| Literature DB >> 35295124 |
Stefania Mariano1, Stefano Tacconi1, Marco Fidaleo2, Marco Rossi3,4,5, Luciana Dini2,4,5.
Abstract
Micro and nanoplastics are fragments with dimensions less than a millimeter invading all terrestrial and marine environments. They have become a major global environmental issue in recent decades and, indeed, recent scientific studies have highlighted the presence of these fragments all over the world even in environments that were thought to be unspoiled. Analysis of micro/nanoplastics in isolated samples from abiotic and biotic environmental matrices has become increasingly common. Hence, the need to find valid techniques to identify these micro and nano-sized particles. In this review, we discuss the current and potential identification methods used in microplastic analyses along with their advantages and limitations. We discuss the most suitable techniques currently available, from physical to chemical ones, as well as the challenges to enhance the existing methods and develop new ones. Microscopical techniques (i.e., dissect, polarized, fluorescence, scanning electron, and atomic force microscopy) are one of the most used identification methods for micro/nanoplastics, but they have the limitation to produce incomplete results in analyses of small particles. At present, the combination with chemical analysis (i.e., spectroscopy) overcome this limit together with recently introduced alternative approaches. For example, holographic imaging in microscope configuration images microplastics directly in unfiltered water, thus discriminating microplastics from diatoms and differentiates different sizes, shapes, and plastic types. The development of new analytical instruments coupled with each other or with conventional and innovative microscopy could solve the current problems in the identification of micro/nanoplastics.Entities:
Keywords: analytical methods; characterization; environmental matrices; microplastics; microscopy; nanoplastics; spectroscopy
Year: 2021 PMID: 35295124 PMCID: PMC8915801 DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2021.636640
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Toxicol ISSN: 2673-3080
Advantages and limitations of the current methods for MPs characterization and the relative estimated TRL present range.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Stereo microscopy | - Fast and easy | - Not confirmative of plastic nature of the particle | 5–7 |
| Transmission Electron Microscopy | - Very high resolution (<0.1 nm) | - Very time expensive | 1–2 |
| Scanning Electron Microscopy | - Clear and high-resolution images of particles | - Expensive | 4–6 |
| Atomic Force Microscopy | - No radiation damage of the sample | - No prevention from outside factors like contaminations | 2–4 |
| Fluorescence microscopy | - Easy | - Laser in the ultraviolet can be harmful and toxic for the sample | 4-6 |
| Raman Spectroscopy | - Detection of small MPs (1 μm) and NPs (<1 μm) | - Expensive instrumentation | 5–7 |
| FTIR spectroscopy | - Confirmation of the composition of the MPs | - Expensive | 5–7 |
| Thermal analysis | - Characterization of low-solubility MPs and additives | - Destructive technique | 3–5 |
Figure 1Images of different shapes of MPs in biological samples. The arrows indicate fibers (A–D), fragments (E,F), the film (G) and granules (H,I). Scale bar = 100 μm. This figure is reproduced from Ding et al. (2019) with permission of Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC).
Figure 2Microplastic particles extracted from laboratory medaka GI tracts. For all FTIR spectra, extracted MPs (red) are compared to the original reference MPs (blue). (A) 150 μm PVC and (B) 300 μm PET particles prepared in 10% KOH, showing strong FTIR peaks for proteins and fats (red arrows) and potassium salts (green arrows). (C) SEM/EDS of KOH-treated microplastic showing redeposited particulate material and strong potassium peak. (D) 150 μm PS, 250 μm PE, 250 μm PET, and 150 μm PVC extracted with ultrapure H2O and PUE, exhibiting reduced FTIR protein and fat peaks and no salt peaks. This figure is reproduced from Wagner et al. (2017) with permission of Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC).
Application of μ-Raman spectroscopy in MPs characterization.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Northwestern Pacific/seawater (Pan et al., | PE, PP, NYLON | 0.5 and 1.0 mm | μ-Raman spectroscopic analysis results indicate that the major compositions of MPs are PE (57.8%), PP (36.0%) and nylon (3.4%) and the origin of the MPs at these stations are the same, namely, the nearby land in Philippines, Taiwan, and China Mainland |
| Caspian Sea/sediment (Mehdinia et al., | PS, PE | 250–500 μm | μ-Raman spectroscopy detected only PS and PE in studied samples. In general, the polymer types indicated lower diversity in comparison with those reported in such areas in the world. |
| East Dongting Lake/sediment (Yin et al., | PET, PP, PE PS, PA, PVC, PMMA, CL | 0.05–5 mm | Eight types of MPs with different polymer compositions were identified by μ-Raman spectroscopy. The study found that the abundance of MPs in the urban area sediment of Dongting Lake is lower than that of the rural area. |
| Germany/soil (Paul et al., | PE, PP, PS, PET | < 125 μm | MPs of the materials PE, PP, PS, PET, and PVC can be detected in soils at levels of about 1 mass% after minimal conditioning, e.g., sieving and drying of the material |
| Italy/white wine (Prata et al., | PE | 38–475 μm | μ-Raman spectroscopy was used for the first time in complex beverages in the identification of MPs particles in white wines, allowing identification of at least one synthetic particle for each bottle, except in two cases. |
| Malaysia/fish meals (Karbalaei et al., | PE, PP | 855.82 μm ± 1082.90SD | Chemical composition of extracted MP-like particles was confirmed using μ-Raman spectroscopy. Out of 336 extracted particles, 64.3% were plastic polymers, 25% pigment particles, 4.2% non-plastic items, and 6.5% were unidentified. Fragments were the dominant form of MPs (78.2%) followed by filaments (13.4%) and films (8.4%). |
Figure 3Representative confocal fluorescence microscopy images of MPs dispersed in water and stained with Nile Red. From left to right: low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyamide (nylon). Fluorescence emission signals are acquired in the range of 520–720 nm at λex = 500 nm. The scale bar is 200 μm. This figure is reproduced from Sancataldo et al. (2020) with permission of Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC).