Unravelling the potential mechanisms of nano- and microplastic toxicity to the male reproductive system: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-increasing presence of microplastic and nanoplastic (MPs/NPs) particles in the natural environment, organisms, and a wide variety of health products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and foods consumed by humans is a global concern. In recent years, research efforts have shifted towards identifying human exposure and risks associated with MPs/NPs, as well as unravelling the mechanisms underlying their toxicity. This systematic review examined the literature regarding the effects of MPs/NPs on the male reproductive system, focusing on the testis, epididymis, and their associated barriers. Research, conducted primarily on rodents, demonstrated that MPs/NPs of various chemical compositions can bioaccumulate in the testis and epididymis, identifying these organs as key targets of plastic particle toxicity. Several studies using rodent models reported alterations in the blood-testis barrier, a crucial structure necessary for proper spermatogenesis. Additionally, multiple studies observed increased apoptosis of germ cells, malformations of spermatozoa, and decreased sperm motility, which is typically acquired during epididymal transit. Exposure to MPs/NPs disrupted Sertoli and Leydig cell function, leading to hormone imbalance. This is likely due to a combination of oxidative stress, inflammation, and disruption of the blood-testis barrier. These effects appear to be influenced by a combination of particle characteristics, including size, shape, chemical composition, surface properties, and exposure route. Larger MPs often cause greater structural damage, while smaller NPs more readily penetrate tissues and trigger molecular disruptions. Understanding how these particles alter male reproductive functions is essential for evaluating their full impact on fertility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".