Literature DB >> 31426225

An interlaboratory comparison exercise for the determination of microplastics in standard sample bottles.

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.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

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


  4 in total

1.  Assessment of Human Health Risks Posed by Nano-and Microplastics Is Currently Not Feasible.

Authors:  Andreas Brachner; Despina Fragouli; Iola F Duarte; Patricia M A Farias; Sofia Dembski; Manosij Ghosh; Ivan Barisic; Daniela Zdzieblo; Jeroen Vanoirbeek; Philipp Schwabl; Winfried Neuhaus
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  Proposal for an initial screening method for identifying microplastics in marine sediments.

Authors:  Toshiro Hata; Ningjun Jiang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Micro-Nano Plastic in the Aquatic Environment: Methodological Problems and Challenges.

Authors:  Saif Uddin; Scott W Fowler; Nazima Habibi; Montaha Behbehani
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 4.  Analysis of microplastics in drinking water and other clean water samples with micro-Raman and micro-infrared spectroscopy: minimum requirements and best practice guidelines.

Authors:  Darena Schymanski; Barbara E Oßmann; Nizar Benismail; Kada Boukerma; Gerald Dallmann; Elisabeth von der Esch; Dieter Fischer; Franziska Fischer; Douglas Gilliland; Karl Glas; Thomas Hofmann; Andrea Käppler; Sílvia Lacorte; Julie Marco; Maria El Rakwe; Jana Weisser; Cordula Witzig; Nicole Zumbülte; Natalia P Ivleva
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 4.142

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.