From Policy Prioritization Goals to Scalable Monitoring: Characteristics Needed for Effective Microplastic and Nanoplastic Detection Systems

Abstract

Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) have emerged as contaminants of increasing interest in drinking water, environmental systems, consumer products, and human exposure research. Recent regulatory and scientific initiatives have highlighted the need for improved monitoring capabilities, yet most current analytical approaches remain dependent on specialized laboratory infrastructure, trained personnel, and extensive sample preparation. While laboratory-based methods provide important characterization capabilities, future monitoring programs may require additional attributes including scalability, accessibility, repeatability, and rapid turnaround. This Technical Note examines practical limitations of current monitoring approaches, reviews evidence from recent systematic analyses of microplastic studies, and proposes key characteristics that may be necessary for future large-scale monitoring systems.

  This paper is also available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20586503 Figure 1. Conceptual comparison of monitoring throughput. Conventional laboratory workflows often require large-volume sample collection and centralized analytical processing. Field-deployable monitoring approaches may enable substantially larger numbers of measurements per operator while supporting repeated sampling and broader geographic coverage. Values are presented for illustrative purposes and are intended to demonstrate differences in monitoring scale rather than analytical performance.

Introduction

Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) have become an area of growing scientific, regulatory, and public interest. Numerous studies have reported the presence of plastic particles in environmental waters, food products, consumer goods, and human tissues. As research continues to expand, attention is increasingly shifting from isolated characterization studies toward broader questions of surveillance, exposure assessment, and long-term monitoring.

Recent regulatory initiatives have emphasized the need for improved monitoring capabilities. At the same time, major research programs continue to investigate analytical standards, harmonization strategies, and approaches for generating reliable datasets across diverse environmental matrices.

Despite substantial progress in analytical chemistry, many currently available methods remain concentrated within specialized research laboratories. Consequently, an important distinction has emerged between characterization capacity and monitoring capacity. Characterization focuses on detailed analytical identification of particles, whereas monitoring requires repeated measurements across broad geographic regions, large sample numbers, and extended time periods.

This Technical Note examines practical challenges associated with scalable monitoring and discusses characteristics that future microplastic and nanoplastic monitoring systems may require.

Practical Challenges of Current Monitoring Approaches

Current microplastic characterization methods commonly include:

• Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

• Raman Spectroscopy

• Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (Py-GC/MS)

• Thermal Extraction Desorption-GC/MS (TED-GC/MS)

These methods provide valuable analytical capabilities but often require specialized infrastructure, trained personnel, sample preparation workflows, and dedicated laboratory environments.

Figure 2. Representative Laboratory Infrastructure for Conventional Microplastic Analysis.  Examples of instrumentation commonly used in laboratory-based microplastic characterization. Analytical workflows may require multiple instruments, dedicated laboratory facilities, contamination controls, and highly trained personnel. Capital costs for these systems commonly range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars depending on configuration and supporting infrastructure.

Conventional analytical workflows may require specialized instrumentation and supporting laboratory equipment, including Raman spectroscopy systems, pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS), analytical balances, filtration systems, centrifuges, and controlled laboratory environments. Capital equipment costs may range from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand dollars per instrument, with additional requirements for trained personnel, sample preparation, maintenance, and quality assurance procedures.

In practice, microplastic characterization capacity remains concentrated within a relatively small number of specialized academic, government, and commercial laboratories. Many laboratories operate primarily as research facilities rather than high-throughput monitoring centers.

Consequently, large-scale monitoring initiatives may require analytical capacity beyond what is currently available through existing specialized laboratories alone.

The challenge is not solely instrument availability. Many laboratories currently performing microplastic characterization focus on research, method development, environmental investigations, biological studies, and analytical innovation rather than routine high-volume monitoring. As a result, substantial expansion of monitoring efforts would likely require additional infrastructure, personnel, and complementary monitoring technologies capable of operating outside centralized laboratory settings.

Evidence from Recent Monitoring Studies

A recent systematic review by Nyadjro et al. evaluated 355 peer-reviewed microplastic studies published between 2010 and 2022. The authors identified several important trends relevant to monitoring scalability.

Most notably, the review found that:

“Most studies were based on single-time sampling, limiting long-term analyses.”

The authors also reported substantial variability in sampling methodologies, reporting units, particle characterization approaches, and data-sharing practices.

Importantly, most studies collected relatively modest numbers of samples.

Table 1. Number of Water Samples Collected per Study (Adapted Nyadjro et al., 2026)

Number of Samples per Study	Water Studies (%)
0–20	34.4
20–40	26.8
40–60	15.8
60–100	10.0
100–200	7.2
>200	5.7

More than 60% of water studies analyzed fewer than 40 samples, while fewer than 6% exceeded 200 samples. These findings suggest that although existing analytical methods have generated valuable scientific knowledge, future monitoring programs may require approaches capable of supporting substantially larger numbers of measurements across broader spatial and temporal scales.

Characteristics Needed for Scalable MonitoringAs monitoring efforts expand, future systems may require capabilities beyond analytical identification alone.

Table 2. Desired Characteristics of Future Microplastic Monitoring Systems

Characteristic	Importance
Field Deployable	Enables monitoring outside specialized laboratories
Rapid Results	Supports same-day decision making
Microplastic Detection	Addresses current regulatory priorities
Nanoplastic Detection	Expands coverage to smaller particle sizes
Scalable	Supports regional and national monitoring programs
Accessible	Enables participation by utilities, NGOs, schools, and citizen scientists
Repeatable	Facilitates longitudinal monitoring
Cost Effective	Supports routine testing at larger scales

These characteristics become increasingly important when monitoring programs seek repeated measurements across multiple locations and extended time periods.

Monitoring Capacity Versus Characterization Capacity

A key distinction exists between analytical characterization and practical monitoring.

Characterization methods are optimized to provide detailed information regarding particle composition, morphology, and polymer identity. Monitoring systems, by contrast, must also address:

• Throughput

• Geographic coverage

• Repeat sampling

• Turnaround time

• Cost

• Accessibility

Figure 3. Conceptual comparison of conventional laboratory sampling workflows and field-deployable monitoring approaches. Many laboratory-based microplastic characterization methods utilize large-volume water collection followed by filtration, concentration, shipment, and specialized analytical instrumentation. Field-deployable approaches may utilize smaller sample volumes and support same-day measurements, repeated monitoring, and broader geographic coverage. The figure is intended to illustrate differences in monitoring workflow rather than analytical performance.

Illustrative comparison of monitoring throughput.Laboratory-based workflows frequently involve sample collection, shipment, filtration, concentration, analysis, quality control, and interpretation. Field-deployable monitoring approaches may support substantially higher measurement throughput per operator while enabling same-day results and distributed sampling. Values are intended to illustrate monitoring scale rather than represent formal productivity benchmarks.

Practical Considerations for Future Monitoring ProgramsFuture monitoring frameworks may ultimately extend beyond drinking water to include beverages, consumer products, environmental waters, and other exposure pathways.

Table 3. Monitoring Needs and Potential Requirements

Monitoring Need	Importance
Geographic Coverage	Regional and national surveillance
Repeated Measurements	Trend analysis and temporal tracking
Rapid Turnaround	Timely decision-making
Large Sample Numbers	Population-scale datasets
Multi-Matrix Capability	Water, beverages, and future applications
Data Harmonization	Improved comparability between studies

Consequently, flexible monitoring platforms capable of supporting multiple sample types may become increasingly valuable.

Conclusions

The field of microplastic research is transitioning from isolated analytical characterization studies toward broader questions of surveillance, exposure assessment, and long-term monitoring. Recent systematic reviews suggest that most published studies remain limited to relatively small sample sizes and single-time sampling events, highlighting challenges associated with generating longitudinal datasets at scale.

While laboratory-based methods remain essential for analytical characterization, future monitoring programs may require additional capabilities including scalability, accessibility, repeatability, rapid turnaround, and broad geographic coverage. The challenge facing the field is increasingly one of monitoring rather than detection alone.

Developing monitoring systems that can support repeated measurements across larger spatial and temporal scales may represent an important next step in advancing environmental surveillance and exposure assessment for microplastics and nanoplastics.

Related Technical Notes

1. Practical Challenges of Current Microplastic Detection Approaches for Scalable Monitoring. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20585531

2. EPA Draft CCL 6 Prioritizes Microplastics: Technical and Policy Implications for Reliable Detection in Drinking Water. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20585559

3. EcoExposure™ Alignment with ISO 24187:2023, EPA CCL 6, and EU Directive 2026/805: A Gentle, Field-Deployable Approach to Total Plastic Burden Screening. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20386553

4. Technical Note: Multi-Matrix Feasibility of Microplastic-Nanoplastic Optical Assay in Complex Liquid Systems (Infant Formula Example) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19973991

5. Evaluation of EcoExposure™ Across Challenging Environmental and Drinking Water Matrices.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20470346

Representative References:

1.     Nyadjro ES, et al. Gaps and pathways towards standardized, FAIR microplastic data. Microplastics. 2026;5(1):11. doi:10.3390/microplastics5010011

2.     Ciornii D, et al. Interlaboratory comparison reveals state of the art in microplastic analysis. Anal Chem. 2025;97. doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.4c05403

3.     Zhang R, et al. A review of advancements and challenges in nanoplastics detection and characterization. Cell Rep Phys Sci. 2026;7(1). doi:10.1016/j.xcrp.2025.

4.     Jing S, et al. Standardizing pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry for nanoplastics and microplastics detection to advance environmental research. npj Clean Water. 2025;8. doi:10.1038/s44454-025-00001-5

5.     Umurhan Y, et al. Applications of Raman spectroscopy for microplastic detection and characterization: a comprehensive spectral reference. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2025;32. doi:10.1007/s11356-025-37224-3

6.     Badzoka J, et al. Enabling analytical precision in microplastic analysis: innovative solutions for precise method validation, evaluation and quality control. Microplastics. 2025;4. doi:10.1186/s43591-024-00108-3