Persistent plastic micro- and nanoparticle (MNP) pollution poses a serious threat to global health. Yet they typically cannot be considered in conventional life cycle assessments (LCAs), which weakens decision-making. To avoid waiting for consensus on the MNPs’ fate and impacts required by LCA, an innovative framework has been developed to conservatively estimate the plastic particle footprint (PPF), i.e., the total MNP emissions during the plastic’s lifetime of an item, up to the very long-term fate. Reporting the PPF as an elementary flow alongside other indicators shows to improve the ability to weigh up the alternatives’ benefits. Applying the calculation to four everyday items—kettles, crates, beverage containers, and T-shirts—radically changes the best material option for the three of them whose carbon footprints are close. This also raises trade-off questions such as: Are the 280 grams of greenhouse gas emissions saved by using a reusable plastic crate instead of a wood crate worth the 21 grams of additional MNP pollution?
Guillard et al. (2026) studied this question.