0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Sign in to save

Nanoplastic Standards

ChemRxiv 2026
E. J. Petersen, J. Pettibone, A. Valsesia, D. Mehn, L. Sung, S. Bremer-Hoffman, F. S. Fumagalli, D. Gilliland, Jr. Goodwin D. G., J. M. Gorham, S. A. Gutierrez Razo, J. Lynch, A. C. Madison, M. P. Sarria, M. G. Schirinzi, M. E. Seeley, E. Stefaniak, S. M. Stavis

Summary

Scientists still don't have reliable, standardized ways to measure tiny plastic particles called nanoplastics—things like exact size, shape, and how toxic they are—which makes it hard to trust or compare results across different studies. This review paper explains why building these measurement standards is so difficult and slow, and offers ideas to speed up the process. Until these standards exist, it's harder to know for certain how nanoplastics affect our health, so this behind-the-scenes work matters for getting trustworthy answers in the future.

Open questions about the potential effects of nanoplastic particles have driven researchers to a frontier of measurement science, where they seek answers without the full support of metrological standards. Documentary and material standards improve the reliability of measurement results but are slow to develop, while researchers are eager to explore and publish. This mismatch motivates efforts to exploit any potential utility of existing standards and to elucidate emerging needs for new standards. Accordingly, we consider possible applications of microplastic and engineered nanomaterial standards to support nanoplastic analysis, and the many challenges of developing new nanoplastic standards. We study corresponding issues in four research activities—physicochemical measurements, reference materials, weathering methods, and toxicity assays. Our integrative perspective elucidates challenges and opportunities. We identify topics that can limit progress, such as measurement uncertainty propagation and process–product–purpose constraints. A focus review of recent literature shows uneven progress in addressing these issues. We suggest opportunities to expedite progress, such as feedback loops for measurand prioritization and uncertainty budgeting, timely development of imperfect standards, and metrological innovation to obviate current constraints. Our study informs the research, development, and application of nanoplastic standards to reliably answer open questions and to support other technological ventures.

Share this paper