ReviewNature protocols2026
Extracting and characterizing microplastics and nanoplastics from environmental samples.
Review in Nature protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microplastics in human lung tissue from autopsy samples collected in 1991 and 2024: a comparative post-mortem study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Potential Role of Mosses in Evaluating Airborne Microplastic Deposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is increasing interest in measuring the effect of microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) in the environment, but it is difficult to compare the results obtained in these studies due to variations in the extraction and characterization techniques, as well as the variability of the matrices analyzed. Here we provide a workflow consisting of three separate procedures for (1) preprocessing of different environmental samples, (2) methods for MNP extraction (four-step extraction method) and (3) techniques for qualitative and quantitative characterization of MNPs. The four-step extraction method (FSEM) involves predigestion, predensity separation, postdigestion and postdensity separation. This process has been optimized to maximize recovery (between 83.7% and 100% for polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate) and purity while minimizing artefactual changes to the particles. It is crucial to characterize the MNPs extracted using the FSEM to understand their chemical composition and other physicochemical properties such as quantity, particle size and morphology. We provide guidance on the use of different fit-for-purpose analytical technologies, including attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR), laser direct infrared spectroscopy (LDIR) and optical photothermal infrared microspectroscopy (O-PTIR). These techniques can be combined to characterize MNPs with particle sizes of 0.5-5,000 µm. We provide advice on how to optimize the sample preparation methods by adding or removing extraction steps based on the complexity of the matrix and purpose of the analysis. The suggested validation workflow also uses additional analytical techniques (for example, atomic force microscopy and flow cytometry) to evaluate efficiency, feasibility and reliability. We provide experimental detail for analysis using micro-FTIR, which can be used instead of LDIR and O-PTIR to characterize microplastics with particle sizes larger than 10 µm. Execution of this workflow takes 7-30 d and can be performed by researchers, technicians and students in the environmental field if they have access to the required equipment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41238785What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.