Like a Guest That Won't Leave, BPA Lingers in the Human Body

Chemical that leaches from baby bottles and other plastic containers remains in the body longer than previously thought

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A new study indicates that bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in plastic bottles and can linings that has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and liver failure, may linger in the body far longer than previously believed.

Environmental health scientist Richard Stahlhut of the University of Rochester Medical Center and his colleagues discovered that even those who had been fasting for 24 hours still had high BPA levels in their urine, using a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey of 1,469 adults.

Stahlhut says that it appears that the amount of BPA in the body drops relatively rapidly from four to nine hours after exposure, but then levels out. "After the nine hours or so," he says, "it stops doing what it's supposed to and the decline goes flat."

Previous research had suggested that levels of BPA, which mimics the female hormone estrogen in the human body, declined by 50 percent every five hours after it was ingested in foods or water it had leached into from plastic containers. But the new research indicates that the chemical declines initially but then sticks around, making it potentially more harmful.

"This suggests substantial nonfood exposure, accumulation in body tissues such as fat, or both," the researchers wrote in their paper released today by Environmental Health Perspectives.

That may explain why 93 percent of Americans carry BPA in their bodies, according to the CDC, or it could be that exposure is coming through different routes than food, such as the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes often used for water lines in modern homes.

"It makes you wonder what percentage of [exposure] really is food. If half of it isn't food then we've underestimated [human] exposure by half. That might matter," Stahlhut says.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program—a government program that coordinates federal studies of chemicals' adverse effects—warns that BPA exposure may lead to abnormal development in infants and the Canadian government last year banned its use in baby bottles. But the American Chemistry Council, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintain that BPA is safe.

Some preliminary studies have shown that the chemical can persist in human fat tissue and trigger a drop in adiponectin, a hormone excreted by fat that helps control sugar levels in the blood. "This would be good news," Stahlhut says. "If BPA is part of this huge increase in obesity and diabetes, you should celebrate because, unlike PCBs, if we stop BPA exposure it will go away."

But the first step on that road will be figuring out exactly how BPA typically gets into the human body as well as how the body processes it—something scientists thought they already knew. "If I go to a diner and they serve me a Coke in a polycarbonate glass, I drink from it. But I don't mess with the stuff at home," Stahlhut says. "I've been in this long enough to know that we don't know anything."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe