Nanoplastic reference materials for biological and methodological assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plastic particles are pervasive across all environments, yet quantifying their total abundance remains challenging—especially for nanoplastics, which are problematic to separate and detect efficiently. This challenge is further exacerbated by the heterogeneous nature of environmental nanoplastics, making it difficult to determine their biological impacts. Despite these limitations, correlational studies implicate that nanoplastics may pose potential health concerns for both wildlife and humans. Metrological reference materials can be used to address this gap; these standardized plastics enable validation of detection technologies and support biological investigations. One such material has recently been made available (NPPP-1, National Research Council of Canada) with more to follow in the future. These materials are produced using ultrashort laser pulses for laser ablation, a versatile approach for the high-throughput production of nanoplastics. The resulting nanoplastics resemble those found in the environment, exhibiting heterogeneous sizes and shapes, as well as modified chemical fingerprints associated with environmental weathering, while remaining stable in different media, allowing their use in biological and ecotoxicology testing. In both two-dimensional cell culture and three-dimensional organoid models, nanoplastics are shown to have limited effects on cell viability at relatively high number concentrations while activating inflammatory pathways in biological systems. Taken together, it is demonstrated that nanoscale plastics produced using ultrashort laser ablation are fit for purpose for both validating quantification methods and assessing biological activity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".