standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | PLASTIC PARTICLES IN HUMAN BLOOD - a quantity nobody had measured, in a literature where the two available names for the particles do not have settled definitions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether plastic particles cross into the human bloodstream at all, and whether a method sensitive enough to say so can be built Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | the first mass-concentration measurement of polymers in human blood - 1.6 ug/ml across 22 donors - and the double-shot Py-GC/MS method that produced it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | plastic particles absorbed across membranes and present in circulating blood, at a rate exceeding whatever removes them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | observation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: observation | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | THE INFERENCE THE NUMBER LICENSES IS A RATE COMPARISON, NOT A QUANTITY: finding particles in blood `indicates that ... the rate of elimination via e.g. the biliary tract, kidney or transfer to and deposition in organs is slower than the rate of absorption into the blood`. A standing concentration is evidence about two rates and about neither one alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and the paper is careful about what the blood compartment is: it `remains to be determined whether plastic particles are present in the plasma or are carried by specific cell types`. `In blood` is a location, and the mechanism of carriage is not in evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | blood is the transport route: it irrigates the organs, so a particle that enters it can reach tissues, and its fate is renal or biliary elimination or deposition in liver, spleen or other organs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | capillary diameter sets a physical ceiling on what can circulate, and anything at that size would itself affect microvascular flow Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | particles may be localised in immune cells, stuck to proteins, lipids, each other or the vessel wall - so a mass concentration can be real while duplicates disagree Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE CONSTRUCT'S BOUNDS ARE TWO PHYSICAL OBJECTS AND THE PAPER SAYS SO BEFORE REPORTING A NUMBER: `Our operationally defined method targeted particles that could be retained on a filter with pore size of 700 nm ... The inner diameter of the needle used for venipuncture (0.514 mm) can be considered the upper size limit`. Everything below a filter pore and above a needle bore is outside the finding by construction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE INSTRUMENT DECIDES WHAT EXISTS: `Polypropylene was analysed but values were under the limits of quantification`. Absent from the blood and absent from the instrument are the same sentence here, and the study cannot separate them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the two available names for the object DO NOT HAVE SETTLED DEFINITIONS: `microplastic` has `no universally established definition` and is `often defined as ... up to 5 mm with no defined lower size limit`, while `nanoplastic` means <1 um in this literature and `<100 nm` IN THE NANOTECHNOLOGY FIELD. ONE WORD, TWO FIELDS, TWO THRESHOLDS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the sample is 22 donors and the paper calls it what it is - `a small set of donors` - in the same sentence as the headline concentration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the result is explicitly NOT a risk statement: `no absorption models can be validated and no statements about risk or no risk can be made` without measured internal exposure data. The measurement is a precondition for the question, not an answer to it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the PM2.5/PM10 convention of reporting an operationally defined mass concentration per unit volume is adopted wholesale as the way to quantify plastic in blood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the size window is fixed and declared before any measurement - a 700 nm filter pore below, a 0.514 mm needle bore above Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: any reading of the number as a total; it is the mass of what falls inside two physical limits, and the paper states both · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether polypropylene is absent from blood or below the assay's threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: nothing, and the sentence cannot be made to: 'Polypropylene was analysed but values were under the limits of quantification' · outcome: failed | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether the measurement supports a risk claim Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the risk reading, explicitly and in both directions: 'no statements about risk or no risk can be made' without measured internal exposure data - which this study provides for the first time and which is still only the precondition · outcome: held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | drawing blood through a closed all-glass vacutainer system with a steel needle and no plastic tubing or reservoir Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: plastic contamination introduced by the sampling equipment itself, which would manufacture the very finding being sought · outcome: held | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | identifying the rubber vacutainer seal by ATR-FTIR to establish which polymer it is Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the possibility that the one unavoidable non-glass component contributes to the targeted polymers · outcome: held | controls[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | running the entire sampling system as a field blank before any sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: background contamination attributable to the collection apparatus rather than the donor · outcome: held | controls[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | duplicate extraction and measurement of each sample where volume allowed, with multiple procedural blanks per series Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: single-measurement artefacts and uncorrected background drift between series · outcome: held | controls[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | plastic particles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: plastic particles | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | microplastic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: microplastic | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | nanoplastic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nanoplastic | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pore size of 700 nm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pore size of 700 nm | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | limits of quantification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: limits of quantification | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | human health risk assessment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: human health risk assessment | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | protein corona Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: protein corona | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Py-GC/MS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Py-GC/MS | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | procedural blank Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural blank | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | particulate matter Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: particulate matter | concepts[9] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | field sampling blank Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: field sampling blank | concepts[10] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| senses | `plastic particles` - A TERM THE AUTHORS COIN FOR THEIR OWN USE, because the field's two names will not hold still: `To circumvent the ambiguity of the terms microplastic and nanoplastic particles in this article we will refer to plastic particles and where appropriate define the size or size range`. The remedy for an unstable term is to stop using it and carry the number instead Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `microplastic` - `no universally established definition exists`, and the common one - up to 5 mm - has NO LOWER BOUND AT ALL. A term whose extension is open at one end Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `nanoplastic` - <1 um in this literature, `<100 nm` IN THE NANOTECHNOLOGY FIELD. ONE NAME, TWO FIELDS, A TENFOLD DIFFERENCE IN THE THRESHOLD, and the paper reports both rather than choosing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `a plastic particle in blood`, AS OPERATIONALISED HERE - anything retained on a 700 nm filter and small enough to pass a 0.514 mm needle. THE CONSTRUCT IS BOUNDED BY A FILTER PORE AND A NEEDLE BORE, in the authors' own words, and the phrase they use is `operationally defined` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `under the limits of quantification` - what the paper reports for polypropylene, and the one phrase in the record that cannot be read as a fact about blood. It is a fact about the assay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Leslie and Depledge's and Vethaak and Legler's position that a human health risk assessment for plastic particles is not currently possible for want of exposure data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | plastic particles —operationalised-as→ pore size of 700 nm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: plastic particles · pore size of 700 nm | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE CONSTRUCT IS BOUNDED BY TWO PHYSICAL OBJECTS, IN THE AUTHORS' OWN WORDS: an `operationally defined` method targeting particles retained on a 700 nm FILTER PORE, with a 0.514 mm NEEDLE BORE as the upper limit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | microplastic has no universally established definition and often no lower size limit; nanoplastic means under 1 micrometre here but under 100 nm in nanotechnology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and the authors' remedy is to ABANDON BOTH TERMS: `to circumvent the ambiguity ... we will refer to plastic particles and where appropriate define the size or size range` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1.6 ug/ml mean sum quantifiable concentration across a SMALL SET OF DONORS - the first mass concentration of polymers measured in human blood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | polypropylene was analysed, but its values were under the limits of quantification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | at least some plastic particles can be bioavailable, and their elimination is slower than their absorption into the blood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and the result is explicitly not a risk statement in EITHER direction: `no statements about risk or no risk can be made` without measured internal exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | it remains to be determined whether the particles are in the plasma or carried by specific cell types Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | most available data covers particles above 10 or 50 micrometres Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | earlier FTIR analysis of human faeces showed that micro-sized plastic particles can be excreted via the gut Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no one method fits all, so a combination of methods is required Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | coined to circumvent the ambiguity of `microplastic` and `nanoplastic`, and always carried with an explicit size or size range Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: plastic particles | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no universally established definition; often given as plastic particles up to 5 mm WITH NO DEFINED LOWER SIZE LIMIT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: microplastic | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | nanometres - the filter pore that is the lower bound of the construct Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | millimetres - the venipuncture needle's inner diameter, and the upper bound Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | micrograms per millilitre, mean sum quantifiable concentration in 22 donors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. value source note: THE DESCRIPTION DRAWS ON THE PAPER BEYOND THIS QUOTE: the 22 donors are stated in the abstract ('in human whole blood from 22 healthy volunteers'). | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the proportion of body weight made up by blood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | capillary diameter, which bounds the particle size that can circulate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the number of volunteers and the collection protocol Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | limits of quantification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: limits of quantification | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.