surface components (e.g., teichoic acids, extracellular polysaccharides). Additionally, probiotics can sequester or degrade xenobiotics such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and certain pesticides[39]Giri SS et al. (2024) Probiotics in addressing heavy metal toxicities in fish farming. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 282: 116755. Open →[40]Emanowicz P et al. (2024) Mitigating dietary bisphenol exposure through the gut microbiota. Nutrients 16: 3757. Open →.

Microplastics represent a class of contaminants whose interactions with probiotics are only beginning to be understood. Based on their known interactions with other xenobiotics, probiotics may serve as bioactive shields against MP toxicity—whether via direct binding to MPs, modulation of gut barrier function, antioxidant activity, or restoration of dysbiotic microbial communities[41]Bazeli J et al. (2023) Could probiotics protect against human toxicity caused by polystyrene nanoplastics and microplastics? Front Nutr 10: 1186724. Open →.

Section 5

In Vitro: Microplastic Impact on Probiotic Viability and Function

Exposure of Probiotic Cultures to Microplastics

In vitro studies have provided critical insights into how microplastics may directly affect probiotic organisms. Teng et al. (2024) screened 784 bacterial strains for their ability to adsorb 0.1 µm polystyrene particles and identified strains such as Lacticaseibacillus paracasei DT66 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DT88 with significant adsorption capabilities[42]Teng X et al. (2024) Novel probiotics adsorbing and excreting microplastics. Front Microbiol 15: 1522794. Open →.

Multiple studies have reported that exposure to MPs, particularly polystyrene in the 1–50 µm range, can lead to dose-dependent reductions in growth rate and survival of probiotic strains including Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Bacillus subtilis[43]Chi J et al. (2025) Metabolic reprogramming in gut microbiota exposed to polystyrene microplastics. Biomedicines 13: 446. Open →[44]Shi L et al. (2025) Lactobacillus plantarum reduces polystyrene microplastic induced toxicity via multiple pathways. J Hazard Mater 489: 137669. Open →.

Key finding: Shi et al. (2025) demonstrated that Lactobacillus plantarum strains with varying antioxidant capacities and binding affinities for PS nanoparticles could mitigate MP toxicity. Their binding affinity decreased the body's MP content by increasing fecal excretion. Even strains with low antioxidant activity were able to reduce toxicity through repairing the intestinal barrier and modulating bile acid metabolism[44]Shi L et al. (2025) Lactobacillus plantarum reduces polystyrene microplastic induced toxicity via multiple pathways. Open →.

Biofilm Formation and Adhesion Changes

Biofilm formation is a critical survival strategy for many probiotics. Exposure to MPs can stimulate the production of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and promote surface adhesion. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Bacillus subtilis increase biofilm formation when exposed to MPs[46]Salas-Jara MJ et al. (2016) Biofilm forming lactobacillus: New challenges for the development of probiotics. Microorganisms 4: 35. Open →.

Conversely, MPs can also interfere with probiotic adhesion to intestinal epithelial cells. Experiments using Caco-2 or HT-29 intestinal cell lines co-cultured with MPs and probiotics have reported reduced adhesion of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the presence of MPs[47]Sharma S, Kanwar SS (2017) Adherence potential of indigenous lactic acid bacterial isolates. J Food Sci Technol 54: 3504–3511. Open →.

Limitations of In Vitro Models

Most studies use pristine, monodisperse MPs at relatively high concentrations, which substantially differ from the chronic, low-dose exposure experienced by humans. Real-world MPs are often aged, fragmented, biofilm-coated, and contain adsorbed contaminants. Pure-culture systems exclude critical host factors such as immune responses, peristalsis, mucus dynamics, and microbiota–microbiota interactions[48]Liu S et al. (2022) Eco-corona formation and associated ecotoxicological impacts of nanoplastics. Sci Total Environ 836: 155703. Open →.

Section 6

In Vivo Interactions: Gut Microbiome Changes Under MP Exposure

Microplastic-Induced Gut Dysbiosis

Animal studies, particularly in rodents, have consistently shown that MP exposure alters the gut microbiome and induces intestinal dysfunction[49]Fackelmann G, Sommer S (2019) Microplastics and the gut microbiome: How chronically exposed species may suffer from gut dysbiosis. Mar Pollut Bull 143: 193–203. Open →. Oral administration of MPs (typically polystyrene or polyethylene, 1–20 µm) leads to significant changes in microbial composition, characterized by reductions in beneficial commensals and increases in opportunistic or pro-inflammatory species[50]Jia R et al. (2023) Exposure to polypropylene microplastics via oral ingestion induces colonic apoptosis and intestinal barrier damage through oxidative stress and inflammation in mice. Toxics 11: 127. Open →.

Probiotic Modulation of Microplastic Toxicity

Emerging studies reveal that probiotic supplementation can counteract many of the adverse effects of MPs in vivo. In mouse models, co-administration of probiotics has been shown to mitigate MP-induced gut inflammation, restore microbiota diversity, and preserve intestinal barrier function.

Central finding: In vivo experiments demonstrated that mice treated with selected probiotics exhibited a 34% increase in polystyrene excretion rates and a 67% reduction in residual PS particles within the intestine[42]Teng X et al. (2024) Novel probiotics adsorbing and excreting microplastics. Front Microbiol 15: 1522794. Open →. Administration of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DT88 specifically mitigated PS-induced intestinal inflammation.

A separate study explored the effects of PS-MPs on male reproductive toxicity in mice and found that probiotic intervention improved PS-MP-induced reproductive toxicity by alleviating inflammatory responses[53]Zhang Y et al. (2023) Probiotics improve polystyrene microplastics-induced male reproductive toxicity in mice by alleviating inflammatory response. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 263: 115248. Open →.

Influence of Dose, Strain, and Duration

The effectiveness of probiotics against microplastic toxicity varies widely by genus and is further modulated by host-specific factors:

  • Lactobacillus strains — known for EPS production and gut barrier integrity promotion
  • Bifidobacterium species — potent immunomodulatory and antioxidant functions
  • Bacillus strains — resilient due to spore-forming capacity, but may exacerbate oxidative responses under MP exposure

Host-related factors such as age, baseline microbiota composition, diet, and immune status play a critical role in shaping probiotic outcomes. Chronic MP exposure may cause lasting microbiota changes, requiring prolonged probiotic use, especially in immunocompromised hosts[44]Shi L et al. (2025) Lactobacillus plantarum reduces polystyrene microplastic induced toxicity via multiple pathways. Open →.

Section 7

Mechanistic Insights: Microplastic–Probiotic Interactions

How Microplastics Perturb Probiotic and Host Physiology

Disruption of microbial membranes and metabolism: MPs adhere to bacterial cell surfaces via electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions, altering membrane permeability and inducing membrane stress[54]Fleury JB, Baulin VA (2021) Microplastics destabilize lipid membranes by mechanical stretching. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118. Open →. MPs may induce membrane depolarization, leading to cytoplasmic leakage and compromised cell homeostasis[55]Järvenpää J et al. (2022) PE and PET oligomers' interplay with membrane bilayers. Sci Rep 12: 2234. Open →.

Induction of oxidative stress: MP exposure increases ROS production in probiotic bacteria, with elevated expression of antioxidant defense enzymes (catalase, SOD, peroxidase)[56]Kadac-Czapska K et al. (2024) Microplastics and oxidative stress—current problems and prospects. Antioxidants 13: 579. Open →. Persistent oxidative stress can lead to DNA damage, protein denaturation, and lipid peroxidation.

Host-mediated dysregulation: In vivo, MPs compromise gut epithelial integrity and stimulate local inflammation, creating a hostile environment for probiotic colonization. MPs can activate inflammatory pathways (NF-κB, TLR4 signaling) and reduce mucin production[51]Jia R et al. (2023) Correction: Exposure to polypropylene microplastics via oral ingestion in mice. Toxics 11: 733. Open →.

Diagram of bidirectional interactions between microorganisms (probiotics, shown as colorful bacteria on the left) and microplastics (shown as plastic debris on the right). Top arrows show MPs disrupting microbes: membrane alteration up, ROS production up, cell integrity down. Bottom arrows show probiotics countering MPs: adsorption of MPs up, antioxidant production up, biofilm formation down, inflammation down.
Figure 2. Bidirectional interactions between microplastics and microorganisms. MPs disrupt microbial cells via membrane alteration, ROS production, and cell integrity compromise. Probiotics counter these effects via adsorption, antioxidant production, reduced biofilm formation, and attenuated inflammatory responses.

Probiotic Countermeasures Against Microplastic Toxicity

1. Adsorption and aggregation of MPs: Probiotics with high EPS production, such as Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, show increased MP adsorption and aggregation. The binding efficacy varies based on MP polymer type, particle size, and extent of weathering. Surface features including teichoic acids, lipoteichoic acids, surface-layer proteins (SLPs), and EPS influence electrostatic interactions and hydrophobic affinity[42]Teng X et al. (2024) Novel probiotics adsorbing and excreting microplastics. Front Microbiol 15: 1522794. Open →[61]Zhao L et al. (2023) Adsorption abilities and mechanisms of Lactobacillus on various nanoplastics. Chemosphere 320: 138038. Open →.

2. Biofilm-mediated protection: MP exposure can stimulate biofilm formation by certain probiotics. These biofilms act as stress-adaptive structures, providing physical protection against oxidative stress and enabling enhanced colonization of the intestinal epithelium[46]Salas-Jara MJ et al. (2016) Biofilm forming lactobacillus: New challenges for the development of probiotics. Microorganisms 4: 35. Open →.

3. Gut barrier and inflammation modulation: Probiotics upregulate tight junction proteins (occludin, claudin-1, ZO-1), suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α), and promote anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10). They also influence the Treg/Th17 balance, promoting gut immune homeostasis[66]Gou HZ et al. (2022) How do intestinal probiotics restore the intestinal barrier? Front Microbiol 13: 929346. Open →[68]Wang K et al. (2017) Lactobacillus casei regulates differentiation of Th17/Treg cells to reduce intestinal inflammation in mice. Can J Vet Res 81: 122–128..

4. Antioxidant and metabolic contributions: Probiotic strains support antioxidant defenses by secreting glutathione and exopolysaccharides that scavenge ROS, and by activating the Nrf2 pathway, which boosts SOD and Heme Oxygenase-1[70]Wu S et al. (2025) Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ZJ316 alleviates Helicobacter pylori-induced intestinal inflammation. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. Open →.

Probiotic Strains Evaluated for MP Mitigation

Probiotic Strain Mechanism of MP Mitigation Model
Lacticaseibacillus paracasei DT66 Adsorption and enhanced fecal excretion of PS-MPs; biofilm formation In vitro + in vivo (mouse)
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DT88 Adsorption, inflammation reduction, restoration of barrier function In vitro + in vivo (mouse)
Bacillus subtilis Increased biofilm formation and resilience under MP exposure In vitro
Bifidobacterium longum Immunomodulation, gut barrier reinforcement, antioxidant activity In vivo (mouse)
Bacillus tropicus ACS1 Altered growth kinetics, EPS production, antioxidant enzyme response In vitro (fish gut isolate)
Bacillus cereus SHBF2 MP degradation via bioflocculation and surface colonization Environmental (aquaculture)
Section 8

Probiotics as a Mitigation Strategy for Microplastic Toxicity

Target Populations and Exposure Contexts

While exposure to MPs is widespread, certain groups face disproportionately higher risks:

  • High seafood consumers in coastal regions, due to documented contamination of fish and shellfish[72]Barboza LGA et al. (2018) Microplastics cause neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and energy-related changes in European seabass. Aquat Toxicol 195: 49–57. Open →
  • Consumers of packaged/processed foods, especially foods heated in plastic containers[30]Cox KD et al. (2019) Human consumption of microplastics. Environ Sci Technol 53: 7068–7074. Open →
  • Workers in plastic manufacturing/recycling, due to airborne and surface-bound particle exposure[73]Prata JC et al. (2020) Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ 702: 134455. Open →
  • Infants and children — infant formula prepared in polypropylene bottles can release millions of MP particles per liter[74]Li D et al. (2020) Microplastic release from the degradation of polypropylene feeding bottles during infant formula preparation. Nat Food 1: 746–754. Open →
  • Pregnant women — recent evidence suggests MPs can cross the placental barrier[76]Ragusa A et al. (2021) Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int 146: 106274. Open →

Potential Probiotic Intervention Strategies

Supplementation with specific probiotic strains offers a practical and scalable approach to mitigate MP-induced toxicity. Strains such as L. paracasei DT66 and L. plantarum DT88 enhance MP excretion and alleviate inflammation. Others, such as Bacillus subtilis and Bifidobacterium longum, support gut barrier integrity and antioxidant defenses[69]Nie X et al. (2025) Bifidobacterium longum NSP001-derived extracellular vesicles ameliorate ulcerative colitis. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 11: 27. Open →.

Combining probiotics with prebiotics (inulin, fructo-oligosaccharides, resistant starches) may enhance colonization and functional impact. Some prebiotics may also bind MPs or modulate their gut transit time[77]Chen WC, Quigley EM (2014) Probiotics, prebiotics & synbiotics in small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Indian J Med Res 140: 582–584..

Challenges for Clinical Translation

Several hurdles remain before probiotic interventions can be translated into clinical practice:

  • No human clinical trials have evaluated probiotic supplementation for MP-related health outcomes
  • Dosing and formulation — probiotics effective in animal models may not yield the same results in humans due to gastric pH, intestinal transit time, and dietary influences
  • Regulatory barriers — in most countries, probiotics are marketed as foods or dietary supplements with limited oversight on strain specificity, viability, or functional claims
  • Validated biomarkers needed — candidates include fecal/urinary MP levels, markers of intestinal permeability (zonulin, LPS), systemic inflammation (CRP, IL-6), and oxidative stress (MDA, 8-OHdG)
Section 9

Knowledge Gaps and Conclusions

Research on MPs and probiotics is still emerging but highlights a promising avenue for mitigating MP-induced health risks. The review identifies several critical gaps that must be addressed:

  • Experimental model limitations: Most studies use pristine MPs with uniform properties, while real-world MPs are highly heterogeneous. Future research must incorporate environmentally sourced and aged MPs[78]Gouin T et al. (2024) Addressing the relevance of polystyrene nano- and microplastic particles used to support exposure, toxicity and risk assessment. Part Fibre Toxicol 21: 39. Open →
  • Exposure conditions gap: Concentrations in experimental models often far exceed estimated human exposures. Chronic low-dose studies aligned with dietary MP intake are underrepresented
  • Host-specific factors overlooked: Individual responses shaped by age, sex, health status, baseline microbiota, and genetic background are rarely accounted for
  • No human trials: Preclinical models provide mechanistic insights but cannot substitute for human data. Translational research must prioritize validated biomarkers
  • Dual-edged sword: Some probiotic strains may inadvertently facilitate intestinal uptake of MPs or their adsorbed toxins, prolong MP retention through aggregation, or modify bioavailability of co-contaminants[63]Chen H et al. (2022) Investigation of microplastics in digestion system: effect on surface microstructures and probiotics. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 109: 882–892. Open →
Conclusion: While the probiotic approach to mitigating MP-related toxicity holds considerable promise, its clinical translation depends on resolving key scientific, methodological, and regulatory challenges. Future studies must incorporate environmentally realistic MPs, standardized exposure models, and personalized intervention frameworks. Human clinical trials, supported by robust biomarker development and omics technologies, are urgently needed.
References

References

  1. Ahmad MF, Fauzi MA, Ahmad MH, et al. (2024) Are we eating plastic? Science mapping of microplastic pollution in the aquatic food chain. Integr Environ Assess Manag 20: 1800–1811. Open →
  2. Barceló D, Picó Y, Alfarhan AH (2023) Microplastics: Detection in human samples, cell line studies, and health impacts. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 101: 104204. Open →
  3. Zeb A, Liu W, Ali N, et al. (2024) Microplastic pollution in terrestrial ecosystems: Global implications and sustainable solutions. J Hazard Mater 461: 132636. Open →
  4. Sharma S, Bhardwaj A, Thakur M, et al. (2024) Understanding microplastic pollution of marine ecosystem: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 31: 41402–14145. Open →
  5. Fröhlich E (2024) Local and systemic effects of microplastic particles through cell damage, release of chemicals and drugs, dysbiosis, and interference with the absorption of nutrients. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 27: 315–344. Open →
  6. WHO/FAO (2002) Probiotics in food, health and nutritional properties and guidelines for evaluation. Report of a joint FAO/WHO working group.
  7. Sepehr A, Miri ST, Aghamohammad S, et al. (2024) Health benefits, antimicrobial activities, and potential applications of probiotics: A review. Medicine (Baltimore) 103: e32412. Open →
  8. Lázaro Á, Vila-Donat P, Manyes L (2024) Emerging mycotoxins and preventive strategies related to gut microbiota changes: probiotics, prebiotics, and postbiotics—a systematic review. Food Funct 15: 8998–9023. Open →
  9. Ghobish SA, Motti CA, Bissember AC, et al. (2025) Microplastics in the marine environment: Challenges and the shift towards sustainable plastics and plasticizers. J Hazard Mater 491: 137945. Open →
  10. Aransiola SA, Victor-Ekwebelem MO, Daza BX, et al. (2025) Micro- and nano-plastics pollution in the marine environment: Progresses, drawbacks and future guidelines. Chemosphere 374: 144211. Open →
  11. Frias JPGL, Nash R (2019) Microplastics: Finding a consensus on the definition. Mar Pollut Bull 138: 145–147. Open →
  12. Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, et al. (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol 45: 9175–9179. Open →
  13. Wright SL, Kelly FJ (2017) Plastic and human health: A micro issue? Environ Sci Technol 51: 6634–6647. Open →
  14. Schwarzfischer M, Rogler G (2022) The intestinal barrier—shielding the body from nano- and microparticles in our diet. Metabolites 12: 223. Open →
  15. Tanoiri H, Nakano H, Arakawa H, et al. (2021) Inclusion of shape parameters increases the accuracy of 3D models for microplastics mass quantification. Mar Pollut Bull 171: 112749. Open →
  16. Schlundt C, Mark Welch JL, Knochel AM, et al. (2020) Spatial structure in the “Plastisphere”: Molecular resources for imaging microscopic communities on plastic marine debris. Mol Ecol Resour 20: 620–634. Open →
  17. Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, et al. (2020) A detailed review study on potential effects of microplastics and additives of concern on human health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17. Open →
  18. Rochman CM, Hoh E, Kurobe T, et al. (2013) Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep 3: 3263. Open →
  19. Taglialegna A (2023) Microplastics impair seabird gut microbiomes. Nat Rev Microbiol 21: 343. Open →
  20. Yong CQY, Valiyaveettil S, Tang BL (2020) Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics in mammalian systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17. Open →
  21. Bocker R, Silva EK (2025) Microplastics in our diet: A growing concern for human health. Sci Total Environ 968: 178882. Open →
  22. Hartmann NB, Hüffer T, Thompson RC, et al. (2019) Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol 53: 1039–1047. Open →
  23. Prabhu K, Ghosh S, Sethulekshmi S, et al. (2024) In vitro digestion of microplastics in human digestive system: Insights into particle morphological changes and chemical leaching. Sci Total Environ 934: 173173. Open →
  24. Chandra S, Walsh KB (2024) Microplastics in water: Occurrence, fate and removal. J Contam Hydrol 264: 104360. Open →
  25. Yang L, Kang S, Luo X, et al. (2024) Microplastics in drinking water: A review on methods, occurrence, sources, and potential risks assessment. Environ Pollut 348: 123857. Open →
  26. Nicole W (2021) Microplastics in seafood: How much are people eating? Environ Health Perspect 129: 34001. Open →
  27. Zhang Q, Xu EG, Li J, et al. (2020) A review of microplastics in table salt, drinking water, and air: Direct human exposure. Environ Sci Technol 54: 3740–3751. Open →
  28. Alma AM, de Groot GS, Buteler M (2023) Microplastics incorporated by honeybees from food are transferred to honey, wax and larvae. Environ Pollut 320: 121078. Open →
  29. Kaseke T, Lujic T, Cirkovic Velickovic T (2023) Nano- and microplastics migration from plastic food packaging into dairy products. Foods 12. Open →
  30. Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, et al. (2019) Human consumption of microplastics. Environ Sci Technol 53: 7068–7074. Open →
  31. Gaspar L, Bartman S, Coppotelli G, et al. (2023) Acute exposure to microplastics induced changes in behavior and inflammation in young and old mice. Int J Mol Sci 24. Open →
  32. Jin Y, Lu L, Tu W, et al. (2019) Impacts of polystyrene microplastic on the gut barrier, microbiota and metabolism of mice. Sci Total Environ 649: 308–317. Open →
  33. Lu L, Wan Z, Luo T, et al. (2018) Polystyrene microplastics induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and hepatic lipid metabolism disorder in mice. Sci Total Environ 631–632: 449–458. Open →
  34. Deng Y, Zhang Y, Lemos B, et al. (2017) Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure. Sci Rep 7: 46687. Open →
  35. Li B, Ding Y, Cheng X, et al. (2020) Polyethylene microplastics affect the distribution of gut microbiota and inflammation development in mice. Chemosphere 244: 125492. Open →
  36. Bao X, Gu Y, Chen L, et al. (2024) Microplastics derived from plastic mulch films and their carrier function effect on the environmental risk of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 924: 171472. Open →
  37. Stenger KS, Wikmark OG, Bezuidenhout CC, et al. (2021) Microplastics pollution in the ocean: Potential carrier of resistant bacteria and resistance genes. Environ Pollut 291: 118130. Open →
  38. Demarquoy J (2024) Microplastics and microbiota: Unraveling the hidden environmental challenge. World J Gastroenterol 30: 2191–2194. Open →
  39. Giri SS, Kim HJ, Jung WJ, et al. (2024) Probiotics in addressing heavy metal toxicities in fish farming: Current progress and perspective. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 282: 116755. Open →
  40. Emanowicz P, Srednicka P, Wójcicki M, et al. (2024) Mitigating dietary bisphenol exposure through the gut microbiota: The role of next-generation probiotics in bacterial detoxification. Nutrients 16. Open →
  41. Bazeli J, Banikazemi Z, Hamblin MR, et al. (2023) Could probiotics protect against human toxicity caused by polystyrene nanoplastics and microplastics? Front Nutr 10: 1186724. Open →
  42. Teng X, Zhang T, Rao C (2024) Novel probiotics adsorbing and excreting microplastics. Front Microbiol 15: 1522794. Open →
  43. Chi J, Patterson JS, Jin Y, et al. (2025) Metabolic reprogramming in gut microbiota exposed to polystyrene microplastics. Biomedicines 13: 446. Open →
  44. Shi L, Wu C, Wang Y, et al. (2025) Lactobacillus plantarum reduces polystyrene microplastic induced toxicity via multiple pathways. J Hazard Mater 489: 137669. Open →
  45. Athulya PA, Chandrasekaran N, Thomas J (2024) Polystyrene microplastics interaction and influence on the growth kinetics and metabolism of tilapia gut probiotic. Environ Sci Process Impacts 26: 221–232. Open →
  46. Salas-Jara MJ, Ilabaca A, Vega M, et al. (2016) Biofilm forming lactobacillus: New challenges for the development of probiotics. Microorganisms 4: 35. Open →
  47. Sharma S, Kanwar SS (2017) Adherence potential of indigenous lactic acid bacterial isolates obtained from fermented foods of Western Himalayas to intestinal epithelial Caco-2 and HT-29 cell lines. J Food Sci Technol 54: 3504–3511. Open →
  48. Liu S, Junaid M, Liao H, et al. (2022) Eco-corona formation and associated ecotoxicological impacts of nanoplastics in the environment. Sci Total Environ 836: 155703. Open →
  49. Fackelmann G, Sommer S (2019) Microplastics and the gut microbiome: How chronically exposed species may suffer from gut dysbiosis. Mar Pollut Bull 143: 193–203. Open →
  50. Jia R, Han J, Liu X, et al. (2023) Exposure to polypropylene microplastics via oral ingestion induces colonic apoptosis and intestinal barrier damage through oxidative stress and inflammation in mice. Toxics 11: 127. Open →
  51. Jia R, Han J, Liu X, et al. (2023) Correction: Exposure to polypropylene microplastics via oral ingestion in mice. Toxics 11: 733. Open →
  52. Sincihu Y, Lusno MFD, Mulyasari TM, et al. (2023) Wistar rats hippocampal neurons response to blood low-density polyethylene microplastics. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 19: 73–83. Open →
  53. Zhang Y, Hou B, Liu T, et al. (2023) Probiotics improve polystyrene microplastics-induced male reproductive toxicity in mice by alleviating inflammatory response. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 263: 115248. Open →
  54. Fleury JB, Baulin VA (2021) Microplastics destabilize lipid membranes by mechanical stretching. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118. Open →
  55. Järvenpää J, Perkkiö M, Laitinen R, et al. (2022) PE and PET oligomers' interplay with membrane bilayers. Sci Rep 12: 2234. Open →
  56. Kadac-Czapska K, Ośko J, Knez E, et al. (2024) Microplastics and oxidative stress—current problems and prospects. Antioxidants (Basel) 13: 579. Open →
  57. Wu Z, Li Y, Chen H, et al. (2025) Investigation of microplastics from granulated virgin and UV aged samples in artificial digestion system. Polymer Degrad Stab 232: 111157. Open →
  58. Li H, Xu S, Zhou F, et al. (2024) Polystyrene microplastics exposure: Disruption of intestinal barrier integrity and hepatic function in infant mice. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 288: 117357. Open →
  59. Chen PY, Li S, Koh YC, et al. (2019) Oolong tea extract and citrus peel polymethoxyflavones reduce transformation of l-carnitine to trimethylamine. J Agric Food Chem 67: 7869–7879. Open →
  60. Bora SS, Gogoi R, Sharma MR, et al. (2024) Microplastics and human health: unveiling the gut microbiome disruption and chronic disease risks. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 14: 1492759. Open →
  61. Zhao L, Dou Q, Chen S, et al. (2023) Adsorption abilities and mechanisms of Lactobacillus on various nanoplastics. Chemosphere 320: 138038. Open →
  62. Rafa N, Ahmed B, Zohora F, et al. (2024) Microplastics as carriers of toxic pollutants: Source, transport, and toxicological effects. Environ Pollut 343: 123190. Open →
  63. Chen H, Nan S, Liu H, et al. (2022) Investigation of microplastics in digestion system: effect on surface microstructures and probiotics. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 109: 882–892. Open →
  64. Gao J, Sadiq FA, Zheng Y, et al. (2022) Biofilm-based delivery approaches and specific enrichment strategies of probiotics in the human gut. Gut Microbes 14: 2126274. Open →
  65. Kim JH, Ruegger PR, Lebig EG, et al. (2020) High levels of oxidative stress create a microenvironment that significantly decreases the diversity of the microbiota in diabetic chronic wounds and promotes biofilm formation. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 10: 259. Open →
  66. Gou HZ, Zhang YL, Ren LF, et al. (2022) How do intestinal probiotics restore the intestinal barrier? Front Microbiol 13: 929346. Open →
  67. Guo YT, Peng YC, Yen HY, et al. (2022) Effects of probiotic supplementation on immune and inflammatory markers in athletes: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Medicina (Kaunas) 58: 1188. Open →
  68. Wang K, Dong H, Qi Y, et al. (2017) Lactobacillus casei regulates differentiation of Th17/Treg cells to reduce intestinal inflammation in mice. Can J Vet Res 81: 122–128.
  69. Nie X, Li Q, Ji H, et al. (2025) Bifidobacterium longum NSP001-derived extracellular vesicles ameliorate ulcerative colitis by modulating T cell responses. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 11: 27. Open →
  70. Wu S, Wei F, Chen Y, et al. (2025) Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ZJ316 alleviates Helicobacter pylori-induced intestinal inflammation by sustaining intestinal homeostasis. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. Open →
  71. Vermeulen R, Schymanski EL, Barabási AL, et al. (2020) The exposome and health: Where chemistry meets biology. Science 367: 392–396. Open →
  72. Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Branco V, et al. (2018) Microplastics cause neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and energy-related changes and interact with the bioaccumulation of mercury in the European seabass. Aquat Toxicol 195: 49–57. Open →
  73. Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I, et al. (2020) Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ 702: 134455. Open →
  74. Li D, Shi Y, Yang L, et al. (2020) Microplastic release from the degradation of polypropylene feeding bottles during infant formula preparation. Nat Food 1: 746–754. Open →
  75. Medley EA, Spratlen MJ, Yan B, et al. (2023) A systematic review of the placental translocation of micro- and nanoplastics. Curr Environ Health Rep 10: 99–111. Open →
  76. Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, et al. (2021) Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int 146: 106274. Open →
  77. Chen WC, Quigley EM (2014) Probiotics, prebiotics & synbiotics in small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: opening up a new therapeutic horizon! Indian J Med Res 140: 582–584.
  78. Gouin T, Ellis-Hutchings R, Pemberton M, et al. (2024) Addressing the relevance of polystyrene nano- and microplastic particles used to support exposure, toxicity and risk assessment. Part Fibre Toxicol 21: 39. Open →
  79. Makkar H, Sriram G (2025) Advances in modeling periodontal host-microbe interactions: insights from organotypic and organ-on-chip systems. Lab Chip 25: 1342–1371. Open →
  80. Urbanek AK, Kosiorowska KE, Mirończuk AM (2021) Current knowledge on polyethylene terephthalate degradation by genetically modified microorganisms. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 9: 771133. Open →
  81. Hossain S, Shukri ZNA, Waiho K, et al. (2024) Biodegradation of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS) microplastics by floc-forming bacteria, Bacillus cereus strain SHBF2. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31: 32225–32245. Open →

This paper is published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). All data and findings are attributed to the original author, Jean Demarquoy. Download the original PDF. Presented by DetoxBio for educational purposes.

↑