What does this research mean for the field?

While analytical methods for detecting micro- and nanoplastics in water are rapidly diversifying, the transition to field-ready environmental monitoring is currently bottlenecked by a reliance on laboratory-spiked samples, limited nanoplastic detection capabilities, and inadequate monitoring frequencies. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate and compare classical analytical methods and emerging sensor platforms for detecting microplastics and nanoplastics across aquatic matrices.

September 3, 2026ChemosensorsOpen Access

Micro- and Nanoplastic Water Contamination: Comparative Review of Classical Analytical Methods and Advanced Sensors

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

BKBrankica Kartalović JVJasmina Vidić

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Systematic review reveals optical and sensor-based methods dominate micro- and nanoplastic water testing, highlighting widespread reliance on synthetic samples over real environmental water.

Key Points

To evaluate and compare classical analytical methods and emerging sensor platforms for detecting microplastics and nanoplastics across aquatic matrices.
Conducted a PRISMA-guided literature search of Google Scholar and ScienceDirect covering original research articles published between 2021 and mid-2026.
Synthesized and classified 53 studies by analytical detection mechanism, sensor platform, target polymer, size fraction, and sample matrix authenticity.
Optical techniques represented over 50% of published studies, mass spectrometry and electrochemical sensors shared most of the remainder, and biosensors exhibited the most rapid adoption.
Nearly 50% of the literature investigated the nanoplastic fraction, but 70% of water-focused studies tested laboratory-spiked or unspecified matrices instead of natural environmental water.
Sample matrix complexity, nanoplastic size resolution, and automated continuous monitoring were identified as the critical barriers preventing routine environmental deployment.

Cite This Study

Kartalović et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9935d8636c6408cfa7e5ac https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors14090198

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 3, 2026ChemosensorsOpen Access

Micro- and Nanoplastic Water Contamination: Comparative Review of Classical Analytical Methods and Advanced Sensors

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

BKBrankica Kartalović JVJasmina Vidić

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Systematic review reveals optical and sensor-based methods dominate micro- and nanoplastic water testing, highlighting widespread reliance on synthetic samples over real environmental water.

Key Points

To evaluate and compare classical analytical methods and emerging sensor platforms for detecting microplastics and nanoplastics across aquatic matrices.
Conducted a PRISMA-guided literature search of Google Scholar and ScienceDirect covering original research articles published between 2021 and mid-2026.
Synthesized and classified 53 studies by analytical detection mechanism, sensor platform, target polymer, size fraction, and sample matrix authenticity.
Optical techniques represented over 50% of published studies, mass spectrometry and electrochemical sensors shared most of the remainder, and biosensors exhibited the most rapid adoption.
Nearly 50% of the literature investigated the nanoplastic fraction, but 70% of water-focused studies tested laboratory-spiked or unspecified matrices instead of natural environmental water.
Sample matrix complexity, nanoplastic size resolution, and automated continuous monitoring were identified as the critical barriers preventing routine environmental deployment.

Cite This Study

Kartalović et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9935d8636c6408cfa7e5ac https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors14090198

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark