Microplastics may be stoking antibiotic resistance: Study
Bacteria exposed to these ubiquitous fragments, known as 'microplastics,' became resistant to multiple types of antibiotics commonly used to treat infections, researchers showed in the study, published on Tuesday in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
The authors expressed alarm about their discovery, particularly for people living in high-density, low-income places like refugee settlements, where plastic piles up and bacterial infections spread with ease.
'The fact that there are microplastics all around us, and even more so in impoverished places where sanitation may be limited, is a striking part of this observation,' said senior author Muhammad Zaman, a professor of biomedical engineering at Boston University, in a statement.
The possibly greater risk among residents of disadvantaged communities 'underscores the need for more vigilance' and research into microplastic and bacterial interactions, Zaman added.
About 4.95 million people worldwide die from antimicrobial-resistant infections each year, Zaman and his colleagues noted. Meanwhile, they explained bacteria develop resistance not only due to the misuse of medications, but also via the microscopic environments that surround them.
As such, the researchers decided to test how a common bacterium, E. coli, would respond to being in a closed environment with microplastics.
Ultimately, they found that the plastics provided a surface to which the bacteria could attach and colonize, said lead author Neila Gross, a Boston University Ph.D. candidate, in a statement.
Once attached, the bacteria created a biofilm: a sticky material that protects microbes from invaders and keeps them fixed to the surface, Gross explained.
The microplastics, she continued, ended up supercharging the biofilms so much that when the scientists added in antibiotics, the medicine was unable to penetrate the shield.
'We found that the biofilms on microplastics, compared to other surfaces like glass, are much stronger and thicker, like a house with a ton of insulation,' Gross said.
Even when the researchers tested different combinations of antibiotics and types of plastic material, they found that their results were consistent.
'The presence of plastics is doing a whole lot more than just providing a surface for the bacteria to stick — they are actually leading to the development of resistant organisms,' Zaman added.
Going forward, the researchers said they plan to determine whether their findings would apply not just to the laboratory setting, but to the real world as well. For example, they voiced an interest in exploring whether microplastic-related antibiotic resistance is affecting refugee camps overseas.
The authors also expressed their intentions to decipher the precise mechanisms that enable bacteria to maintain such a strong grasp on plastics.
Gross hypothesized that the water-repellant properties of plastics might be allowing bacteria to attach themselves, but that over time, the materials could be taking in moisture and absorbing the antibiotics before they could reach the bacteria.
Regardless of the way this resistance develops, Zaman focused on the notion that microplastic prevalence might be further endangering already underfunded health systems that serve refugee populations.
'Too often, these issues are viewed from a lens of politics or international relations or immigration, and all of those are important, but the story that is often missing is the basic science,' he said. 'We hope that this paper can get more scientists, engineers, and more researchers to think about these questions.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
5 hours ago
- Scientific American
How Massive Medicaid Cuts Will Harm People's Health
Money can't necessarily buy an individual good health—but for a society, it can. On July 3 the House of Representatives will vote on the Trump administration's new budget bill, which incorporates massive cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program that serves more than 70 million low-income people. The bill, which passed the Senate on July 1, would cut $930 billion from Medicaid, Medicare and Affordable Care Act funding combined over 10 years, with more than 11 million people losing coverage by 2034. Experts have calculated that, taken together, the cuts will lead to more than 51,000 additional deaths per year by decreasing people's access to health care. Experts say the evidence shows that gutting Medicaid will have dramatic effects on health far beyond people enrolled today—some of whom may not even realize they use Medicaid because the program goes by different names in different states. Even those with private insurance will be affected. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. 'When you slash $1 trillion from the health care system, you can't expect it not to have far-reaching harms,' says Megan Cole Brahim, a health policy researcher at Boston University. 'It will really affect everyone, including people who aren't enrolled in Medicaid.' The bill includes two main Medicaid-related provisions. One increases the requirements people must meet to qualify for and remain on Medicaid: This would drive down the total number of people who receive benefits, Cole Brahim says, leaving more people without coverage. The second provision reduces the amount of money the federal government sends to the states to fund Medicaid coverage. This will cause great variability in how different states handle the cuts, she notes, because each state will have authority to make its own choices about whether to try to scrounge up the funding from other sources to close the gap and maintain Medicaid access. Medicaid's Overall Health Impacts Cuts to Medicaid at the scale proposed in the House and Senate bills are unprecedented, Cole Brahim says, but scientists still have plenty of data to work from to predict the effects of such a massive cut. Researchers have tracked differences in health outcomes in states where Medicaid was expanded, particularly after the passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That legislation gave states the option of extending Medicaid coverage to more people, up to those with an income of 138 percent of the federal poverty level, with federal support. So far, 40 states and Washington, D.C., have opted for expansion—and researchers have monitored health outcomes over time in those states compared with states that did not. 'Medicaid expansion was really a natural experiment,' says Brian Lee, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Southern California, who was co-author of a 2022 study in the Lancet that evaluated death rates in conjunction with Medicaid expansion across the U.S. When Medicaid coverage was offered to more people, overall death rates fell by nearly 12 per 100,000 adults per year on average. Where states were home to more women or more Black people, the decline in death rate was larger. And Lee notes that the 2022 findings are just the bird's-eye view of the way Medicaid access shapes people's health. For example, studies have found that more people get diagnosed with chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease in Medicaid expansion states. Earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment, which, logically, would reduce mortality rates over the course of decades. 'Medicaid expansion, in relative terms, is pretty new,' Lee says; the earliest states began implementing the program in 2014. 'A lot of people think that, actually, the best benefits are to come' —or at least, they thought that they were to come. Medicaid for Specific Needs The new policy changes won't just affect the people who lose access to Medicaid in the short term. 'This isn't a small program for a fraction of our population,' Cole Brahim says. 'It covers about one in five people, and the majority of people in the United States will have had Medicaid at some point in their life.' One key area in which Medicaid is crucial is older adult health services and other long-term support, including both home-based care and residential facilities, says Jasmine Travers Altizer, a researcher at New York University who studies aging. Two out of three people in the U.S. will require some form of long-term health services at some point in their life, she says. Even after people reach the age of 65, Medicare—a companion federally run insurance program for older adults —only covers nursing home and daily home health care services for 100 days, she notes. Many people don't have independent long-term care coverage, which can cost thousands of dollars a year in premiums, leaving them with no real alternative to Medicaid. And when people can't access proper medical care, they often need to rely on relatives for support, including full-time care—which comes with its own economic consequences for families and society at large. Our youngest populations also depend on Medicaid, Cole Brahim says. More than two in five births are paid for by the service —a proportion that rises to more than half for Black and Hispanic births. And although proponents of the Trump administration's Medicaid cuts say that these changes wouldn't affect pregnant people and kids, Cole Brahim notes that they would absolutely prevent some people from having coverage before pregnancy. 'Making sure people are connected to care before they become pregnant is really critical for maximizing health outcomes, both for the mom and the baby,' she says. Medicaid Cuts Lead to Provider Shortages All three experts emphasize a universal risk to Medicaid cuts: the reduction of health care facilities and personnel. Federal Medicaid funds are used to directly cover care of individuals on Medicaid, but this money indirectly keeps practitioners' and hospitals' doors open. The steep cuts to federal funding will ultimately mean doctors and hospitals have more trouble making ends meet. As facilities begin to close, people in affected communities—regardless of their insurance provider—will face longer wait times for appointments and longer travel times to facilities that are still in operation. People in more rural communities, which are already underserved, may lose care access entirely, even while remaining insured. Cole Brahim is particularly worried that obstetric and pediatric care will see more closures, noting that these departments are often less profitable because insurance providers already reimburse these services at lower rates, she says. Travers Altizer is also concerned about the cuts' effects on nursing homes, which are in crisis as well. In one recent survey of nursing home providers, 27 percent said they would have to close their facilities if Medicaid cuts occurred. Even more—58 percent—said they would need to reduce current staffing; 44 percent they would slow new hires. For Travers Altizer, those possibilities mark a return to the early days of COVID, when staffing shortages left some nursing home residents unable to get out of bed or otherwise meet basic needs. She also notes that people whose lose Medicaid coverage because of cuts will still need to seek care; they'll just do it in different ways—ways that are ultimately more expensive overall. Rather than primary care visits, people will lean on emergency rooms. Without skilled medical support, people will rely on friends and family. Without federal money, people will continue turning to online fundraising platforms such as GoFundMe at ever increasing rates. 'There's this big idea that we need to cut Medicaid [because] we need to save money, and Medicaid is this big federal government program,' Travers Altizer says. 'But taking away this support won't save money; it's going to shift costs.'
Hamilton Spectator
11 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Metal in water prompts testing for Six Nations residents
Some Six Nations residents may be eligible for well water testing after elevated levels of strontium were found in local groundwater wells on the territory. In high concentrations, the metal can be of particular concern for infants, because it can replace calcium in developing bones. It can lead to a condition called rickets, which can include bone deformities, stunted growth and soft bones, according to a news release from Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR). The elevated levels aren't connected to flooding the territory experienced on June 18, the release said. Indigenous Services Canada will be testing wells on the territory for strontium, along with nitrites, nitrates and manganese. High-risk groups — including those who are pregnant and breastfeeding, and households with infants and children under two — will be prioritized, but other groups may also be approved for testing as capacity allows, the release said. For more details or to request testing, contact enviro@ or 548-328-3652 . Reverse osmosis and ion exchange systems can be effective in treating water with strontium, according to a handout from SNGR. Health Canada has said less than seven milligrams per litre of strontium is acceptable in drinking water. However, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks hasn't accepted the guideline, because the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council found there is 'currently no health risk' from the contaminant in Ontario drinking water, according to the ministry's website. It pointed to studies that showed strontium is 'less toxic' where water has higher calcium levels. For areas in Ontario's regulated systems where strontium levels are higher than seven mg/L, calcium is at least twice as high, the website said. It's unclear how high the level was in the water tested on Six Nations, or whether is has previously been elevated in local wells. The most populous First Nation in Canada has struggled with water issues for years. In December, the band council filed a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Canada over what a news release described as a 'failure to ensure a reliable supply of safe drinking water.' Many households rely on private wells and cisterns, and one survey found more than three quarters of the wells were contaminated, The Spectator previously reported. Others have long relied on commercial water trucks or the fill station. Nearby, approximately 7,900 — or roughly 45 per cent — of County of Brant residents are on private water servicing, staff previously told The Spectator. While Grand Erie Public Health offers well water testing for bacteria (total coliforms and E. coli), it does not test for things like strontium or nitrates. Residents who are concerned can arrange testing through licensed laboratories. For more information, visit . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Medscape
12 hours ago
- Medscape
Talk Therapy for Young Depressed Children Shown Effective
A novel psychotherapeutic intervention for depression in preschoolers was associated with reduced use of psychotropics and intensive mental health services in preadolescence, a new study has found. The study was published in Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 'The need to identify depression at the earliest possible developmental point has been increasingly recognized as early onset of depressive symptoms has been associated with increased severity of mental health sequelae into adolescence including future suicidality,' the study's first author Mei Elansary, MD, and her colleagues wrote. Elansary is an attending developmental behavioral pediatrician at Boston University School of Medicine, Boston. 'Earlier identification is also of interest due to the possibility that earlier intervention may be more effective with more powerful treatment responses,' the authors continued. Depression can be a chronic and relapsing condition with high incidence of comorbidities and can affect children as young as 3 years, according to Joan Luby, MD, chair of psychiatry at Washington University Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. Prevalence rates of preschool-onset major depressive disorder in the US between 1% and 2% have been reported, similar to rates in school-aged children. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy-Emotion Development (PCIT-ED) pairs therapists with parent-child dyads to help improve the child's emotional awareness and expression, while working with parents to help them reinforce their child's positive behaviors. The aim is to mitigate early signs of depression in the child. The intervention was developed and tested in a randomly controlled trial, by Luby, who is also one of the authors of this PCIT-ED study. Previously, meta-analyses have shown that for depression among youth aged 4-18 years, psychotherapeutic interventions have had only a moderate effect across randomized-controlled trials. Although Luby previously demonstrated high rates of remission upon completion of the 18-week study in her randomly controlled trial of a PCIT-ED intervention in children aged between 3 and 6 years, data regarding longer-term outcomes have been lacking. To fill that gap, Elansary and her colleagues followed 105 trial participants — children between the ages of 8 and 12 years — (4 years after the trial's treatment completion) to find those who'd remitted and any evidence of decreased use of mental health services and psychotropic prescriptions compared with participants who'd not had a response to the treatment. More than two thirds of the participants were men (68.6%). Diagnostic interviews of the children and their primary caregivers were conducted to assess the children for any symptoms of major depressive disorder, such as guilt, sadness, aggression, and sleep problems. The investigators also examined parenting strategies and whether caregivers had depression. Elansary et al found there was a high rate of remission at preadolescence (57.1%). Those in remission at preadolescence had significantly lower rates of lifetime use of alpha agonist, antidepressant, and atypical antipsychotic medication as well as decreased utilization of intensive mental health interventions. Whether a child exhibited externalizing symptoms post-intervention predicted relapse. These included symptoms of diagnoses such asattention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder. Luby credited the enduring effect of this intervention to its effect on parent-child interactions. 'After the treatment ends, the parent continues to interact with the child with greater sensitivity, and that becomes a draw to the child,' Luby said in a media advisory. 'The truth is there's nothing a child wants more than a validating, nurturing caregiver.' One expert lauded the findings, noting that early childhood depression has tended to be overlooked. 'As a society, we might have thought that these children are too young to be depressed, and we might explain it with adverse childhood events or caregiver depression, but the research seems to suggest that this is a distinct problem which is not fully explained by these things and with real downstream consequences. The opportunity to intervene early is essential,' Carl Bryce, MD, told Medscape Medical News . Bryce is the chair of family medicine at Midwestern University's Abrazo Central Campus in Phoenix, Arizona. The implications for clinical practice, according to Bryce, are that primary care physicians need to be able to distinguish depression in young children from typical age-appropriate development, and that qualified mental health providers skilled in the evaluation and treatment of this population will need to be available. 'Every child needs a personal physician with whom parents can discuss any concerns, even mood symptoms at a very young age,' Bryce said. 'And children need effective treatments based on high-quality evidence that we can advocate for and guide them toward. This study is another step toward that future.'
