Quantifying the uncertainty and errors between common analytical methods for measuring airborne microplastics
2023
2 citations
?
Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count.
Score: 40
?
0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Anna J. MacDonald,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Sally Gaw
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Alex Aves,
Dušan Materić,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Deonie Allen,
S. W. Allen,
S. W. Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Alex Aves,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Anna J. MacDonald,
Deonie Allen,
Alex Aves,
Sally Gaw
Alex Aves,
Laura E. Revell,
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Laura E. Revell,
Deonie Allen,
Laura E. Revell,
Anna MacDonald,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Laura E. Revell,
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Deonie Allen,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Sally Gaw
Alex Aves,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
S. W. Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Dušan Materić,
Dušan Materić,
Sally Gaw
Dušan Materić,
Perry Davy,
Sally Gaw
Sebastian Naeher,
Sally Gaw
Deonie Allen,
Deonie Allen,
Dušan Materić,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Laura E. Revell,
Sally Gaw
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.