Nanoplásticos en el medio ambiente: fuentes, impactos y desafíos J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14816616 ISSN: XXXX-XXXX REVIEW ARTICLE Nanoplastics in the environment: sources, impacts, and challenges  Daliannis Rodríguez rcdaly92@gmail.com Received: 09 October 2024 / Accepted: 02 December 2024 / Published online: 31 January 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Daliannis Rodríguez Abstract Nanoplastics, deﬁned as plastic particles with di- mensions less than 1 μm, represent a growing environmental concern due to their ubiquity and potential adverse eﬀects on ecosystems and human health. This review article analy- ses the primary sources of nanoplastics, their distribution in diﬀerent environmental compartments (water, soil, and air), and their mechanisms of toxicity in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Current methodologies for their detection and characterization are also examined, including spectroscopic, chromatographic, and electron microscopy techniques, high- lighting their advantages and limitations. Despite progress in understanding the presence and impact of nanoplastics, signiﬁcant research gaps remain, particularly about their bioaccumulation, interactions with emerging contaminants, and long-term eﬀects on human health. Potential strategies to mitigate their impact are also identiﬁed, such as improved plastic waste management, developing biodegradable mate- rials, and implementing stricter regulatory policies. Devel- oping new detection methods and adopting sustainable strat- egies are essential to reduce the burden of nanoplastics in ecosystems and minimize their risks to public health. Keywords nanoplastics, environmental pollution, ecotoxi- cology, analytical detection, bioaccumulation, health impact. Resumen Los nanoplásticos, deﬁnidos como partículas de plástico con dimensiones inferiores a 1 μm, representan una creciente preocupación ambiental debido a su ubicui- dad y potenciales efectos adversos en los ecosistemas y la salud humana. Este artículo de revisión analiza las princi- pales fuentes de nanoplásticos, su distribución en distintos compartimentos ambientales (agua, suelo y aire) y sus me- canismos de toxicidad en organismos acuáticos y terrestres. Se examinan además las metodologías actuales para su de- tección y caracterización, incluyendo técnicas espectroscó- picas, cromatográﬁcas y de microscopía electrónica, desta- cando sus ventajas y limitaciones. A pesar del avance en la comprensión de la presencia e impacto de los nanoplásticos, persisten vacíos de investigación signiﬁcativos, particular- mente en relación con su bioacumulación, interacciones con contaminantes emergentes y efectos a largo plazo en la sa- lud humana. Asimismo, se identiﬁcan estrategias potenciales para mitigar su impacto, como la mejora en la gestión de re- siduos plásticos, el desarrollo de materiales biodegradables y la implementación de políticas regulatorias más estrictas. El desarrollo de nuevos métodos de detección y la adopción de estrategias sostenibles son esenciales para reducir la carga de nanoplásticos en los ecosistemas y minimizar sus riesgos para la salud pública. Palabras clave nanoplásticos, contaminación ambiental, ecotoxicología, detección analítica, bioacumulación, impac- to en la salud. How to cite Rodríguez, D. (2025). Nanoplastics in the environment: sources, impacts, and challenges. Journal of Advances in Education, Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14816616 Universidad UTE, campus Manabí, Montecristi, Ecuador.

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 34 Introduction Plastic pollution is an environmental and public health challenge that has escalated to critical levels. In particular, nanoplastics, deﬁned as plastic particles of nanometric size (<100 nm), pose a unique threat related to their ability to biological systems interaction at the cellular and molecular levels. These interactions can trigger complex toxic eﬀects in various organisms, including physiological alterations and cellular damage (Gigault et al., 2018). Despite the growing interest in microplastic research (Castañeta et al., 2020), studies on nanoplastics are still limited, making it diﬃcult to understand their distribution, persistence, and toxicity. Two main sources of nanoplastics have been identiﬁed: primary nanoplastics, manufactured for speciﬁc applications such as cosmetics or industrial coatings, and secondary nanoplastics, formed by the fragmentation of larger plastics through mechanical, chemical, or photo-oxi- dative processes (Amobonye et al., 2021). Given their mobility and ubiquity, nanoplastics have been detected in various environmental compartments, such as water, air, soil, and human foods (Allen et al., 2022). This raises serious concerns about their ecological and human health impacts, including risks of bioaccumulation, cellular inﬂammation, and potential genetic alterations. This article aims to analyze nanoplastics in terms of their sources, environmental distribution, toxic eﬀects, detection methods, and research gaps to identify strategies that reduce their impact on ecosystems and public health. Sources and generation of nanoplastics Nanoplastics are classiﬁed according to their origin as primary and secondary and are generated and released into the environment through multiple pathways, increasing their presence in various settings. Primary nanoplastics are in- tentionally produced for industrial applications, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. In contrast, secondary nanoplastics are generated from the degradation of larger plastics through mechanical, chemical, and photo-oxidative processes (Ziani et al., 2023). The release of nanoplastics into the environ- ment occurs through various pathways, including the wash- ing of synthetic textiles, the fragmentation of plastic contain- ers, and the dispersion of paints and coatings. Primary nanoplastics The most notable uses of primary nanoplastics include industrial, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and personal care ap- plications. They manufacture advanced products such as water-resistant coatings, reinforced materials, and electron- ics in the industry. In cosmetics and personal care products, they are used as microbeads or plastic nanoparticles added to exfoliants, toothpaste, and sunscreens; these particles act as abrasives, stabilizers, or controlled release agents for active ingredients (Karbalaei et al., 2018). They are also employed in drug encapsulation to improve bioavailability or target the release to speciﬁc tissues. Al- though these materials are designed for functional applica- tions, their release mainly occurs during the manufacturing process, use, or improper disposal of products, facilitating their entry into the environment. Secondary nanoplastics Secondary nanoplastics are generated from the fragmenta- tion of larger plastics due to various degradative processes. These include mechanical processes such as physical wear caused by abrasion on roads, the crushing of plastic waste, and maritime activities like ﬁshing and transportation. Chem- ical degradation occurs when polymers react with chemical agents present in the environment, such as oxidants and free radicals, causing their breakdown into smaller particles. Ad- ditionally, photooxidation, catalyzed by the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) light, decomposes polymer chains into nanoparticles, a phenomenon particularly common in plastics exposed in aquatic and terrestrial environments. The gradual fragmenta- tion of macro and microplastics creates nanometric particles, increasing transport risk to higher trophic levels and their accumulation in biological tissues (Rashed et al., 2023). Distribution and transformation in the envi- ronment Due to their small size, nanoplastics are highly mobile and can be widely distributed across various environmental com- partments, such as water, soil, and air (Brewer et al., 2021). Additionally, their persistence is inﬂuenced by factors such as chemical composition, environmental conditions, and in- teractions with other pollutants. The persistence of nanoplastics in the environment raises fundamental questions about their degradation rates and the products resulting from their transformation. These factors are key to understanding their ecological impact and life cy- cle, as they determine how long they remain in ecosystems and how they interact with living organisms. One of the main challenges is their slow degradation. Nanoplastics are highly resistant to chemical, biological, and photo-oxidative degradation processes, which prolong

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 35 their presence in the environment and increase their potential for bioaccumulation. Their stability allows them to persist in diﬀerent environments for long periods, facilitating their dispersion and possible incorporation into trophic chains. Moreover, under environmental conditions, nanoplastics can undergo surface transformations, such as oxidation or the formation of bioﬁlms. These modiﬁcations can alter their behavior and toxicity, aﬀecting their interaction with micro- organisms and other aquatic organisms. A study analyzing the degradation rates of nanoplastics in simulated seawater found that after one year of exposure, only 5% of the particles exhibited signiﬁcant chemical al- terations. This ﬁnding highlights their persistence and the risk of accumulation in marine ecosystems, emphasizing the need to understand their long-term impact better (Tosetto et al., 2022). Ecological impact Studies indicate that nanoplastics can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms, aﬀecting their physiology and behavior. They can also alter soil microbial communities, compro- mising soil fertility and ecosystem health. Nanoplastics can cross biological membranes and generate inﬂammatory re- sponses and cellular damage in model organisms (Jayavel et al., 2024). Nanoplastics also signiﬁcantly impact terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in the soil, where they interact with microorganisms, aﬀecting soil fertility and biogeochemical cycles. Bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms Nanoplastics can be accidentally ingested by various aquatic organisms, from zooplankton to ﬁsh, by confusing them with food particles. When absorbed and retained in aquatic organisms, bioaccumulation occurs. This ingestion can lead to intestinal blockages, reduced nutrient absorption, and changes in feeding behavior. As they accumulate in the food chain, these particles can aﬀect higher predators, in- cluding birds and marine mammals (Trevisan et al., 2022). A study on oysters Crassostrea gigas exposed to polysty- rene nanoplastics showed a signiﬁcant reduction in their re- productive capacity. The results indicated that the particles accumulated in the gills and digestive system, aﬀecting nu- trient ﬁltration and causing oxidative stress in the organisms (Cole et al., 2015). Alteration of soil microbial communities It has been shown that nanoplastics in agricultural soils can negatively aﬀect plant growth by generating oxidative stress and metabolic alterations. The chemical compounds released by these materials cause cellular and genetic damage, and their presence modiﬁes the soil conditions, impacting its fer- tility. Combining diﬀerent microplastics can enhance their toxicity (Russo et al., 2023). A study on soils treated with polyethylene nanoplastics showed alterations in the compo- sition and activity of microbial communities, reducing the soil’s ability to process organic matter (Bodor et al., 2024). Toxic impact on human health Chronic exposure to nanoplastics generates uncertainty regarding their long-term eﬀects on human health, although the lack of longitudinal data and standardized methodologies limits their study. Key areas of uncertainty include bioaccu- mulation, meaning the ability of nanoplastics to accumulate in human tissues with potential eﬀects on speciﬁc organs; transgenerational eﬀects, suggesting a potential impact on the health of future generations due to maternal exposure; and combined eﬀects arising from the interaction of nano- plastics with other pollutants or environmental factors. An experiment conducted on mice chronically exposed to nano- plastics showed metabolic alterations, liver dysfunction, and changes in the gut microbiome, highlighting the need for long-term studies in humans (Lu et al., 2020). The accumulation of nanoplastics in organs has been stud- ied in animal models, where their presence has been ob- served in the liver, kidneys, brain, and lungs. This accumu- lation has been linked to oxidative stress, inﬂammation, and liver toxicity (Haldar et al., 2023). Exposure to nanoplastics could lead to infertility, possibly related to potential epigen- etic changes. Routes of exposure to nanoplastics include inhalation and ingestion. Inhaled particles may come from sources such as tire wear, fragmentation of synthetic textiles, and industrial activity. Once in the air, they can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs, possibly entering the bloodstream, depending on their size. A study in urban environments identiﬁed an asso- ciation between exposure to plastic particles in the air and an increased risk of chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma and pulmonary ﬁbrosis (Li et al., 2022). Ingestion is another important route of exposure, with food and water being the primary sources through which nano- plastics enter the digestive system. These particles have been identiﬁed in ﬁsh, shellﬁsh, table salt, and bottled water prod- ucts. Research has detected concentrations of up to 10,000 particles per liter in bottled water, indicating a high exposure through this route (Mason et al., 2018). Similarly, in shell-

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 36 ﬁsh such as mussels and clams, nanoplastic accumulation has been demonstrated, and nanoplastics are subsequently consumed by humans (Cauwenberghe & Janssen, 2014). Identiﬁed adverse eﬀects Nanoplastics can induce oxidative stress by generating re- active oxygen species (ROS), which damage cellular com- ponents such as lipids, proteins, and DNA. This mechanism has been linked to the development of chronic diseases, in- cluding cancer, diabetes, and neurodegenerative conditions (Kadac-Czapska et al., 2024). A study on human cell lines demonstrated that polystyrene nanoplastics can induce oxi- dative stress and mitochondrial damage in intestinal epitheli- al cells (Schirinzi et al., 2017). In addition to oxidative stress, exposure to nanoplastics can trigger inﬂammatory responses in various body tissues. Their accumulation in organs such as the intestine, lungs, and liver can activate the immune system, promoting chron- ic inﬂammation. In an in vitro model, it was observed that polyethylene nanoplastics induced a strong inﬂammatory re- sponse in human immune cells, similar to the response trig- gered by bacterial pathogens (Stock et al., 2019). Another risk associated with nanoplastics is that they can cross biological barriers, such as intestinal and blood-brain barriers, allowing them to accumulate in speciﬁc organs and cause toxicity. A study on mice exposed to polystyrene nanoplastics revealed their presence in the liver, kidneys, and brain, resulting in liver inﬂammation, renal damage, and neurological alterations (Lu et al., 2024). Challenges in risk assessment Research on the eﬀects of nanoplastics on human health faces several limitations. There is a lack of data from human studies, as most research has been conducted on animal mod- els or in vitro systems. This lack of direct evidence makes it diﬃcult to extrapolate the results to the human population. In many studies, the doses and concentrations of nanoplastics used were signiﬁcantly higher than those of daily exposure, which may generate uncertainty about the risks (Yee et al., 2021). Another limitation is the lack of analytical standards for detecting and quantifying nanoplastics in biological and en- vironmental matrices. Currently, there is no consensus on the most appropriate methods for their analysis, which compli- cates comparing results between studies and hinders accu- rate risk assessment of these pollutants. Inﬂammatory responses and cellular damage Due to their small size, nanoplastics can traverse various biological membranes, including the intestinal, blood-brain, and cellular barriers. This ability facilitates their distribution within the body and can lead to inﬂammatory responses and damage to organs and tissues. A real example of this phe- nomenon was observed in an experiment with zebraﬁsh (Da- nio rerio), where polystyrene nanoplastics induced intestinal inﬂammation and liver damage. Additionally, particles were found in the ﬁsh’s brain, suggesting that the nanoplastics could cross the blood-brain barrier (Mattsson et al., 2017). The eﬀects of nanoplastics on model organisms include generating ROS, which causes oxidative stress and cellular damage. Their accumulation in sensitive tissues can trigger chronic inﬂammation, contributing to various pathologies. Another observed toxicity mechanism is apoptosis, or pro- grammed cell death, induced by the direct interaction of nanoplastics with intracellular structures (Geremia et al., 2023). The ecological and toxic eﬀects of nanoplastics not only impact biodiversity and ecosystem stability but pose poten- tial risks to human health. Bioaccumulation in aquatic or- ganisms, the alteration of microbial communities in soil, and inﬂammatory responses in model organisms emphasize the need for urgent action (Habumugisha et al., 2024). To mit- igate these impacts, it is essential to reduce the release of nanoplastics into the environment through better waste man- agement practices, promote the development of alternative biodegradable materials, and establish stricter regulations on using primary plastics in commercial products. Implement- ing these actions immediately is crucial to prevent irrevers- ible ecological damage and protect public health in the future (Kumar et al., 2021). Speciﬁc toxicity mechanisms of nanoplastics Several factors complicate the assessment of their toxicity. One of them is the chemical and physical heterogeneity of nanoplastics, as they vary in composition (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene), size, shape, and surface properties, which inﬂuences how they interact with biological systems (Xuan et al., 2023). Nanoplastics can adsorb chemical or biological contaminants, acting as carriers for toxic substances and in- directly increasing their harmful potential. A study conducted on a human cell model demonstrated that polystyrene nanoplastics altered the permeability of the cell membrane, facilitating the absorption of heavy metals

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 37 such as cadmium. The toxicity of nanoplastics depends on their intrinsic properties and the contaminants they carry, which ampliﬁes their negative impact on exposed organisms (Masson et al., 2023). Analytical techniques for nanoplastic detection The detection, quantiﬁcation, and characterization of nanoplastics in food, pharmaceuticals, and other complex matrices allow their health and environmental impact eval- uation. These particles present analytical challenges due to their nanometric size, chemical and physical heterogeneity, and interactions with the matrices in which they are present. The most commonly used techniques are transmission elec- tron microscopy (TEM), Raman spectroscopy and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), and chromatog- raphy coupled with mass spectrometry (Berkel & Özbek, 2024). Transmission electron microscopy TEM is a technique for directly observing nanoplastics, allowing high-resolution images to be obtained to determine their size, morphology, and surface characteristics. Its prin- ciple uses an electron beam that passes through an ultrathin sample, generating a detailed image of the nanometric par- ticles (Mariano et al., 2021). Its advantages include high resolution and the ability to reveal morphological details, although its use involves limitations such as the need for ultrathin samples, high costs, and technically complex op- eration. Raman spectroscopy Spectroscopic techniques are essential for identifying the chemical composition of nanoplastics by analyzing their mo- lecular vibrations. Based on the Raman eﬀect, Raman spec- troscopy measures the inelastic scattering of laser light as it interacts with the sample, providing information on the mo- lecular vibrations of polymers (Nava et al., 2021). A study conducted by Mason et al. (2018) used this technique to ana- lyze the content of nanoplastics in bottled water, identifying polystyrene and polyethylene particles with sizes smaller than 1 μm. Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy FTIR spectroscopy is a technique that measures the ab- sorption of infrared light by the molecules of a sample, gen- erating a characteristic spectrum that allows the identiﬁcation of the present polymers (Kassem et al., 2023). Van Cauwen- berghe and Janssen (2014) used FTIR to analyze mussels in- tended for human consumption, conﬁrming the presence of polypropylene nanoplastics with an average concentration of 2.2 particles per gram of tissue. Among its advantages, this technique is non-destructive and proper for qualitative and quantitative analysis, although its resolution may be limited for extremely small particles, especially those smaller than 1 μm. Chromatography coupled with mass spec- trometry Gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography coupled with mass spec- trometry (LC-MS) is a technique used to analyze the ther- mal degradation products of nanoplastics, providing detailed information about their chemical composition. Its principle is based on the thermal or chemical decomposition of nano- plastics (Niu et al., 2024), which releases monomers that are then separated by chromatography and analyzed by mass spectrometry for identiﬁcation. Among its advantages, this technique oﬀers high sensi- tivity and speciﬁcity for identifying polymers and additives. However, it has limitations, such as the need for sample pre- treatment and the inability to detect intact particles in some cases. Comparison of the techniques The analysis of nanoplastics in food and pharmaceuti- cals requires advanced analytical techniques that allow for their identiﬁcation, characterization, and quantiﬁcation at trace levels. Table 1 compares three key methods in this ﬁeld: TEM, Raman/FTIR spectroscopy, and gas or liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS/ LC-MS). Each of these techniques provides complementary information for detecting nanoplastics in complex matrices. TEM is one of the most commonly used tools for morpho- logical characterization and size determination of nanoplas- tics in food and pharmaceuticals. Its nanometric resolution allows for the visualization of structures with high precision, which is crucial for conﬁrming the presence of plastic parti- cles in consumer products. However, its main limitation lies in the need to prepare ultrathin samples, which can alter the distribution of particles or even induce artifacts during ob- servation. Raman spectroscopy and FTIR spectroscopy are widely used for the chemical identiﬁcation of nanoplastics. Their

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 38 non-destructive nature and fast analysis make them particu- larly useful for detecting micro and nanoplastics in processed foods and pharmaceutical formulations. However, they pres- ent limited spatial resolution, especially for particles at the nanometric scale (<1 μm), which complicates the identiﬁ- cation of smaller fragments and can cause interference with other components of the food or pharmaceutical matrix. On the other hand, Gas or Liquid Chromatography cou- pled with Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS/LC-MS) is a refer- ence technique for identifying polymers through the thermal or chemical decomposition of nanoplastics into their mono- mers or characteristic fragments. Its high sensitivity allows for detecting ultra-low concentrations in food and pharma- ceuticals, which is crucial for assessing human exposure to these particles. However, one of its main limitations is that the analysis is indirect, as it requires the degradation of nano- plastics into their essential components, which may hinder the precise identiﬁcation of the original polymer structure. Detecting nanoplastics in food and pharmaceuticals re- quires combining analytical techniques to address their phys- ical and chemical complexity. TEM microscopy provides morphological information, while spectroscopic techniques (Raman and FTIR) identify the chemical composition. Meanwhile, chromatography coupled with mass spectrom- etry complements these techniques by analyzing thermal de- composition products. The integration of these techniques allows for robust char- acterization, facilitating the assessment of risks associated with neoplastic contamination and promoting strategies to reduce their presence in consumer products. Table 2 shows the type and concentration of nanoplastics detected in some foods. Conclusions Despite the advancements in research, uncertainties about the toxicity mechanisms, degradation rates, and long-term eﬀects of nanoplastics on human health underscore the ur- gent need for more studies. These emerging pollutants, with signiﬁcant implications for ecosystems and health, require an interdisciplinary approach that combines scientiﬁc research, environmental regulation, and public education. Developing standardized methodologies and assessing chronic impacts are essential for fully understanding the associated risks and designing eﬀective mitigation strategies, including reducing plastic production, promoting alternative materials, and strengthening waste management. Nanoplastics represent an emerging concern due to their ubiquity in the environment and their potential impact on human health and ecosystems. However, despite scientiﬁc progress, several areas of uncer- tainty persist, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the associated risks. These uncertainties are related to toxici- ty mechanisms, environmental degradation rates, and long- term eﬀects on human health. Below, each of these points is analyzed and explored in greater detail. References Allen, S., Allen, D., Karbalaei, S., Maselli, V., & Walker, T. R. (2022). Micro(nano)plastics sources, fate, and eﬀects: What we know after ten years of research. Jour- nal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 6, 100057. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100057 Amobonye, A., Bhagwat, P., Raveendran, S., Singh, S., & Pi- llai, S. (2021). Environmental Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics: A Current Overview. Frontiers in Mi- crobiology, 12, 768297. http://www.doi.org/10.3389/ fmicb.2021.768297 Berkel, C., & Özbek, O. (2024). Methods used in the identi- Table 1. Comparison of analytical techniques for the detection and characterization of nanoplastics in food and pharma- ceuticals Technique Main uses Advantages Limitations TEM Morphology and size Nanometric resolution Ultrathin samples required Raman/FTIR Chemical identiﬁcation Non-destructive, fast Limited resolution (<1 μm) GC-MS/LC-MS Chemical composition through decomposition High sensitivity Indirect analysis

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 39 ﬁcation and quantiﬁcation of micro(nano)plastics from water environments. South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, 50, 388-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sa- jce.2024.09.010 Bodor, A., Feigl, G., Kolossa, B., Mészáros, E., Laczi, K., Kovács, E., Perei, K., Rákhely, G. (2024). Suelos en peligro: impactos y riesgos ecológicos de la contamina- ción por (micro)plásticos en el medio terrestre. Ecotoxi- cología y seguridad ambiental, 269, 115807. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.115807 Brewer, A., Dror, I., & Berkowitz, B. (2021). The Mobility of Plastic Nanoparticles in Aqueous and Soil Environ- ments: A Critical Review. ACS EST Water, 1(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00130 Castañeta, G., Gutiérrez, A. F., Nacaratte, F., & Manzano, C. A. (2020). Microplásticos: un contaminante que crece en todas las esferas ambientales, sus características y posibles riesgos para la salud pública por exposición. Revista Boliviana de Química, 37(3), 160-175. https:// www.redalyc.org/journal/4263/426365043004/html/ Catarino,A. I., Macchia, V., Sanderson, W. G., Thompson, R. C., & Henry, T. B. (2018). Low levels of micro- plastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP inges- tion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household ﬁbres fallout during a meal. Environmental Pollution, 237, 675-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en- vpol.2018.02.069 De Witte, B., Devriese, L., Bekaert, K., Hoﬀman, S., Van- dermeersch, G., Cooreman, K., & Robbens, J. (2014). Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types. Ma- rine Pollution Bulletin, 85(1), 146-155. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.006 Geremia, E., Muscari Tomajoli, M. T., Murano, C., Petito, A., & Fasciolo, G. (2023). The Impact of Micro- and Nanoplastics on Aquatic Organisms: Mechanisms of Oxidative Stress and Implications for Human Heal- th—A Review. Environments, 10(9), 161. https://doi. org/10.3390/environments10090161 Gigault, J., Halle,A. T., Baudrimont, M., Pascal, P. Y., Gau- Table 2. Concentration of nanoplastics detected in some foods Reference Plastic material Contaminated foods Nanoplastic concentration Karami et al. (2017) PE, PP, PS Fish, seafood 0.3-0.9 particles/g Liebezeit & Liebezeit (2013) PE, PP Honey 0.166 ± 0.138 ﬁbers/g Liebezeit & Liebezeit (2014) PE, PP Sugar, table salt 0.44 ± 0.33 particles/kg (salt); 0.11 ± 0.08 particles/kg (sugar) Kosuth et al. (2018) PET, PP Bottled water 10.4 particles/L Mason et al. (2018) PET, PP Tap water 5.45 particles/L Liebezeit & Liebezeit (2015) PE, PP Beer 0-14.3 particles/L Catarino et al. (2018) PE, PP Mussels 0.36 ± 0.07 particles/g Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen (2014) PE, PP Mussels, oysters 0.36 ± 0.07 particles/g (mussels); 0.47 ± 0.16 particles/g (oysters) Karami et al. (2018) PE, PP Fish 1-7 particles/ﬁsh Schwabl et al. (2019) PE, PP Human feces (indicative of food intake) 20 particles/10 g of feces Peixoto et al. (2019) PE, PP Table salt 0-1674 particles/kg Iñiguez et al. (2017) PE, PP Table salt 50-280 particles/kg Karbalaei et al. (2019) PE, PP Fish, seafood 0.2-0.8 particles/g Gündoğdu (2018) PE, PP Table salt 16-84 particles/kg Yang et al. (2015) PE, PP Table salt 550-681 particles/kg Liebezeit & Dubaish (2012) PE, PP Seafood 0.2-0.5 particles/g Rochman et al. (2015) PE, PP Fish, seafood 2.1 particles/ﬁsh Van Cauwenberghe et al. (2015) PE, PP Seafood 0.36 ± 0.07 particles/g De Witte et al. (2014) PE, PP, PS Mussels 0.26 ± 0.20 particles/g

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 40 ﬀre, F., Phi, T. L., El Hadri, H., Grassl, B., & Reynaud, S. (2018). Current opinion: What is a nanoplastic? En- vironmental Pollution, 35, 1030-1034. http://www.doi. org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.024 Gündoğdu, S. (2018). Contamination of table salts from Turkey with microplastics. Food Additives & Contami- nants: Part A, 35(5), 1006-1014. https://doi.org/10.108 0/19440049.2018.1447694 Habumugisha, T., Zhang, Z., Uwizewe, C., Yan, C., Ndayi- shimiye, J.C., Rehman, A., & Zhang, X. (2024). Toxi- cological review of micro- and nano-plastics in aquatic environments: Risks to ecosystems, food web dynamics and human health. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 278, 116426. https://doi.org/10.3390/10.1016/j. ecoenv.2024.116426 Haldar, S., Yhome, N., Muralidaran, Y., Rajagopal, S., & Mishra, P. (2023). Nanoplastics Toxicity Speciﬁc to Liver in Inducing Metabolic Dysfunction-A Compre- hensive Review. Genes (Basel), 14(3), 590. https://doi. org/10.3390/genes14030590 Iñiguez, M. E., Conesa, J. A., & Fullana, A. (2017). Mi- croplastics in Spanish table salt. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7, 8620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09128-x Jayavel, S., Govindaraju, B., Michael, J. R., & Viswanathan, B. (2024). Impacts of micro and nanoplastics on human health. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 48, 110 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-024-01268- 1 Kadac-Czapska, K., Ośko, J., Knez, E., & Grembecka, M. (2024). Microplastics and Oxidative Stress-Current Problems and Prospects. Antioxidants (Basel), 13(5), 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox13050579 Karami, A., Golieskardi, A., Choo, C. K., Larat, V., Ga- lloway, T. S., & Salamatinia, B. (2017). The presen- ce of microplastics in commercial salts from diﬀerent countries. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7, 46173. https://doi. org/10.1038/srep46173 Karami, A., Golieskardi, A., Ho, Y. B., Larat, V., & Salama- tinia, B. (2018). Microplastics in eviscerated ﬂesh and excised organs of dried ﬁsh. Scientiﬁc Reports, 8, 7263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25519-7 Karbalaei, S., Golieskardi, A., Hamzah, H. B., Abdulwahid, S., Hanachi, P., & Walker, T. R. (2019). Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in commercial marine ﬁsh from Malaysia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 148, 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.07.061 Karbalaei, S., Hanachi, P., Walker, T. R., & Cole M. (2018). Occurrence, sources, human health impacts and mitiga- tion of microplastic pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 36046-36063. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-018-3508-7 Kassem, A., Abbas, L., Coutinho, O., Opara, S., Najaf, H., Kasperek, D., Pokhrel, K., Li, X., & Tiquia-Arashiro, S. (2023). Applications of Fourier Transform-Infrared spectroscopy in microbial cell biology and environ- mental microbiology: advances, challenges, and future perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, 1304081. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1304081 Kosuth, M., Mason, S. A., & Wattenberg, E. V. (2018). Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE, 13(4), e0194970. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194970 Kumar, R., Verma, A., Shome, A., Sinha, R., Sinha, S., Jha, P. K., Kumar, R., Kumar, P., Shubham, Das, S., Sharma, P., & Vara Prasad, P. V. (2021). Impacts of Plastic Pollu- tion on Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development Goals, and Need to Focus on Circular Economy and Po- licy Interventions. Sustainability, 13(17), 9963. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13179963 Li,Y., Shi, T., Li, X., Sun, H., Xia, X., Ji, X., Zhang, J., Liu, M., Lin, Y., Zhang, R., Zheng, Y., & Tang, J. (2022). Inhaled tire-wear microplastic particles induced pulmo- nary ﬁbrotic injury via epithelial cytoskeleton rearran- gement. Environment International, 164, 107257. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107257 Liebezeit, G., & Dubaish, F. (2012). Microplastics in bea- ches of the East Frisian islands Spiekeroog and Kache- lotplate. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 89(1), 213-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00128-012-0642-7 Liebezeit, G., & Liebezeit, E. (2013). Non-pollen particu- lates in honey and sugar. Food Additives & Contami- nants: Part A, 30(12), 2136-2140. https://doi.org/10.10 80/19440049.2013.843025 Liebezeit, G., & Liebezeit, E. (2014). Synthetic particles as contaminants in German beers. Food Additives & Con- taminants: Part A, 31(9), 1574-1578. https://doi.org/10 .1080/19440049.2014.945099 Liebezeit, G., & Liebezeit, E. (2015). Contamination of ho- ney with microplastics. Environmental Pollution, 209, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.011 Lu, Y. Y., Lu, L., Ren, H. Y., Hua, W., Zheng, N., Huang, F.Y., Wang, J., Tian, M., & Huang, Q. (2024). The si- ze-dependence and reversibility of polystyrene nano- plastics-induced lipid accumulation in mice: Possible roles of lysosomes. Environment International, 185, 108532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108532 Mariano, S., Tacconi, S., Fidaleo, M., Rossi, M., & Dini, L.

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 41 (2021). Micro and Nanoplastics Identiﬁcation: Classic Methods and Innovative Detection Techniques. Fron- tiers in Toxicology, 3, 636640. https://doi.org/10.3389/ ftox.2021.636640 Mason, S.A., Welch, V. G., & Neratko, J. (2018). Synthe- tic polymer contamination in bottled water. Fron- tiers in Chemistry, 6, 407. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fchem.2018.00407 Masson, D., Pédrot, M., Davranche, M., Cabello-Hurtado, F., & Ryzhenko, N. (2023). Are nanoplastics potentially toxic for plants and rhizobiota? Current knowledge and recommendations. NanoImpact, 31, 100473. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2023.100473 Mattsson, K., Johnson, E. V., Malmendal, A., Linse, S., Hansson, L-A, & Cedervall, T. (2017). Brain damage and behavioural disorders in ﬁsh induced by plastic na- noparticles delivered through the food chain. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7, 11452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017- 10813-0 Nava, V., Frezzotti, M.L., & Leoni, B. (2021). Raman Spec- troscopy for the Analysis of Microplastics in Aquatic Systems. Applied Spectroscopy, 75(11), 1341-1357. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1177/00037028211043119 Niu, S., Liu, R., Zhao, Q., Gagan, S., Dodero, A., Ying, Q., Ma, X., Cheng, Z., China, S., Canagaratna, M., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Quantifying the Chemical Com- position and Real-Time Mass Loading of Nanoplastic Particles in the Atmosphere Using Aerosol Mass Spec- trometry. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(7), 3363-3374. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c10286 Peixoto, D., Pinheiro, C., Amorim, J., Oliva-Teles, L., & Santos, S. A. (2019). Microplastic pollution in commer- cial salt for human consumption: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 219, 161-168. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.01.018 Rashed, A. H., Yesilay, G., Hazeem, L., Rashdan, S., AlMea- lla, R., Kilinc, Z., Ali, F., Abdulrasool, F., & Kamel, A. H. (2023). Micro- and Nano-Plastics Contaminants in the Environment: Sources, Fate, Toxicity, Detection, Remediation, and Sustainable Perspectives. Water, 15(20), 3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15203535 Rochman, C. M., Tahir, A., Williams, S. L., Baxa, D. V., Lam, R., Miller, J. T., Teh, F. C., Werorilangi, S., & The, S. J. (2015). Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and ﬁbers from textiles in ﬁsh and bivalves sold for human consumption. Scientiﬁc Reports, 5, 14340. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14340 Russo, M., Oliva, M., Hussain, M. I., & Muscolo, A. (2023). The hidden impacts of micro/nanoplastics on soil, crop and human health. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 14, 00870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jafr.2023.100870 Schirinzi, G. F., Pérez-Pomeda, I., Sanchís, J., Rossini, C., Farré, M., & Barceló, D. (2017). Cytotoxic eﬀects of commonly used nanomaterials and microplastics on cerebral and epithelial human cells. Environmental Research, 159, 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en- vres.2017.08.043 Schwabl, P., Köppel, S., Königshofer, P., Bucsics, T., Trau- ner, M., Reiberger, T., & Liebmann, B. (2019). Detec- tion of various microplastics in human stool: A prospec- tive case series. Annals of Internal Medicine, 171(7), 453-457. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-0618 Stock, V., Böhmert, L., Lisicki, E., Block, R., Cara-Carmo- na, J., Pack, L. K., Selb, R., Lichtenstein, D., Voss, L., Henderson, C. J., Zabinsky, E., Sieg, H., Braeuning, A., & Lampen, A. (2019). Uptake and eﬀects of orally in- gested polystyrene microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo. Archives of Toxicology, 93(7), 1817-1833. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02478-7 Trevisan, R., Ranasinghe, P., Jayasundara, N., & Di Giulio, R. T. (2022). Nanoplastics in Aquatic Environments: Impacts on Aquatic Species and Interactions with Envi- ronmental Factors and Pollutants. Toxics, 10(6), https:// doi.org/10.3390/toxics10060326 Van Cauwenberghe, L., & Janssen, C. R. (2014). Micro- plastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental Pollution, 193, 65-70. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010 Van Cauwenberghe, L., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., & Janssen, C. R. (2015). Microplastics in sedi- ments: A review of techniques, occurrence and eﬀects. Environmental Pollution, 199, 10-19. https://doi.or- g/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.031 Xuan, L., Ju, Z., Skonieczna, M., Zhou, P. K., & Huang, R. (2023). Nanoparticles-induced potential toxicity on human health: Applications, toxicity mechanisms, and evaluation models. MedComm, 4(4), e327. https://doi. org/10.1002/mco2.327 Yang, D., Shi, H., Li, L., Li, J., Jabeen, K., & Kolandhasamy, P. (2015). Microplastic pollution in table salts from China. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(22), 13622-13627. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03163 Yee, M. S., Hii, L. W., Looi, C. K., Lim, W. M., Wong, S. F., Kok, Y. Y., Tan, B. K., Wong, C. Y., & Leong, C. O. (2021). Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 33-42 42 Human Health. Nanomaterials (Basel), 11(2), 496. ht- tps://doi.org/10.3390/nano11020496 Ziani, K., Ioniță-Mîndrican, C. B., Mititelu, M., Neacșu, S. M., Negrei, C., Moroșan, E., Drăgănescu, D., & Pre- da, O. T. (2023). Microplastics: A Real Global Threat for Environment and Food Safety: A State of the Art Review. Nutrients, 15(3), 617. https://doi.org/10.3390/ nu15030617 Conﬂicts of interest The author declares that she has no conﬂict of interest. Author contributions Daliannis Rodríguez: Conceptualization, research, me- thodology, visualization, writing the original draft, writing, review and editing. Data availability statement Not applicable. Statement on the use of AI The author acknowledges the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla- rity of the article. Disclaimer/Editor’s note The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi- cations are solely those of the individual authors and contri- butors and not of Journal of Advances in Education, Scien- ces and Humanities. Journal of Advances in Education, Sciences and Humani- ties and/or the editors disclaim any responsibility for any in- jury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the content.