0
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 Sign in to save

Taking control of microplastics data: A comparison of control and blank data correction methods

Journal of Hazardous Materials 2022 102 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 50 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Amanda L. Dawson, Marina Santana Marina Santana Amanda L. Dawson, Marina Santana Cherie A. Motti, Joost L.D. Nelis, Joost L.D. Nelis, Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Amanda L. Dawson, Amanda L. Dawson, Amanda L. Dawson, Amanda L. Dawson, Amanda L. Dawson, Amanda L. Dawson, Amanda L. Dawson, Marina Santana Marina Santana Amanda L. Dawson, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Amanda L. Dawson, Marina Santana Marina Santana Marina Santana Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Amanda L. Dawson, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Joost L.D. Nelis, Joost L.D. Nelis, Joost L.D. Nelis, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Marina Santana Joost L.D. Nelis, Marina Santana Joost L.D. Nelis, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Joost L.D. Nelis, Marina Santana Marina Santana Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Cherie A. Motti, Marina Santana Marina Santana Cherie A. Motti, Marina Santana

Summary

Researchers compared six commonly used methods for correcting microplastic data using procedural controls and blanks, finding significant variability in results depending on the correction method chosen and highlighting the urgent need for standardized data quality protocols.

Although significant headway has been achieved regarding method harmonisation for the analysis of microplastics, analysis and interpretation of control data has largely been overlooked. There is currently no consensus on the best method to utilise data generated from controls, and consequently many methods are arbitrarily employed. This study identified 6 commonly implemented strategies: a) No correction; b) Subtraction; c) Mean Subtraction; d) Spectral Similarity; e) Limits of detection/ limits of quantification (LOD/LOQ) or f) Statistical analysis, of which many variations are possible. Here, the 6 core methods and 45 variant methods (n = 51) thereof were used to correct a dummy dataset using control data. Most of the methods tested were too inflexible to account for the inherent variation present in microplastic data. Only 7 of the 51 methods tested (six LOD/LOQ methods and one statistical method) showed promise, removing between 96.3 % and 100 % of the contamination data from the dummy set. The remaining 44 methods resulted in deficient corrections for background contamination due to the heterogeneity of microplastics. These methods should be avoided in the future to avoid skewed results, especially in low abundance samples. Overall, LOD/LOQ methods or statistical analysis comparing means are recommended for future use in microplastic studies.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper