Talk:Microplastics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microplastics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 10 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Boston College/Environmental Disruptors of Development (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Wiki Education assignment: Population Health Capstone
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2025 and 15 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kfolan03 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MiraySamuel.
— Assignment last updated by MiraySamuel (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Statistic supported by citation[64] is an out-of-context misreading of the cited source, and as presented is misleading, incorrect, and even nonsensical.
The article states that "65 million microplastics are released into water sources every day," implying that this number is a global figure. If one refers to the cited source (citation[64]), however, it is clear that this number refers only to the output of a single, particular, secondary wastewater treatment works facility ("population equivalent 650,000") that was sampled by the researchers. This number is presented in the article without proper context in a way that is misleading and nonsensical; surely the global figure is many orders of magnitude greater than what is implied here. EachMiddleman (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Not very informative yet
The article is often just conjecture and often seems to be a compilation of specialized primary journal articles. Surely the composition of the particles is important. Also, the article is packed with innuendo but present little definitive that microplastics are bad. A nontechnical reader will conclude that we are victims of some horrific infestation. Microplastics are an inevitable and desirable stage in the conversion of macroplastics to innocuous molecular low weight ions. But this basic fact is not discussed, that I could find.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Hackaday article
Now of course Hackaday is not a reliable source on the tropic of microplastics, but the article contains a lot of links to other sources, such as
- ‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body --The Guardian
- Microplastics in the brain? BfR evaluates new study - so far no evidence of health risks --German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).
- Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain --Nature
incorrect unit labels abound
This article needs review by someone with the most basic scientific knowledge. I read '5mm' all over the place. Clearly 5 um, meaning 5 micrometers not 5 millimeters is meant in the article. I saw this at least 2 times. ~2026-11064-09 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)