We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Reply on RC1
Summary
This author reply responds to reviewer comments on a manuscript about microplastic research, addressing methodological concerns and clarifying findings related to particle characterization and exposure assessment. The exchange contributes to the peer review discourse on emerging standards in microplastic science.
Abstract. The continued increase in global plastic production and poor waste management ensures that plastic pollution is a serious environmental concern for years to come. Because of their size, shape, and relatively low density, plastic particles between 1–1000 μm in size (known as microplastics, or MPs) emitted directly into the environment (“primary”) or created due to degradation (“secondary”) may be transported through the atmosphere, similar to other coarse-mode particles, such as mineral dust. MPs can thus be advected over great distances, reaching even the most pristine and remote areas of the Earth, and may have significant negative consequences for humans and the environment. The detection and analysis of MPs once airborne, however, remains a challenge because most observational methods are offline and resource-intensive, and, therefore, are not capable of providing continuous quantitative information. In this study, we present results using an online, in situ airflow cytometer (SwisensPoleno Jupiter; Swisens AG; Emmen, Switzerland) – coupled with machine learning – to detect, analyze, and classify airborne, single-particle MPs in near real time. The performance of the instrument to differentiate single-particle MPs of five common polymer types (including polypropylene, polyethylene, polyamide, poly(methyl methacrylate), and polyethylene terephthalate) was investigated under laboratory conditions using combined information about their size and shape (determined using holographic imaging) and fluorescence measured using three excitation wavelengths and five emission detection windows. The classification capability using these methods was determined alongside other coarse-mode aerosol particles with similar morphology or fluorescence characteristics, such as a mineral dust and several pollen taxa. The tested MPs exhibit a measurable fluorescence signal that not only allows them to be distinguished from the other fluorescent particles, such as pollen, but can also be differentiated from each other, with high (> 90 %) classification accuracy based on their multispectral fluorescence signatures. The classification accuracies of machine learning models using only holographic images of particles, only the fluorescence response, and combined information from holography and fluorescence to predict particle type are presented and compared. The results provide a foundation towards significantly improving the understanding of the properties and types of MPs present in the atmosphere.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Reply on RC2
This second author reply addresses additional peer reviewer feedback on a microplastics study, clarifying analytical choices and responding to questions about data interpretation and extrapolation of results to environmental conditions.
Reply to Comment on “Characterization of Nanoplastics, Fibrils, and Microplastics Released during Washing and Abrasion of Polyester Textiles”
This reply addresses a comment on a previous study about nanoplastics and microplastics released from polyester textiles during washing and mechanical abrasion. The authors clarify their methodology and defend their findings regarding particle characterization and release rates. This exchange contributes to the ongoing scientific discussion about standards for measuring textile microplastic emissions.
The use of reference material in microplastic research: general aspects
This paper discussed general considerations for using certified reference materials in microplastic research, arguing that standardized reference materials are essential for ensuring that measurements are reproducible and comparable across different laboratories and studies. The lack of such standards remains a major limitation in the field.
Do We Speak the Same Language for Reference Particles in Microplastic Research?
This paper argues that the microplastics research community lacks agreement on standardized reference particles for laboratory experiments, making it difficult to compare results across studies. The authors call for consensus on definitions and materials to improve the reproducibility and policy relevance of microplastic research.
Reply on RC1
This is a reviewer response in the peer review process for a study on modeling vertical particle transport in the ocean, including microplastics and other suspended particles. The review process helps ensure the scientific rigor of models used to track plastic movement in marine environments.