We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Quantifying the uncertainty and errors between common analytical methods for measuring airborne microplastics
Summary
Researchers describe an ongoing inter-laboratory experiment comparing five common airborne microplastic analysis methods — including µFTIR, µRaman, fluorescence microscopy, and Py-GC/MS — using split samples collected at a remote New Zealand site, aiming to quantify biases between methods and improve comparability across global studies.
In recent years airborne microplastics have emerged as a ubiquitous pollutant worldwide, with negative implications for ecosystems, climate and human health. The differing sampling and analysis techniques used amongst micro- and nanoplastic research groups limits our understanding of the global distribution of airborne microplastics and nanoplastics. We present plans and progress for an ongoing coordinated inter-laboratory experiment, designed to elucidate strengths and weaknesses of individual analysis methods. Daily active pumped air samples were collected in a controlled manner at a remote site in Canterbury, New Zealand, alongside weekly deposition samples. All samples were divided evenly, using specific contamination controls, into four sample sets for interlaboratory method comparisons, and distributed to participating research groups in New Zealand, Germany and the UK. Samples will be analysed using common microplastic analysis techniques: micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR), micro-Raman spectroscopy (µRaman), fluorescence microscopy, pyrolysis – gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS), and thermal desorption – proton transfer reaction – mass spectrometry (TD-PTR-MS). The results will allow quantification of the relative uncertainties and biases associated with each individual method, and inform how future airborne microplastics studies performed with different analytical methods should be interpreted.