Can Probiotics Remove Microplastics? Human Trial Update

What did the human trial actually measure?

The ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07416214 describes a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 96 adults. The intervention combined 10 billion colony-forming units of L. plantarum PD01 with fructooligosaccharides three times daily for six weeks. The placebo contained fructooligosaccharides without PD01.

The registry lists several primary outcomes. The one most directly relevant here is fecal microplastic concentration measured by pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry across 11 polymers. Other outcomes include urinary phthalate metabolites, gut microbiome composition, blood metabolomics, inflammatory markers, blood chemistry and body composition. The study finished on February 10, 2026. As of this review, the registry says it has no posted results.

An August 2026 medRxiv preprint describes the trial, but calls its findings interim and has not been peer reviewed. Of 106 people recruited, 96 were randomized and 89 were included in the reported analysis. The authors state that the urinary phthalate analysis was completed first. They report lower levels of six urinary phthalate measures in the PD01 group relative to placebo after adjustment. They do not report the planned fecal microplastic measurements in that version.

Why phthalate metabolites are not a microplastic result

Phthalates are chemicals used in many products and exposure can come through food, packaging, personal-care products, dust and other routes. A urinary phthalate metabolite is a chemical biomarker. A microplastic is a physical polymer particle. The measurements answer different questions.

The preprint proposes that PD01-driven particle excretion caused the urinary changes, but the unreported fecal particle analysis is needed to test that link in these participants. The interim report does not establish whether the groups differed in all relevant external exposures during the six weeks, and several reported P values are close to 0.05 among many measured metabolites. It analyzes trial completers rather than all randomized participants. These points do not erase the signal; they limit what can be concluded before the full outcomes and peer review are available.

The title of the preprint says PD01 reduces microplastics and associated chemicals in humans. Its reported results currently support only the associated-chemical portion. Until the direct particle outcome is available, saying that the trial proved human microplastic removal would outrun the data presented.

What the peer-reviewed PD01 study found

The human trial followed a 2026 peer-reviewed study of PD01. Researchers first compared gut-microbiome features in 138 people classified by fecal microplastic excretion, then isolated PD01 from a high-excretion donor. That human comparison was observational: it helped generate and select a candidate strain, but did not show that taking the strain caused people to excrete more particles.

The causal intervention was in mice fed a mixture of PVC, PET, polystyrene and polyethylene particles. The paper reports lower intestinal residues for the four tested polymers, stronger barrier markers, altered short-chain fatty acids and reduced inflammation after PD01. Cell and worm experiments added mechanistic evidence. Those are useful preclinical steps, but they do not supply a human dose-response, a replicated clinical outcome or proof that PD01 retrieves particles from tissues outside the digestive tract.

Three authors were employees of Fabiotics Co. Ltd. in the peer-reviewed paper. Two Fabiotics employees are also authors of the interim human preprint. A disclosed commercial relationship does not make a result false, but it increases the value of complete endpoint reporting, independent replication and peer review before consumer claims are accepted.

Other strains add animal evidence, not a class effect

A separate 2025 study screened 784 bacterial strains with 0.1-micrometer polystyrene particles. It selected Lacticaseibacillus paracasei DT66 and L. plantarum DT88, then reported greater fecal passage and less residual intestinal polystyrene in mice. DT88 also reduced intestinal inflammation in that model.

Another 2026 paper studied Leuconostoc mesenteroides CBA3656, a strain isolated from kimchi, against polystyrene nanoplastics in laboratory systems and germ-free mice. It reported greater fecal excretion in the mouse model. The paper has a September 2026 corrigendum, so we do not rely on its detailed percentages here.

These studies support a research hypothesis: under some conditions, a named bacterium may bind an ingested particle or change its movement through an animal gut. They do not show that all Lactobacillus species work, that any retail blend contains an effective strain or dose, or that a postbiotic product can be substituted for a live strain. Species, strain, preparation, polymer, particle size, dose and model all matter.

Gut passage is narrower than whole-body removal

An oral bacterium can meet newly ingested particles in the intestinal lumen. The animal studies test that setting. They do not establish a route for pulling particles from human blood, lungs, arteries, brain or other organs back into the gut. More particle in stool can reflect less intestinal retention of the administered material; it is not automatically evidence of clearance from the rest of the body.

There is also no validated consumer test that can tell a person whether a supplement lowered a whole-body microplastic burden. Fecal, blood and tissue measurements are method-sensitive and answer different exposure or retention questions. A product claim should identify the exact material measured, specimen, method, time point and clinical relevance rather than compressing them into the word “detox.”

Should you take a probiotic for microplastics?

Current evidence does not support choosing an over-the-counter probiotic as a proven microplastic-removal treatment. The PD01 regimen was an exact strain and trial formulation taken three times daily; the first report is a preprint and does not provide its direct particle result. A product that merely lists L. plantarum, “postbiotics” or a proprietary blend is not the studied intervention.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health likewise emphasizes that different probiotics can have different effects and that evidence for one type does not transfer automatically to another. It advises people with health conditions to discuss probiotic supplements with a clinician; risks are higher for people who are seriously ill or immunocompromised.

• Do not use a probiotic as a substitute for medical care. No microplastic-targeted clinical benefit has been demonstrated.
• Match claims to the exact strain. Genus or species names alone are insufficient.
• Ask for the direct endpoint. Urinary chemical metabolites, fecal particles and tissue particles are different measurements.
• Wait for the complete trial report. The registered fecal microplastic, microbiome, blood and inflammatory outcomes remain the key missing evidence.

For adjacent evidence, see our reviews of the kimchi-derived strain study, microplastic-removal supplement claims and what is known about persistence in the body.

Use the App

Compare evidence without a detox promise

MicroPlastics organizes product, packaging and source notes. It does not diagnose exposure, measure body burden or prescribe a removal treatment.