A Response to the Editor—Clarifications and Insights on Microplastics Research and Global Public Health

Abstract

We would like to express our gratitude for the comments from the authors of the letter “Bridging the Microplastics–Public Health Research Gap: A Call for Translational Action in Vulnerable Populations” on our study “Current Trends, Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Microplastics Research and Global Public Health: A Scientometric Study”. We are pleased to know that our research has generated reflection and opened a necessary dialogue on the relationship between microplastics and public health.

We entirely agree with the need to reduce the ratio of scientific production for high- and low-income countries. In fact, one of the objectives of our study was to demonstrate this gap as well as the need to enhance research capacity in regions most impacted by microplastic pollution. We believe that our findings can serve as a starting point in generating more clinical research that considers the problem from a more local perspective and with direct relevance to public health [1].

We also value the emphasis on the importance of epidemiological studies connecting microplastic exposure with specific health effects [2, 3]. So far, most studies have been focused on ecotoxicological and experimental modes of exposure. This means that a path for research is waiting on direct observations of the effects on vulnerable populations. The authors' comment about the absence of studies considering co-exposure to other pollutants is appropriate and is a very important research path for the future.

At last, we also share concerns regarding translating science into actions and public policy. Our analysis indicates an increasing scientific output on microplastics, which represents a wonderful opportunity for academia and government to engage toward developing regulations and mitigation measures.

We sincerely thank the letter authors for their contributions and for enhancing the discussion on an important issue. We hope the discussions spur new research that contributes positively to public health.

Frank Mayta-Tovalino: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, visualization, validation, and methodology. Daniel Alvitez-Temoche: conceptualization, investigation, validation, methodology, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

The authors, Frank Mayta-Tovalino and Daniel Alvitez-Temoche, confirm that the results and interpretations presented in this letter are transparent, and the methodology used in the study is clearly documented. All analyses were conducted without manipulation or selective reporting.