ReviewPolymers2026
Microplastic Identification Methods for Microfluidic Applications: Towards Rapid Detection in Aquatic Environments.
Review in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The escalating accumulation of microplastics (MPs) in marine ecosystems presents a critical environmental crisis. However, current monitoring efforts rely heavily on labor-intensive, contamination-prone, and time-consuming laboratory analyses. While these conventional off-chip methods provide high accuracy, they inherently lack the throughput and autonomy required for continuous, real-time oceanic surveillance. To bridge this technological gap, microfluidic technologies (Lab-on-a-Chip) provide a viable route towards miniaturized, reagent-free in situ detection with reduced sample volumes and continuous operation capability. This review examines the transition from benchtop to field-deployable platforms and organizes the available microfluidic approaches for MP analysis into a structured overview. We examine on-chip sample manipulation and complementary separation techniques, such as acoustophoresis, dielectrophoresis, and optical tweezers, which are essential for isolating target particles from complex environmental matrices and overcoming intrinsic microfluidic challenges. Following sample preparation, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art optical and spectroscopic identification methods optimized for continuous flow detection. Finally, we address current analytical limitations and discuss how the integration of machine learning with dynamic spectral libraries could enable autonomous, field-deployed monitoring networks for long-term MP surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.