We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Sizing and quantification of micro- and nanoplastics by single particle ICP-MS: a comparison between quadrupole and high-resolution instruments
Summary
Scientists compared two types of high-tech instruments used to detect and measure tiny plastic particles (microplastics and even smaller nanoplastics) in samples, since accurately counting these pollutants is tricky but important for understanding health risks. They found each instrument type has different strengths and weaknesses—neither is perfect, and both tend to undercount the particles present—highlighting that researchers need to choose their tools carefully to get reliable results. This matters because as scientists work to understand how microplastics affect our bodies, having trustworthy measurement methods is a crucial first step toward answering that question accurately.
Micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) are widespread environmental pollutants of growing concern due to their persistence and impacts on ecosystems and human health. Their small size, chemical complexity, and low environmental concentrations make accurate detection and quantification challenging. Single-particle (sp) ICP-MS has emerged as a promising technique for sizing and quantifying small MNPs based on their elemental content, yet the performance of different ICP-MS instrument types remains insufficiently evaluated. In this work, the analytical performance of quadrupole (Q) and high-resolution (HR) spICP-MS was systematically compared for sizing and quantifying metal-doped polystyrene (PS) particles at both the micro- (2.5 μm) and nano-scale (198 nm) by monitoring carbon or metal content. For the analysis of NPs via metal-based detection, both instruments enabled the reliable determination of particle size, particle mass, and mass concentration. The HR system showed enhanced metal sensitivity and improved particle size resolution, while the Q system provided better recoveries of particle number concentration. For the analysis of MPs, spICP-HRMS provided superior sensitivity for metal-based detection, whereas spICP-QMS delivered better carbon-based detection performance and lower size detection limits due to its reduced carbon background. Both techniques underestimated particle mass and number concentrations, reflecting the influence of particle losses, especially pronounced in the HR system, and the need for accurate transport efficiency determination. The use of different data processing tools did not have a significant impact on spICP-MS results. These findings emphasize the importance of carefully selecting the type of ICP-MS instrument, detection approach (metal versus carbon), and calibration strategy for reliable quantification and size characterization of MNPs by spICP-MS.