SynthesisArchives of toxicology2026
Micro- and nanoplastics in human biological materials: a systematic review of detection methods and methodological challenges.
Synthesis in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clear Aligners as a Prescribed Source of Unmeasured Intra-Oral Micro- and Nanoplastic Exposure: Release Mechanisms, Human Evidence, Salivary Biomonitoring and the EU Regulatory Context.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- PET Micro(nano)plastics Modulate Metformin-Albumin Binding and Species-Specific Bacterial Responses.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Micro- and Nanoplastic Pollution and Renal Health: Human Evidence, Mechanisms, and Clinical Implications.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Review
- Unmasking the haemostatic potential of quotidian plastics: upon first glance.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Pathogenesis of Micro/Nanoplastics in Mammalian Systems: Gut to Systemic Multi-Organ Dysfunction.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Micro- and nanoplastics are an increasing focus in biomedical research, yet their definition, classification, and detection methods remain largely unstandardised. The lack of consistent nomenclature, agreed size criteria, and uniform reporting methods significantly hinders comparison of available data. Therefore, a systematic review of studies on analytical methods for detecting micro- and nanoplastics ex vivo in human biological samples was conducted. Most included studies (63.89%) were published between 2024 and 2025, highlighting the topicality of this research area. Study populations varied widely in age and health status, and sample sizes were often small. The most frequently analysed samples included placenta, kidneys, liver, lungs, heart, and urine, while other tissues were reported sporadically. Detection methods primarily involved microscopic techniques, chromatographic approaches, and Raman and FTIR spectroscopy. Considerable variability was observed in sample preparation procedures, including storage, digestion, and filtration, which may affect analytical sensitivity and specificity. Differences were also noted in quality control strategies and contamination minimisation approaches. Reported particle sizes and concentration units varied substantially, and many studies did not distinguish between microplastics and nanoplastics, treating them as a single category. This further hinders data comparison and the accurate assessment of human exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.