Article
?
AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button.
Tier 2
?
Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence.
Detection Methods
Environmental Sources
Policy & Risk
Sign in to save
Sample size requirements for riverbank macrolitter characterization
2022
7 citations
?
Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count.
Score: 30
?
0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Rahel Hauk,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Sjoukje de Lange,
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Louise Schreyers,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Rahel Hauk,
Rahel Hauk,
Rahel Hauk,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Louise Schreyers,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Paolo Tasseron
Paolo Tasseron
Finn Begemann,
Finn Begemann,
Finn Begemann,
Finn Begemann,
Tim van Emmerik,
Yvette Mellink,
Nonna Joosse,
Nonna Joosse,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Louise Schreyers,
Rahel Hauk,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Nonna Joosse,
Nonna Joosse,
Louise Schreyers,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Paul Vriend,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Louise Schreyers,
Tim van Emmerik,
Paul Vriend,
Paul Vriend,
Tim van Emmerik,
Yvette Mellink,
Rahel Hauk,
Yvette Mellink,
Louise Schreyers,
Ansje Löhr,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Rahel Hauk,
Paul Vriend,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Paul Vriend,
Paolo Tasseron
Ansje Löhr,
Louise Schreyers,
Rahel Hauk,
Louise Schreyers,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Finn Begemann,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Louise Schreyers,
Sjoukje de Lange,
Sjoukje de Lange,
Paolo Tasseron
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Finn Begemann,
Ansje Löhr,
Ansje Löhr,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Ansje Löhr,
Tim van Emmerik,
Paul Vriend,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Paul Vriend,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Yvette Mellink,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Rahel Hauk,
Paul Vriend,
Heleen Aalderink,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Heleen Aalderink,
Eric Hamers,
Eric Hamers,
Peter Jansson,
Peter Jansson,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Sjoukje de Lange,
Nonna Joosse,
Nonna Joosse,
Ansje Löhr,
Romi Lotcheris,
Rahel Hauk,
Louise Schreyers,
Vivien Vos,
Vivien Vos,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Tim van Emmerik,
Louise Schreyers,
Paolo Tasseron
Summary
This study determined how many litter samples are needed to reliably characterize riverbank debris, accounting for the wide variation in litter size, mass, and type. Current monitoring programs often underestimate litter abundance due to insufficient sample sizes. The findings provide practical guidance for designing more statistically robust litter monitoring programs.
Study Type
Environmental
Anthropogenic litter is omnipresent in terrestrial and freshwater systems, and can have major economic and ecological impacts. Monitoring and modelling of anthropogenic litter comes with large uncertainties due to the wide variety of litter characteristics, including size, mass, and item type. It is unclear as to what the effect of sample set size is on the reliability and representativeness of litter item statistics. Reliable item statistics are needed to (1) improve monitoring strategies, (2) parameterize litter in transport models, and (3) convert litter counts to mass for stock and flux calculations. In this paper we quantify sample set size requirement for riverbank litter characterization, using a database of more than 14,000 macrolitter items (>0.5 cm), sampled for one year at eight riverbank locations along the Dutch Rhine, IJssel and Meuse rivers. We use this database to perform a Monte Carlo based bootstrap analysis on the item statistics, to determine the relation between sample size and variability in the mean and median values. Based on this, we present sample set size requirements, corresponding to selected uncertainty and confidence levels. Optima between sampling effort and information gain is suggested (depending on the acceptable uncertainty level), which is a function of litter type heterogeneity. We found that the heterogeneity of the characteristics of litter items varies between different litter categories, and demonstrate that the minimum required sample set size depends on the heterogeneity of the litter category. More items of heterogeneous litter categories need to be sampled than of heterogeneous item categories to reach the same uncertainty level in item statistics. For example, to describe the mean mass the heterogeneous category soft fragments (>2.5cm) with 90% confidence, 990 items were needed, while only 39 items were needed for the uniform category metal bottle caps. Finally, we use the heterogeneity within litter categories to assess the sample size requirements for each river system. All data collected for this study are freely available, and may form the basis of an open access global database which can be used by scientists, practitioners, and policymakers to improve future monitoring strategies and modelling efforts.