The elemental fingerprint as a potential tool for tracking the fate of real-life model nanoplastics generated from plastic consumer products in environmental systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metals and metalloids are widely used in producing plastic materials as fillers and pigments, which can be used to track the environmental fate of real-life nanoplastics in environmental and biological systems. Therefore, this study investigated the metal and metalloids concentrations and fingerprint in real-life model nanoplastics generated from new plastic products (NPP) and from environmentally aged ocean plastic fragments (NPO) using single particle-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (SP-ICP-TOF-MS) and transmission electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (TEM-EDX). The new plastic products include polypropylene straws (PPS), polyethylene terephthalate bottles (PETEB), white low-density polyethylene bags (LDPEB), and polystyrene foam shipping material (PSF). All real-life model nanoplastics contained metal and metalloids, including Si, Al, Sr, Ti, Fe, Ba, Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd, and Cr, and were depleted in rare earth elements. Nanoplastics generated from the white LDPEB were rich in Ti-bearing particles, whereas those generated from PSF were rich in Cr, Ti, and Pb. The Ti/Fe in the LDPEB nanoplastics and the Cr/Fe in the PSF nanoplastics were higher than the corresponding ratios in natural soil nanoparticles (NNPs). The Si/Al ratio in the PSF nanoplastics was higher than in the NNPs, possibly due to silica-based fillers. The elemental ratio of Si/Al, Fe/Cr, and Fe/Ni in the nanoplastics derived from ocean plastic fragments was intermediate between the nanoplastics derived from real-life plastic products and NNPs, indicating a combined contribution from pigments and fillers used in plastics and from natural sources. This study provides a method to track real-life nanoplastics in controlled laboratory studies based on nanoplastic elemental fingerprints. It expands the realm of nanoplastics that can be followed based on their metallic signatures to all kinds of nanoplastics. Additionally, this study illustrates the importance of nanoplastics as a source of metals and metal-containing nanoparticles in the environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".