Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

This is not evidence of that. This machine delivers air at a positive pressure to force it through patients airways. The manufacturer used polyurethane foam instead of silicon foam. Moisture can make this foam break down. The device is likely to accumulate moisture due to it's purpose.

There are multiple unique factors here and microplastics are not involved.

View on HN

The FDA’s response to the recall says otherwise

The potential risks of particulate exposure if inhaling or swallowing pieces of PE-PUR foam include:

Irritation to the skin, eyes, nose, and respiratory tract (airway), Inflammatory response, Headache, Asthma, Toxic or cancer-causing effects to organs, such as kidneys and liver.

The problem is just about any foreign particulates at a high enough concentration will cause adverse effects when inhaled [1].

If the machine had a large residue of metal dust from manufacturing, or a grinding in the motor which made it into the airstream, there are severe consequences [2].

A similar issue could if there was some sort of wood dust [3] that made it into the airstream (e.g if they had a wood trim for aesthetics, and it was shaved down by the motor and made it into the air stream). If instead just the dampening of the wood caused mold spores to grow that made it into the air stream [4], that could also cause major issues.

So yes, in this case it's foam, but most foreign particulates are going to be a problem.

[1]: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/lungs_dust.html#se...

[2]: https://lunginstitute.com/can-breathing-metal-dust-hurt-you/

[3]: https://www.osha.gov/wood-dust

[4]: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/aspergillosis...

Sorry but what you've said doesn't invalidate or answer what they asked.

The positive pressure used to force air through patients airways may have included broken down particulates of polyurethane foam? Of which may have been a major contributing factor to those health problems listed?

I believe you are “technically” correct, but colloquially, “microplastic health effects” are believed to come from drinking water and food. Not industrial pollution, which is apparently what Philips’ machine is microdosing their users with.

Sounds like we just need to wait to accumulate a bit more of them?

The dose makes the poison.

Not really. For many things there is no "safe" level, eg. airborne PM2.5 pollution or lead.

What you say is a bit of a common sense rule of thumb usually used for stuff we digest and poop out.

So that may rule out microplastics, which was shown to cross into tissue (including lungs) which means it would accumulate. And definitely nanoplastic, as those enter even individual cells and screw up their mechanics.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we would consider no safe level of micro/nanoplastic exposure. Maybe we would already if not for the interests of manufacturers and oil industry.

I guess maybe you were agreeing with me but I responded as if you weren't

Colloquially, but we’re not talking colloquially, we’re talking about the Phillips machine and the fact that people’s lungs were being forced air of which included plastics.

I wasn't providing an answer I was presenting a question like what the other commenter was, which is could those health effects have come from microplastics emitted from the foam.

I’ve just read the FDA response which says:

The potential risks of particulate exposure if inhaling or swallowing pieces of PE-PUR foam include:

Irritation to the skin, eyes, nose, and respiratory tract (airway), Inflammatory response, Headache, Asthma, Toxic or cancer-causing effects to organs, such as kidneys and liver.

So it looks like it is the case

Reply on news.ycombinator.com