We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Patterns of microparticles in blank samples: A study to inform best practices for microplastic analysis
Summary
Researchers analyzed blank laboratory samples from 12 different labs to understand how much background contamination affects microplastic analysis results. They found that blank samples contained between 7 and 511 particles each, primarily blue and clear fibers, revealing significant variability in lab contamination levels. The study recommends that researchers report and subtract blank contamination data from their results to improve the accuracy and comparability of microplastic studies.
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) techniques are critical to analytical chemistry, and thus the analysis of microplastics. Procedural blanks are a key component of QA/QC for quantifying and characterizing background contamination. Although procedural blanks are becoming increasingly common in microplastics research, how researchers acquire a blank and report and/or use blank contamination data varies. Here, we use the results of laboratory procedural blanks from a method evaluation study to inform QA/QC procedures for microplastics quantification and characterization. Suspected microplastic contamination in the procedural blanks, collected by 12 participating laboratories, had between 7 and 511 particles, with a mean of 80 particles per sample (±SD 134). The most common color and morphology reported were black fibers, and the most common size fraction reported was 20-212 μm. The lack of even smaller particles is likely due to limits of detection versus lack of contamination, as very few labs reported particles <20 μm. Participating labs used a range of QA/QC techniques, including air filtration, filtered water, and working in contained/'enclosed' environments. Our analyses showed that these procedures did not significantly affect blank contamination. To inform blank subtraction, several subtraction methods were tested. No clear pattern based on total recovery was observed. Despite our results, we recommend commonly accepted procedures such as thorough training and cleaning procedures, air filtration, filtered water (e.g., MilliQ, deionized or reverse osmosis), non-synthetic clothing policies and 'enclosed' air flow systems (e.g., clean cabinet). We also recommend blank subtracting by a combination of particle characteristics (color, morphology and size fraction), as it likely provides final microplastic particle characteristics that are most representative of the sample. Further work should be done to assess other QA/QC parameters, such as the use of other types of blanks (e.g., field blanks, matrix blanks) and limits of detection and quantification.