Skip to content
NANOPLASTICSPLANETARY OBSERVATORY← Back to the observatory

BELOW THE VISIBLE

Four Microworlds

Air, water, soil and lung tissue move and hold plastic particles by different processes: settling and turbulence, buoyancy and biofilm, pore entrapment and surface charge, size-dependent deposition. The four home panels illustrate these with enlarged particles; the air, water and lung panels carry model-estimate counters, and soil has none.

4 min readUpdated ReviewedBWell supportedCLimitedDDisputedPProvenance

What moves or holds particles in air, water, soil and lung tissue, graded per part; small-particle sinking in water is disputed. Schematic, not an image of real particles. Data: Darquenne 2012; Tatsii 2024; Kooi 2017; Benner & Passow 2024; Zeng 2024; Brahney 2020; Li 2024.Nanoplastics ObservatorySite original

Each medium sorts particles by its own rules. In air, settling competes with wind, turbulence and rain, and shape changes how fast a particle falls. In water, buoyancy decides first and living films may change the outcome. In soil, narrow pores and charged mineral surfaces can hold particles back. In the lung, size decides where an inhaled particle lands. In breathing experiments, particles about 0.5 µm across deposited least of all (level B)1.

That size is too large to diffuse quickly and too small to settle quickly. The four panels on the home page illustrate these processes. They do not record real particles.

≈0.5 µm

particle size the human lung catches least efficiently

total deposition in healthy adults breathing monodisperse test aerosols at controlled patterns; aerosol particles in general, not plastic-specific1

B: a review of several human deposition studies, all showing the minimum; its depth shifts with breathing pattern

BWell supported

up to 76%

slower settling of model fibers than spheres of the same volume

laboratory settling in air of 3D-printed acrylic fibers 0.5–2 mm long (length 20–100 times the diameter) versus volume-equivalent spheres2

C: one laboratory study; the long-range transport that follows is a model estimate

CLimited

≈0.6 µm

harmonic mean thickness of the air-blood tissue barrier

morphometry of lungs of young healthy adults (70 kg); arithmetic mean about 1.6 µm; alveolar surface about 130 m²3

C: one classic morphometric dataset; thickness is not a size cutoff for passage

CLimited

What the four panels are

The home page shows four panels: air, water, soil and lung tissue. Each combines a still background made with an AI image generator and particles drawn live by the page's code, which drift, sink, lodge or move with a breathing rhythm. The particles are enlarged far beyond true scale so that the motion is visible.

Beside the air, water and lung panels a counter adds up mass from a named study value chosen in settings (for the human body, an intake estimate); it is an estimate, not a measurement, explained in Flows & Model. The soil panel has no counter: we found no sourced global estimate of plastic entering soil. The panels show which process dominates in each medium, so that the numbers on the system pages make physical sense.

What controls particles in each microworld

A two-by-two grid naming, for air, water, soil and lung tissue, the processes that move or hold particles, the conditions that change them and an evidence level for each part; small-particle sinking in water is disputed. Source:4,5,6,7,1,2,8Nanoplastics ObservatorySite original
Data table
labelvalueunitconditionslevelsource
airsettling, wind and turbulence, and dry and wet deposition decide how long particles stay aloftshape: model fibers settled up to 76% slower than same-volume spheres; the lung's 0.5 µm minimum is not a rule for open airB (processes); C (fiber result)S-283, S-049
waterbuoyancy first: polyethylene and polypropylene float, yet reach deep sediment traps and sedimentsbiofouling may sink particles (model); disputed for particles of 100 µm or less, where marine snow and ingestion are proposed insteadB (deep finds); C (model); D (small-particle sinking)S-278, S-277
soilentrapment in narrow pore channels and adsorption to grain surfacescharged iron and aluminum sites may impede migration; in one cited study smaller particles stayed better dispersed yet moved less; controls: particle, flow, porous medium, co-transported substancesC (mechanisms); B (groups of controls)S-279, S-280
lung tissuesize-dependent deposition: total deposition lowest near 0.5 µm; diffusion dominates below 0.5 µm, sedimentation at 1–8 µm, impaction mainly above 5 µmtherapeutic aerosols: above about 6 µm mainly upper airway, below about 2 µm mainly alveolar; shifts with breathing, density and shape; fibers also deposit by interceptionB (mechanisms, minimum); C (regional cutoffs)S-281

Air: shape decides how far a particle drifts

Particles leave the air by settling, by wind and turbulence carrying them to surfaces, and in rain or snow; transport models and field samplers track this dry and wet deposition (level B)2,8. The lung's 0.5 µm minimum was measured in breathing experiments and is not a rule for open air (level P)1.

In laboratory tests, 3D-printed model fibers 0.5–2 mm long settled up to 76% slower than same-volume spheres; a transport model then found 1 mm fibers more likely than spheres to reach the high Arctic (level C, model estimate)2. In western US protected areas, dry-deposited plastic was smaller than plastic washed out by rain (level C)8.

Illustration of three thin, faintly blue fibers and a few clear angular fragments drifting in bright sky, sun at upper leftIllustration
Illustration: thin synthetic fibers and a few small clear fragments drifting in bright daylight air, sun at upper left. Enlarged for visibility; illustrative sizes, not a micrograph.Illustration · AI generatedMade with FLUX.1-schnell (fp8, Comfy-Org/Flux-1-Schnell) · ComfyUI (local), tools/content/generate_l3.pySite illustration (AI-generated, Flux)Site original

Water: floating, sinking and the biofilm dispute

Polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) float in seawater, yet both turn up in deep sediment traps and deep-sea sediments (level B)5. One explanation is biofouling. A 2017 model by Kooi and colleagues added biofilm growth to settling: depending on size and density, particles floated, sank to the seafloor or oscillated up and down, with small particles collecting at intermediate depths (level C, model estimate)4.

The small-particle case is disputed. Benner and Passow (2024) argue that particles of 100 µm or less cannot host the heavy organisms needed to sink, and point to marine snow and ingestion instead (level D)5.

Illustration of a clear film floating at the water surface and a film streaked with green biofilm hanging above sandIllustration
Illustration: in sunlit turquoise shallows, one clear plastic film floats at the surface while another, streaked with faint green biofilm, hangs down into the water above rippled sand. Enlarged for visibility; illustrative sizes, not a micrograph.Illustration · AI generatedMade with FLUX.1-schnell (fp8, Comfy-Org/Flux-1-Schnell) · ComfyUI (local), tools/content/generate_l3.pySite illustration (AI-generated, Flux)Site original

Soil: pores trap and charges may hold

A 2024 review of porous media notes that particles can enter fine pores but can also be trapped in narrow channels (straining), and that attraction between positively charged iron and aluminum sites and negatively charged plastic may impede migration (level C)6. Size alone gives no simple rule: the review reports a study in which smaller particles stayed better dispersed yet moved less (level C)6.

A second review sorts the controls into particle, flow and porous-medium properties, plus co-transported substances (level B)7. In a greenhouse experiment, earthworms carried polyethylene beads down the soil profile, and smaller beads were moved down more (level C)9.

Illustration of soil grains in dark loam with roots, pale fungal threads and small glassy fragments lodged between grainsIllustration
Illustration (diagram): plastic fragments held in the pores between soil grains, among fine roots and fungal threads. Fragments enlarged; illustrative sizes, not to scale; no transport speed implied.IllustrationGraphic: Nanoplastics ObservatorySite original

Lung tissue: a thin wall and size-sorted deposition

The panel shows alveoli, the lung's gas-exchange sacs. In young healthy adults the air-blood tissue barrier has a harmonic mean thickness of about 0.6 µm (level C)3; thinness is not a size cutoff for passage. Inhaled therapeutic aerosols above about 6 µm deposit mainly in the upper airway, those below about 2 µm mainly in the alveolar region (level C)1.

These are tendencies, not limits for plastic fragments or fibers. The review does not say whether its diameters are aerodynamic; impaction also depends on density, and fibers deposit by interception, negligible for spheres (level B)1. Deposition is exposure only; uptake is covered on Human Body.

Illustration of rose-pink, thin-walled lung air chambers packed like foam, with fine red capillary lines along the wallsIllustration
Illustration: lung air sacs drawn as a foam of thin-walled, rose-pink chambers with fine red capillaries along the wall edges and a few clear specks on the air side. Particles enlarged; illustrative sizes, not a measurement in any person.Illustration · AI generatedMade with FLUX.1-schnell (fp8, Comfy-Org/Flux-1-Schnell) · ComfyUI (local), tools/content/generate_l3.pySite illustration (AI-generated, Flux)Site original

Limitation

The panels are not microscopy and not recordings of real samples. Backgrounds are AI illustrations, particles are drawn by code and enlarged far beyond true scale, and the lung panel shows no real person's tissue. Particle paths are scripted for legibility, not computed by a transport model. The counters are estimates, not measurements, and the soil panel has none.

Where to go next

Amounts and evidence for each medium are on Atmosphere, Oceans, Soil and Human Body. The same scales in one continuous zoom are in From Planet to Cell.

Sources

  1. Darquenne C (2012). Aerosol Deposition in Health and Disease. Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery 25(3):140–147. doi:10.1089/jamp.2011.0916 review open access
  2. Tatsii D, Bucci S, Bhowmick T, Guettler J, Bakels L, Bagheri G et al. (2024). Shape Matters: Long-Range Transport of Microplastic Fibers in the Atmosphere. Environmental Science & Technology 58(1):671–682. doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c08209 journal article open access
  3. Weibel ER (2009). What makes a good lung?. Swiss Medical Weekly 139(27–28):375–386. doi:10.4414/smw.2009.12270 review open access
  4. Kooi M, van Nes EH, Scheffer M, Koelmans AA (2017). Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical Transport of Microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology 51(14):7963–7971. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b04702 journal article open access
  5. Benner I, Passow U (2024). Why biofouling cannot contribute to the vertical transport of small microplastic. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 4:19. doi:10.1186/s43591-024-00098-2 journal article open access
  6. Zeng L, Yuan C, Xiang T, Guan X, Dai L, Xu D et al. (2024). Research on the Migration and Adsorption Mechanism Applied to Microplastics in Porous Media: A Review. Nanomaterials 14(12):1060. doi:10.3390/nano14121060 review open access
  7. Li F, Huang D, Wang G, Cheng M, Chen H, Zhou W et al. (2024). Microplastics/nanoplastics in porous media: Key factors controlling their transport and retention behaviors. Science of The Total Environment 926:171658. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171658 review
  8. Brahney J, Hallerud M, Heim E, Hahnenberger M, Sukumaran S (2020). Plastic rain in protected areas of the United States. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaz5819 journal article
  9. Rillig MC, Ziersch L, Hempel S (2017). Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms. Scientific Reports 7:1362. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01594-7 journal article open access

Evidence levels and provenance

AConsensus
Multiple independent studies or a systematic review plus a statement by a scientific body.
BWell supportedUsed on this page
Several independent studies with concordant findings.
CLimitedUsed on this page
Few studies, narrow conditions, or methodological caveats.
DDisputedUsed on this page
Conflicting results; both sides are shown.
EUnknown
No reliable evidence found; the search scope is stated.
PProvenanceUsed on this page
Provenance: checked against the primary record. A separate category, not an evidence grade: used for bibliographic facts, legal texts, official metadata, definitions quoted from a standard, the site's own arithmetic and statements about the site's process.

Editorial categories of this site. A–E grade scientific findings, per claim, with a one-line rationale; D and E are not lower rungs of the A–C scale. P is not a grade: it marks facts checked against their primary record.