How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home • Hacker News Board

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#41

Post by scotty79 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #35

a3w wrote: post #28

Half the microplastics in our body is from cars. So move to a car-free city district or remote cabin (and then driving train+bike so not to contribute to the problem?).

If cars are causing microplastic pollution, Im sure bikes and trains are too. Im seems using rubber/plastic compounds for tyres and brakes is always going to cause this issue on any vehicle.

With cars there are higher energies involved, and things like that tend to grow with square or cube of the energy. I wouldn't be surprised if car was causing orders of magnitude more plastic pollution than a bike per person per mile.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#42

Post by ajb » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

himata4113 wrote: post #9

schiffern wrote: post #3

https://archive.ph/UcCq6 Saying HEPA filters remove "99%" of microplastic is pretty misleading. Most of the mass in airborne particles is in the larger sizes of visible dust. However these particles will "fall out" before they reach the air purifier. The best advice isn't "use only HEPA" or (an odd one, from this article) "use filters with multiple stages," it's to have an air purifier where the Clean Air Delivery Ra…

You don't really want to use HEPA either, you want to maximize airflow. PC fans with low MERV type filter do great since the smaller the particle (I think this effect kicks in below 5 microns) the better it is at filtering it so if it can pass 10 times more air than a hepa filter it's as effective as one while being able to filter more air faster and keeping the particles airbone. The only downside is that small rang…

That sounds worth knowing; however when I looked MERV up, it seems that it's a rating system, not a type of filter. Could you be more specific abot the kind of filter you mean?

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#43

Post by bertil » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #35

a3w wrote: post #28

Half the microplastics in our body is from cars. So move to a car-free city district or remote cabin (and then driving train+bike so not to contribute to the problem?).

If cars are causing microplastic pollution, Im sure bikes and trains are too. Im seems using rubber/plastic compounds for tyres and brakes is always going to cause this issue on any vehicle.

The amount of damage to tires is proportional to the fourth power of the weight per axel. That means that for the same journey, a bike sheds (3000 kg / 80 kg)ˆ4 so about 20 million times less. Assuming that the rubber is the same—and not that it has proprietary chemistry that may or may not contain carcinogens. Eight orders of magnitude of difference feels relevant.

Almost every train I know use metal wheels. We can look at the few that don’t, but something tells me people who raise that argument don’t want to look at alternative wheel composition, but rather hope to seed doubt and, in private, lobby replace one metro with thousands of cars, and I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

So, please, don’t come in here with that bullshit.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#44

Post by schiffern » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:13 PM UTC

himata4113 wrote: post #9

schiffern wrote: post #3

https://archive.ph/UcCq6 Saying HEPA filters remove "99%" of microplastic is pretty misleading. Most of the mass in airborne particles is in the larger sizes of visible dust. However these particles will "fall out" before they reach the air purifier. The best advice isn't "use only HEPA" or (an odd one, from this article) "use filters with multiple stages," it's to have an air purifier where the Clean Air Delivery Ra…

You don't really want to use HEPA either, you want to maximize airflow. PC fans with low MERV type filter do great since the smaller the particle (I think this effect kicks in below 5 microns) the better it is at filtering it so if it can pass 10 times more air than a hepa filter it's as effective as one while being able to filter more air faster and keeping the particles airbone. The only downside is that small rang…

Agreed. MERV 11-14 can be far more effective than HEPA.

If you need to filter "one and done" (like pumping air into a hospital operating room), that's where you need HEPA. Most home air purifiers mix the clean air back into the same room, so MERV is closer to the ideal sweet spot.

It's also important to buy reputable brands of MERV filter, ideally ones which have a large number of folds (surface area) like the 3M 1900 MPR. In recent testing about half of filter brands scored well below their claimed MERV rating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKAVek1YaSQ

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#45

Post by sigmoid10 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:13 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #40

sigmoid10 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was in mice that were given up to 1000 mg/L of microplastics in their drinking water. If you have this level of contamination, you probably should stop whatever it is you are doing anyways, disregarding your testicles. But even then, there is no evidence for this in humans . Research shows that most microplastics simply passes through your digestive system unhindered.

Yeah, typically we test adverse effects in mice before doing trials on larger animals. That we haven't observed such extreme behaviour in a scientific way in humans doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just that we haven't yet scientifically observed anything. That there is some evidence in favour of it having adverse effects somewhat defeats the idea that it's "provably non-harmful", which is your current stance. It mi…

Sorry, I still subscribe to science and not speculation. But I guess I am increasingly alone with that idea on HN. And to be clear if someone points out a rigorous causal link, I'd be onboard immediately. But this purely speculative fear mongering based on random scientific observations targeted at non-scientists is similar to what you see in the homeopathy and energeticism circles. Except noone here would believe that 5G makes you sick, because techies know at least this kind of science a little bit.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#46

Post by dijit » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

sigmoid10 wrote: post #45

dijit wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, typically we test adverse effects in mice before doing trials on larger animals. That we haven't observed such extreme behaviour in a scientific way in humans doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just that we haven't yet scientifically observed anything. That there is some evidence in favour of it having adverse effects somewhat defeats the idea that it's "provably non-harmful", which is your current stance. It mi…

Sorry, I still subscribe to science and not speculation. But I guess I am increasingly alone with that idea on HN. And to be clear if someone points out a rigorous causal link, I'd be onboard immediately. But this purely speculative fear mongering based on random scientific observations targeted at non-scientists is similar to what you see in the homeopathy and energeticism circles. Except noone here would believe th…

The science disagrees with your hypothesis that "provably, nothing is the matter".

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#47

Post by bertil » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

rusch wrote: post #2

I wonder when and if microplastics will get it's Asbestos moment. Obviously they are not as carcinogenic, but it seems we don't have the full picture, and microplastics are present at an insanely higher degree than asbestos where.

Not as long as there are powerful car lobbies and the main source of microplastic will remain car tires.

Instead, you have articles like this trying to tell people to look away from that main source of problem, and blame, say, indoors or food preparation, and skip details like how the homes with the most microplastic in them are… close to the highway.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#48

Post by scotty79 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

rusch wrote: post #2

I wonder when and if microplastics will get it's Asbestos moment. Obviously they are not as carcinogenic, but it seems we don't have the full picture, and microplastics are present at an insanely higher degree than asbestos where.

I wonder when celulose and silica will get their microplastics moment and it turns out we were always full of micro garbage.

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#49

Post by KellyCriterion » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

schiffern wrote: post #16

dijit wrote: post #6

Realistically, the best thing you can do to reduce your microplastics intake seems to be to avoid microwaving in plastic bowls and to avoid using plastic bottles for soft drinks and water. (Though cans actually use a thin film of plastic inside too.. so, maybe just avoid packaged water?) Beyond your personal intake though there's bigger fish. Car tyres are the #1 source for microplastics entering rivers, and it's not…

>microwaving in plastic bowls More generally, never let hot food touch plastics. The high temperature is what damages the plastic surface, not anything special about microwaves. For instance the same thing happens with plastic tea bags in hot water: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352...

Wait, WHAT?

There are _plastic_ tea bags? Really?

Didnt know that we reached that level of degredation already! :-D

Another example comes to my mind: In lot of European conutries, at "cheese corner/bar" in the supermarket, every time a piece of cheese is cut, they are removing the foil, cutting the cheese, and then re-packing it in new foil after that - and this for every chees bar in every supermarket: How much kilometers does just one branch waste per year?

Re: How to breathe in fewer microplastics in your home

#50

Post by alt227 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #41

alt227 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cars are causing microplastic pollution, Im sure bikes and trains are too. Im seems using rubber/plastic compounds for tyres and brakes is always going to cause this issue on any vehicle.

With cars there are higher energies involved, and things like that tend to grow with square or cube of the energy. I wouldn't be surprised if car was causing orders of magnitude more plastic pollution than a bike per person per mile.

Thats obvious and goes without saying, but then I didnt state any specific metrics, only that they both casue the same thing even in different amounts