Whereas the dramatic environmental impact of plastic waste rightfully receives considerable attention by scientists, policy makers and public in general, the human health impact of microand nanoplastics contamination of our food and beverages remains largely unknown. Indeed, most studies aim at understanding the environmental impact rather than the human health impact of a possible exposure to micro-and nanoplastics. In addition, these papers generally lack a methodological, standardised approach. Furthermore, some studies focus on the damage to and contamination level of animal species collected from the wild environment, and others investigate the rate and biology of microplastic uptake of animals fed with microplastics in laboratory. This review aims at understanding human exposure. Since there is, with few exceptions, no evidence available on the presence of micro-and nanoplastics in a normal diet, this study takes an indirect approach and analyses peer-reviewed publications since 2010 that document the presence of micro-and nanoplastics in those animals (more than 200 species) and food products that are part of the human food chain and that may thus contribute directly or indirectly to the uptake of micro-and nanoplastics via the human diet. It also addresses the question of the definitions, the methodologies and the quality criteria applied to obtain the reported results. This review suggests that, beyond a few estimations and comparisons, precise data to assess the exact exposure of humans to micro-and nanoplastics through their diet cannot be produced until standardised methods and definitions are available.

BACKGROUND:Free thyroxine (FT4) and free triiodothyronine (FT3) measurements are useful in the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of thyroid disorders. The IFCC Scientific Division established a Working Group to resolve issues of method performance to meet clinical requirements.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory testing of serum thyroidstimulating hormone (TSH) is an essential tool for the diagnosis and management of various thyroid disorders whose collective prevalence lies between 4% and 8%. However, between-assay discrepancies in TSH results limit the application of clinical practice guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract