| Literature DB >> 31426225 |
Atsuhiko Isobe1, Nina T Buenaventura2, Stephen Chastain3, Suchana Chavanich4, Andrés Cózar5, Marie DeLorenzo6, Pascal Hagmann7, Hirofumi Hinata8, Nikolai Kozlovskii9, Amy L Lusher2, Elisa Martí5, Yutaka Michida10, Jingli Mu11, Motomichi Ohno12, Gael Potter7, Peter S Ross3, Nao Sagawa8, Won Joon Shim13, Young Kyoung Song13, Hideshige Takada14, Tadashi Tokai15, Takaaki Torii16, Keiichi Uchida15, Katerina Vassillenko3, Voranop Viyakarn4, Weiwei Zhang11.
Abstract
An interlaboratory comparison exercise was conducted to assess the consistency of microplastic quantification across several laboratories. The test samples were prepared by mixing one liter seawater free of plastics, microplastics made from polypropylene, high- and low-density polyethylene, and artificial particles in two plastic bottles, and analyzed concurrently in 12 experienced laboratories around the world. The minimum requirements to quantify microplastics were examined by comparing actual numbers of microplastics in these sample bottles with numbers measured in each laboratory. The uncertainty was due to pervasive errors derived from inaccuracies in measuring sizes and/or misidentification of microplastics, including both false recognition and overlooking. The size distribution of microplastics should be smoothed using a running mean with a length of >0.5 mm to reduce uncertainty to less than ±20%. The number of microplastics <1 mm was underestimated by 20% even when using the best practice for measuring microplastics in laboratories.Entities:
Keywords: Microplastics; Quantification; Standardized protocol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31426225 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.07.033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Pollut Bull ISSN: 0025-326X Impact factor: 5.553