Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37168661›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in toxicology2023

Critical gaps in nanoplastics research and their connection to risk assessment.

Brittany E Cunningham, Emma E Sharpe, Susanne M Brander, Wayne G Landis, Stacey L Harper

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Microplastics and nanoplastics in the human gut: from signals to standards.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brittany E CunninghamDepartment of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States.
Emma E SharpeInstitute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United States.
Susanne M BranderDepartment of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States.
Wayne G LandisInstitute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United States.
Stacey L HarperDepartment of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States.
Oregon State University · USWestern Washington University · US

Funding

MODE OF ACTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICANTST32ES007060 · NIEHS · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Jamie DeWitt, Siva Kumar Kolluri · 1985 to 2026
$11.6M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reports of plastics, at higher levels than previously thought, in the water that we drink and the air that we breathe, are generating considerable interest and concern. Plastics have been recorded in almost every environment in the world with estimates on the order of trillions of microplastic pieces. Yet, this may very well be an underestimate of plastic pollution as a whole. Once microplastics (<5 mm) break down in the environment, they nominally enter the nanoscale (<1,000 nm), where they cannot be seen by the naked eye or even with the use of a typical laboratory microscope. Thus far, research has focused on plastics in the macro- (>25 mm) and micro-size ranges, which are easier to detect and identify, leaving large knowledge gaps in our understanding of nanoplastic debris. Our ability to ask and answer questions relating to the transport, fate, and potential toxicity of these particles is disadvantaged by the detection and identification limits of current technology. Furthermore, laboratory exposures have been substantially constrained to the study of commercially available nanoplastics; i.e., polystyrene spheres, which do not adequately reflect the composition of environmental plastic debris. While a great deal of plastic-focused research has been published in recent years, the pattern of the work does not answer a number of key factors vital to calculating risk that takes into account the smallest plastic particles; namely, sources, fate and transport, exposure measures, toxicity and effects. These data are critical to inform regulatory decision making and to implement adaptive management strategies that mitigate risk to human health and the environment. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-science on nanoplastic research, highlighting areas where data are needed to establish robust risk assessments that take into account plastics pollution. Where nanoplastic-specific data are not available, suggested substitutions are indicated.

Indexed as

Bayesian networkmicroplasticnanoplasticrisk assesmenttoxicity

Identifiers

PMID37168661
PMCPMC10164945
OpenAlexW4366827828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.