Skip to content
NANOPLASTICSPLANETARY OBSERVATORY← Back to the observatory

SETTLED, LIKELY, DISPUTED, UNKNOWN

Evidence by Status

The site's headline findings on micro- and nanoplastics, sorted by evidence level from A (consensus) to E (unknown). Each finding carries one grade, a one-line reason, its system and its sources, so a reader can see quickly how much of the subject is solid ground.

9 min readUpdated ReviewedAConsensusBWell supportedCLimitedDDisputedEUnknownPProvenance

Illustration of a few lit amber specks in front of a soft teal haze of particles that fades into darkness at the upper leftIllustration
Illustration: a few amber particles lit in front, a soft haze of particles behind and depths fading into darkness, a metaphor for findings that are settled, limited or still unknown. Not data; illustrative sizes.Illustration · AI generatedMade with FLUX.1-schnell (fp8, Comfy-Org/Flux-1-Schnell) · ComfyUI (local), tools/content/generate_l3.pySite illustration (AI-generated, Flux)Site original

This page lists 30 headline findings about micro- and nanoplastics, each with a single grade. The grade belongs to the finding, not to a study or topic: one paper can feed findings at several levels. The two best-known estimates of how much microplastic an adult swallows each week, 0.1–5 g and about 4.1 µg, differ by a factor of between 24,000 and 1.2 million (our calculation)1,2. They are not like-for-like: they use different particle-size windows and model inputs (see D).

Legend: A consensus · B well supported · C limited · D disputed · E unknown. The full rubric, with worked examples, is on Evidence Levels. Snapshot: 3 November 2026.

30 findings on the evidence ladder, 3 November 2026

Bar chart of the 30 findings on this page by evidence level: 5 at A, 6 at B, 10 at C, 4 at D and 5 at E. Counts are this site's editorial grades as of 3 November 2026. Source:3Counts are this page's editorial grades, tallied by the editor; S-021 is the anchor review for the page, not the origin of the counts.Nanoplastics ObservatorySite original
Data table
labelvalueunit
A consensus5findings
B well supported6findings
C limited10findings
D disputed4findings
E unknown5findings

A: established

Each finding below rests on several independent studies plus a statement by a scientific or intergovernmental body.

  • Microplastics are found in surface waters of every ocean basin. Global net surveys of thousands of stations plus a UN expert-body assessment that calls them ubiquitous in the marine environment; system: water.4,5,6,3
  • Microplastics travel through the atmosphere and settle in remote places far from their sources. Independent deposition studies in the Pyrenees, the Alps and Arctic, and US protected areas, plus a European academies review that lists air among contaminated compartments; system: air.7,8,9,10
  • Soils, including farmland, contain microplastics, and agriculture adds plastic through mulch films, sewage sludge and other inputs. European academies review plus an FAO assessment and a 2020 synthesis of soil studies; system: soil.10,11,12
  • People are exposed to microplastics through food, drinking water and air. WHO's 2019 drinking-water report, its 2022 report on food and air, and an EFSA panel statement describe these routes; the amounts are another matter (see D); system: human.13,14,15,3
  • Wastewater treatment removes most microplastics from wastewater, yet treated effluent still releases particles. WHO gives more than 90% removal; advanced stages at four Finnish plants removed 40–99.9% of microplastics, and three Australian plants removed 91–96% of nanoplastic mass; system: water.13,16,17

B: well supported

Several independent studies agree; no scientific body has yet issued a statement, or the studies cover limited settings.

  • Tire wear is among the largest sources of microplastics on land. Independent emission estimates (0.23–4.7 kg per person per year) and air measurements in Germany and Norway in which tire wear dominates urban airborne plastic; systems: air, soil.18,19,20,21
  • Spreading sewage sludge on farmland raises microplastic counts in field soils. Field surveys in Chile, Spain and Germany agree, the German fields still elevated 34 years after the last application; system: soil.22,23,24
  • Larger plastic items break down into microplastics, and in laboratory tests into nanoplastics. UN expert-body assessment for fragmentation, plus laboratory degradation studies and a 2021 review for the nano step; systems: water, soil.6,25,26,27
  • Microplastics change soil bulk density and water holding under the tested conditions. Garden and laboratory experiments, synthesized in a 2020 review; effects depend on particle type and dose; system: soil.28,12
  • Reported microplastic counts in freshwater and drinking water are hard to compare, because methods and quality vary widely. A quality review of 50 studies found that only 4 met all criteria, and three interlaboratory tests found large spreads between labs; system: water.29,30,31,32
  • Microplastic particles of a few micrometers and larger are detected in human lung, stool, placenta and olfactory tissue. Several independent groups using spectroscopy, but each on 6 to 15 people; confidence criteria for such work were proposed only in 2026; system: human.33,34,35,36,37

C: limited evidence

One study, or a few, under narrow conditions or with method caveats. These findings may move up or down.

  • One study reports that people with micro- and nanoplastics detected in carotid plaque had a higher risk of heart attack, stroke or death. Single observational study: 304 patients enrolled, 257 followed for about 34 months, polyethylene found by py-GC/MS in 150 (hazard ratio 4.53); association, not cause; letters question contamination control and confounding, and the authors replied; system: human.38,39
  • A rapid systematic review rates microplastics as "suspected" to harm digestive, reproductive and respiratory health. Based on 28 animal and only 3 human studies; system: human.40
  • Biofilm-coated sand filters retain model nanoplastics well, and slow sand filtration dominates removal in a treatment chain. Laboratory and pilot tests with metal-labeled particles; the full-plant value (more than 3 log, or 99.9%) is a model estimate; system: water.41,42
  • Boiling hard tap water removed at least 80% of added micro- and nanoplastics (0.1–150 µm) in laboratory tests. One study, three polymers, water with more than 120 mg/L calcium carbonate; system: water.43
  • The North Atlantic mixed layer may hold about 27 million metric tons (27 Mt) of nanoplastic. Extrapolated from one cruise and one method (1.5–32.0 mg/m³ of three polymers); an estimate, not a measurement; system: water.44
  • Nanoplastics reach high Alpine snow, Greenland firn and Antarctic sea ice. One research group and one method: Alpine snow in 202145; averages of 13.2 ng/mL in Greenland firn and 52.3 ng/mL in Antarctic sea ice in 202246; system: air.
  • Submicrometer plastic beads enter wheat and lettuce roots through cracks where side roots emerge, and move to the shoots. One study with labeled model particles in hydroponics, sand and sandy soil; system: soil.47
  • One 2026 study reports that nanoplastics move from soil into crops and reduce pollen viability. Single laboratory study with model polystyrene particles; field relevance not tested; system: soil.48
  • One field study measured polystyrene nanoplastics in a compost-amended farm soil. 2.57 µg/g in the 200–1,000 nm fraction of the topsoil, about 28 times a reference plot; one French site, one polymer, composite samples. At a second compost-amended French field, a 2024 isotope estimate gives only the mobile fraction in soil water, about 0.25 µg/kg down to 55 cm; system: soil.49,50
  • Two 2026 models estimate that airborne plastic slightly warms the climate. Direct radiative forcing of about +0.04 W/m², revising a small 2021 estimate; both assume about 4 particles/m³ near the surface, far above the measured medians in the D item on emissions (different size windows), and depend on color and size; model estimates; system: air.51,52,53,54

D: disputed

Studies or analyses conflict. Both sides are listed with their sources. For the brain, a 2026 study of surgical and post-mortem samples using several methods also detects plastic; it supports presence but does not settle the amounts55.

  • How much plastic human brain tissue contains is disputed. Nihart and colleagues report a median of 4,917 µg/g (about 4.9 mg/g; 2024 frontal cortex, py-GC/MS) against 3,345 µg/g in different people who died in 2016, a cross-sectional comparison; in support they cite fat-removing digestion, reagent blanks, agreement with a second laboratory and infrared spectra56. Their reply argues that the lipid comparison mixes dry- and wet-weight percentages, that polymers without known lipid interference rose too, and that blanks held no detectable polymer57,58. Critics cite limited contamination controls, missing validation and fat interference; a blood study finds the method unsuitable for polyethylene59,60. A 2025 correction changed images and a preparation step, not the numbers61. System: human.
  • The weekly mass of microplastic people ingest is disputed. One review of 59 publications estimates 0.1–5 g per week1; a probabilistic model gives a median adult intake of 583 ng per day, about 4.1 µg per week (our calculation)2. Both are estimates, not measurements, built on different size windows. System: human.
  • The mass of plastic in human blood measured by py-GC/MS is disputed. Leslie and colleagues report a mean of 1.6 µg/mL in 22 Dutch donors (four polymers, PET most common, particles of 700 nm and larger)62. A revised method from partly the same team detected plastic in all 102 samples but quantified it in only 20% (mean 386 ng/mL)63. Rauert and colleagues find false polyethylene and PVC signals and suppressed PET signals in blood60. System: human.
  • How much microplastic enters the atmosphere is disputed. Earlier global models attribute large emissions to roads, sea spray and farm dust64,19; a 2026 comparison with 2,782 measurements finds that models overestimate median air concentrations by two to four orders of magnitude (measured median 0.08 particles/m³ over land; model output aligned to each study's size range)65. System: air.

E: not known

We found no reliable evidence for the exact proposition. "Not established" means not established in the evidence we reviewed, not proof of absence. Each item names its search; the strings and screened counts are in the search record below, and detail is on Knowledge Gaps.

  • How much nanoplastic, by mass, agricultural soils contain across polymers and regions. One field quantification covers one polymer at one site, and a second site gives only the mobile fraction (see C); no representative multi-polymer measurement found; search E1, 19 records; system: soil.49,27
  • Whether nanoplastics, as distinct from larger particles, cause long-term health effects in people. WHO in 2019 saw no reliable sign of concern but too little data on nanoparticle toxicity; in 2022 it found data insufficient for a full risk assessment; cohorts we found measure micro- and nanoplastics together and show associations only; search E2, 61 records; system: human.13,14,38,66
  • How many nanoplastic particles, by polymer, people drink in tap water. EU monitoring starts at 20 µm, California's first phase reports from 50 µm (20 µm by Raman) and the ISO method starts at about 1 µm; one study gives tap-water nanoplastic mass and total particle counts that are not polymer-specific; polymer-specific nano counts we found are for bottled water; search E3, 14 records; system: water.67,68,69,70,71,72
  • Whether airborne plastics change cloud formation at real atmospheric concentrations. Laboratory ice-nucleation and droplet studies, a perspective paper and plastic found in cloud water; no atmospheric test found; separate from the direct radiative effect in C; search E4, 33 records; system: air.73,74
  • Any demonstrated removal of dispersed nanoplastics from open water, soil or outdoor air at environmental scale. We found retention in treatment plants, binding in soil and engineered or laboratory methods; removal from the human body is a separate clinical question; search E5, 33 records; systems: water, soil, air.75,41,76

Method

Search record for the E findings. PubMed, searched 3 November 2026, publication years 2020–2026; all titles screened, candidate abstracts read; plus this site's registry. Strings: E1 nanoplastic*[tiab] AND soil*[tiab] AND (field[tiab] OR agricultural[tiab] OR farmland[tiab] OR cropland[tiab]) AND (pyrolysis[tiab] OR "Py-GC"[tiab] OR quantif*[tiab] OR "mass concentration*"[tiab]); E2 nanoplastic*[tiab] AND (cohort[tiab] OR longitudinal[tiab] OR prospective[tiab] OR "follow-up"[tiab]) AND (patients[tiab] OR participants[tiab] OR humans[mh]); E3 nanoplastic*[tiab] AND ("tap water"[tiab] OR "drinking water"[tiab]) AND (count*[tiab] OR "number concentration*"[tiab] OR "particle number*"[tiab] OR "particles per"[tiab]); E4 (microplastic*[tiab] OR nanoplastic*[tiab]) AND (cloud*[tiab] OR "ice nucleat*"[tiab] OR "condensation nuclei"[tiab]); E5 nanoplastic*[tiab] AND (remov*[tiab] OR remediat*[tiab] OR clean-up[tiab] OR cleanup[tiab]) AND ("field scale"[tiab] OR "field-scale"[tiab] OR "in situ"[tiab] OR "full-scale"[tiab] OR "open water"[tiab] OR "outdoor air"[tiab] OR "field trial"[tiab]). Limits: one database, title and abstract terms only.

Findings by system and evidence level, 3 November 2026

Matrix of the findings on this page by system and level: air 7, water 9, soil 10, human body 8, with multi-system findings counted once per system. The human body holds three of the four disputed findings. Source:3Counts are this page's editorial grades, tallied by the editor; findings tagged with two or three systems count once per system, so the row totals (34) exceed the 30 findings. S-021 is the anchor review for the page, not the origin of the counts.Nanoplastics ObservatorySite original
Data table
labelvalueunitABCDE
air711212
water922302
soil1014302
human body811231
Where each system stands on four questions: detected, amount quantified, effect under tested conditions, and association observed in people or the field. No marker shows a proven real-world effect. Data: this page, 3 November 2026.Nanoplastics ObservatorySite original

Method

How grades change. A grade moves when the evidence does: a new independent study, a body statement, a correction, a retraction or a published critique. A writer proposes the change, a verifier checks the sources, a reviewer challenges it, and the editor decides and dates it. Every grade here is dated 3 November 2026 and re-reviewed at the next snapshot, or sooner if a listed source is corrected, retracted or answered in print. A public record of grade changes is planned; none is recorded yet. Report a wrong grade through Corrections & Contact.

Where to go next

The rubric behind these letters is on Evidence Levels. Findings grouped by air, water, soil and the body are on Evidence by System. The studies behind several of them are on Landmark Studies, and the disputed tissue measurements are set in context on Human Body.

Sources

  1. Senathirajah K, Attwood S, Bhagwat G, Carbery M, Wilson S, Palanisami T (2021). Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested – A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124004 journal article
  2. Mohamed Nor NH, Kooi M, Diepens NJ, Koelmans AA (2021). Lifetime Accumulation of Microplastic in Children and Adults. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c07384 journal article
  3. Thompson RC, Courtene-Jones W, Boucher J, Pahl S, Raubenheimer K, Koelmans AA (2024). Twenty years of microplastic pollution research—what have we learned?. Science. doi:10.1126/science.adl2746 review
  4. Eriksen M, Lebreton LCM, Carson HS, Thiel M, Moore CJ, Borerro JC et al. (2014). Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111913 journal article open access
  5. Eriksen M, Cowger W, Erdle LM, Coffin S, Villarrubia-Gómez P, Moore CJ et al. (2023). A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans—Urgent solutions required. PLOS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281596 journal article open access
  6. GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), Kershaw PJ (ed.), Rochman CM (ed.) (2016). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: part two of a global assessment (GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 93). IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts, London. www.gesamp.org/publications/microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2 report open access
  7. Allen S, Allen D, Phoenix VR, Le Roux G, Durántez Jiménez P, Simonneau A et al. (2019). Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0335-5 journal article
  8. Bergmann M, Mützel S, Primpke S, Tekman MB, Trachsel J, Gerdts G (2019). White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Science Advances. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1157 journal article open access
  9. Brahney J, Hallerud M, Heim E, Hahnenberger M, Sukumaran S (2020). Plastic rain in protected areas of the United States. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaz5819 journal article
  10. SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies), Koelmans B, Pahl S, Backhaus T (2019). A Scientific Perspective on Microplastics in Nature and Society (Evidence Review Report No. 4). SAPEA, Berlin. doi:10.26356/microplastics report open access
  11. FAO (2021). Assessment of agricultural plastics and their sustainability: A call for action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). doi:10.4060/cb7856en report open access
  12. Rillig MC, Lehmann A (2020). Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb5979 review
  13. World Health Organization (2019). Microplastics in drinking-water. World Health Organization, Geneva. www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516198 report open access
  14. World Health Organization (2022). Dietary and inhalation exposure to nano- and microplastic particles and potential implications for human health. World Health Organization, Geneva. www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240054608 report open access
  15. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) (2016). Presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA Journal. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4501 report open access
  16. Talvitie J, Mikola A, Koistinen A, Setälä O (2017). Solutions to microplastic pollution – Removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water Research. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.005 journal article
  17. Okoffo ED, Thomas KV (2024). Mass quantification of nanoplastics at wastewater treatment plants by pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Water Research. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2024.121397 journal article
  18. Kole PJ, Löhr AJ, Van Belleghem F, Ragas A (2017). Wear and Tear of Tyres: A Stealthy Source of Microplastics in the Environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. doi:10.3390/ijerph14101265 review open access
  19. Evangeliou N, Grythe H, Klimont Z, Heyes C, Eckhardt S, Lopez-Aparicio S et al. (2020). Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17201-9 journal article open access
  20. Kaushik A, Peter AE, van Pinxteren M, Scholz-Böttcher BM, Herrmann H (2025). Composition, interactions and resulting inhalation risk of micro- and nano-plastics in urban air. Communications Earth & Environment. doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02980-0 journal article open access
  21. Herzke D, Schmidt N, Lervik AE, Schulze D, Celentano S, Eckhardt S et al. (2026). Airborne microplastics on the move: Urban Europe as a source to remote regions. Environmental Pollution. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2025.127380 journal article
  22. Corradini F, Meza P, Eguiluz R, Casado F, Huerta-Lwanga E, Geissen V (2019). Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Science of The Total Environment 671:411–420. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.368 journal article
  23. van den Berg P, Huerta-Lwanga E, Corradini F, Geissen V (2020). Sewage sludge application as a vehicle for microplastics in eastern Spanish agricultural soils. Environmental Pollution 261:114198. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114198 journal article
  24. Weber CJ, Santowski A, Chifflard P (2022). Investigating the dispersal of macro- and microplastics on agricultural fields 30 years after sewage sludge application. Scientific Reports 12:6401. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-10294-w journal article open access
  25. Lambert S, Wagner M (2016). Characterisation of nanoplastics during the degradation of polystyrene. Chemosphere. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.078 journal article
  26. Pfohl P, Wagner M, Meyer L, Domercq P, Praetorius A, Hüffer T et al. (2022). Environmental Degradation of Microplastics: How to Measure Fragmentation Rates to Secondary Micro- and Nanoplastic Fragments and Dissociation into Dissolved Organics. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c01228 journal article
  27. Mitrano DM, Wick P, Nowack B (2021). Placing nanoplastics in the context of global plastic pollution. Nature Nanotechnology. doi:10.1038/s41565-021-00888-2 review
  28. de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Till J, Kloas W, Lehmann A, Becker R et al. (2018). Impacts of Microplastics on the Soil Biophysical Environment. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b02212 journal article
  29. Koelmans AA, Mohamed Nor NH, Hermsen E, Kooi M, Mintenig SM, De France J (2019). Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review and assessment of data quality. Water Research. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.054 review
  30. Isobe A, Buenaventura NT, Chastain S, Chavanich S, Cózar A, DeLorenzo M et al. (2019). An interlaboratory comparison exercise for the determination of microplastics in standard sample bottles. Marine Pollution Bulletin. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.07.033 journal article
  31. Cella C, Emteborg H, Belz S, Bianchi I, Fumagalli FS, Geiss O et al. (2021). Current status of the quantification of microplastics in water: Results of a JRC/BAM interlaboratory comparison study on PET in water. Publications Office of the European Union (JRC Technical Report, EUR 30799 EN). doi:10.2760/6228 report open access
  32. De Frond H, Thornton Hampton L, Kotar S, Gesulga K, Matuch C, Lao W et al. (2022). Monitoring microplastics in drinking water: An interlaboratory study to inform effective methods for quantifying and characterizing microplastics. Chemosphere. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134282 journal article
  33. Jenner LC, Rotchell JM, Bennett RT, Cowen M, Tentzeris V, Sadofsky LR (2022). Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy. Science of The Total Environment. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154907 journal article open access
  34. Schwabl P, Köppel S, Königshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T et al. (2019). Detection of Various Microplastics in Human Stool. Annals of Internal Medicine. doi:10.7326/M19-0618 journal article
  35. Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O et al. (2021). Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environment International. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274 journal article open access
  36. Amato-Lourenço LF, Dantas KC, Júnior GR, Paes VR, Ando RA, de Oliveira Freitas R et al. (2024). Microplastics in the Olfactory Bulb of the Human Brain. JAMA Network Open. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.40018 journal article open access
  37. Thomas KV, Belz S, Booth AM, Clift MJD, Cross RK, Davies G et al. (2026). Communicating Confidence in the Reliability of Micro- and Nanoplastic Identification in Human Health Studies. Environment & Health. doi:10.1021/envhealth.5c00671 journal article
  38. Marfella R, Prattichizzo F, Sardu C, Fulgenzi G, Graciotti L, Spadoni T et al. (2024). Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events. New England Journal of Medicine. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2309822 journal article
  39. Correspondence (multiple letter authors) (2024). Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas. New England Journal of Medicine. doi:10.1056/nejmc2404154 journal article
  40. Chartres N, Cooper CB, Bland G, Pelch KE, Gandhi SA, BakenRa A et al. (2024). Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c09524 review
  41. Pulido-Reyes G, Magherini L, Bianco C, Sethi R, von Gunten U, Kaegi R et al. (2022). Nanoplastics removal during drinking water treatment: Laboratory- and pilot-scale experiments and modeling. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129011 journal article
  42. Eawag (2022). Water treatment plants would be ready for the removal of nanoplastics. Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology). www.eawag.ch/en/department/eng/news/detail/water-treatment-plants-would-be-ready-for-the-removal-of-nanoplastics/ press open access
  43. Yu Z, Wang JJ, Liu LY, Li Z, Zeng EY (2024). Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00081 journal article
  44. ten Hietbrink S, Materić D, Holzinger R, Groeskamp S, Niemann H (2025). Nanoplastic concentrations across the North Atlantic. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09218-1 journal article
  45. Materić D, Ludewig E, Brunner D, Röckmann T, Holzinger R (2021). Nanoplastics transport to the remote, high-altitude Alps. Environmental Pollution. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117697 journal article
  46. Materić D, Kjær HA, Vallelonga P, Tison JL, Röckmann T, Holzinger R (2022). Nanoplastics measurements in Northern and Southern polar ice. Environmental Research. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.112741 journal article
  47. Li L, Luo Y, Li R, Zhou Q, Peijnenburg WJGM, Yin N et al. (2020). Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nature Sustainability. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0567-9 journal article
  48. Piovesan A, Quartieri S, Faleri C, Bellingeri A, Nepi M, Al Sid Cheikh M et al. (2026). Translocation of nanoplastics from soil to crops impairs pollen viability with potential implications to pollinators. Environmental Science: Nano. doi:10.1039/d5en00969c journal article
  49. Ryzhenko N, Dia A, Pattier M, Davranche M (2026). From compost-amended soil to plant tissues: field quantification of environmentally relevant polystyrene nanoplastics and limited translocation in Holcus lanatus L.. NanoImpact 44:100647 (online 19 September 2026). doi:10.1016/j.impact.2026.100647 journal article open access
  50. Wahl A, Davranche M, Dia A, Vilbert D, Khatib I, Pattier M et al. (2024). Nano(micro)plastic mobility in soil: Metallic additives and Sr isotopes as potential tracers. Journal of Hazardous Materials. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135153 journal article open access
  51. Liu Y, Fu H, Zhang H, Wang Y, Chakrabarty RK, Tu X et al. (2026). Atmospheric warming contributions from airborne microplastics and nanoplastics. Nature Climate Change 16:598–605 (online 4 May 2026). doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02620-1 journal article
  52. Liu Y, Fu H, Zhang H, et al. (2026). Author Correction: Atmospheric warming contributions from airborne microplastics and nanoplastics. Nature Climate Change 16:742 (online 22 May 2026). doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02667-0 journal article open access
  53. Goddard FW, Glukhova S, Le Ru EC, Evangeliou N, McErlich C, Hardacre C et al. (2026). Revised direct radiative forcing of airborne microplastics suggests warming. npj Emerging Contaminants 2:39 (online 10 September 2026). doi:10.1038/s44454-026-00058-w journal article open access
  54. Revell LE, Kuma P, Le Ru EC, Somerville WRC, Gaw S (2021). Direct radiative effects of airborne microplastics. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03864-x journal article
  55. Li R, Lin F, Zhao X, Wang J, Teng M, Li C et al. (2026). Microplastics and nanoplastics in brain tumours and the healthy human brain. Nature Health 1:633–646 (online 20 April 2026). doi:10.1038/s44360-026-00091-4 journal article
  56. Nihart AJ, Garcia MA, El Hayek E, Liu R, Olewine M, Kingston JD et al. (2025). Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nature Medicine. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1 journal article
  57. Campen MJ, West AB, Garcia M, Gullapalli R, El Hayek E (2025). Reply to: Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain. Nature Medicine. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04046-2 journal article
  58. Viola, Makdissi, Musacchio, Aliprandi, Franco Taveras, Mayer et al. (2026). Healthy mice show resilience to chronic nano- and microplastic exposure in the brain. Frontiers in Immunology 17:1917614. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2026.1917614 journal article open access
  59. Abdolahpur Monikh F, Materić D, Valsami-Jones E, Grossart HP, Altmann K, Holzinger R et al. (2025). Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain. Nature Medicine. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04045-3 journal article
  60. Rauert C, Charlton N, Bagley A, Dunlop SA, Symeonides C, Thomas KV (2025). Assessing the Efficacy of Pyrolysis–Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry for Nanoplastic and Microplastic Analysis in Human Blood. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c12599 journal article open access
  61. Nihart AJ, Garcia MA, El Hayek E, Liu R, Olewine M, Kingston JD et al. (2025). Author Correction: Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nature Medicine 31:1367 (online 31 March 2025). doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03675-x journal article open access
  62. Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH (2022). Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 journal article open access
  63. Nardella F, Brits M, van Velzen MJM, Scibetta L, Durkin A, Vermeulen R et al. (2025). Advancing pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the accurate quantification of micro- and nanoplastics in human blood. Microplastics and Nanoplastics. doi:10.1186/s43591-025-00152-7 journal article open access
  64. Brahney J, Mahowald N, Prank M, Cornwell G, Klimont Z, Matsui H et al. (2021). Constraining the atmospheric limb of the plastic cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.2020719118 journal article
  65. Evangelou I, Bucci S, Stohl A (2026). Atmospheric microplastic emissions from land and ocean. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09998-6 journal article
  66. Vethaak AD, Legler J (2021). Microplastics and human health. Science. doi:10.1126/science.abe5041 review
  67. European Commission (2024). Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2024/1441 of 11 March 2024 supplementing Directive (EU) 2020/2184 by laying down a methodology to measure microplastics in water intended for human consumption. Official Journal of the European Union. eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_del/2024/1441/oj web open access
  68. California State Water Resources Control Board (2022). Microplastics in drinking water (Statewide policy handbook and monitoring under SB 1422). California State Water Resources Control Board. www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/microplastics.html web open access
  69. California State Water Resources Control Board (2022). Policy Handbook Establishing a Standard Method of Testing and Reporting of Microplastics in Drinking Water (adopted 7 September 2022). California State Water Resources Control Board. www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/docs/2022/mp-hndbk.pdf report open access
  70. ISO/TC 147/SC 2 (2025). ISO 16094-2:2025 Water quality — Analysis of microplastic in water — Part 2: Vibrational spectroscopy methods for waters with low content of suspended solids including drinking water. International Organization for Standardization. www.iso.org/standard/84460.html standard
  71. Shi K, Okoffo ED, Jiang J, Rauert C, Thomas KV (2026). Detection and Quantification of Nanoplastics and Microplastics in Australian Drinking Water. ACS ES&T Water 6(5):2883–2893. doi:10.1021/acsestwater.5c01404 journal article
  72. Qian N, Gao X, Lang X, Deng H, Bratu TM, Chen Q et al. (2024). Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.2300582121 journal article
  73. Aeschlimann M, Li G, Kanji ZA, Mitrano DM (2022). Potential impacts of atmospheric microplastics and nanoplastics on cloud formation processes. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/s41561-022-01051-9 review
  74. Wang Y, Okochi H, Tani Y, Hayami H, Minami Y, Katsumi N et al. (2023). Airborne hydrophilic microplastics in cloud water at high altitudes and their role in cloud formation. Environmental Chemistry Letters 21:3055–3062. doi:10.1007/s10311-023-01626-x journal article open access
  75. MacLeod M, Arp HPH, Tekman MB, Jahnke A (2021). The global threat from plastic pollution. Science. doi:10.1126/science.abg5433 review
  76. Aly AA, Tang J, Zanaty M, Liu C, Kulathuvayal AS, Su Y et al. (2026). Biochar Reduces Nanoplastics Uptake by Lettuce and Alleviates Its Toxicity to the Plant. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.5c14785 journal article

Evidence levels and provenance

AConsensusUsed on this page
Multiple independent studies or a systematic review plus a statement by a scientific body.
BWell supportedUsed on this page
Several independent studies with concordant findings.
CLimitedUsed on this page
Few studies, narrow conditions, or methodological caveats.
DDisputedUsed on this page
Conflicting results; both sides are shown.
EUnknownUsed on this page
No reliable evidence found; the search scope is stated.
PProvenanceUsed on this page
Provenance: checked against the primary record. A separate category, not an evidence grade: used for bibliographic facts, legal texts, official metadata, definitions quoted from a standard, the site's own arithmetic and statements about the site's process.

Editorial categories of this site. A–E grade scientific findings, per claim, with a one-line rationale; D and E are not lower rungs of the A–C scale. P is not a grade: it marks facts checked against their primary record.