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. Sign in to save

Hide-and-seek: Threshold values and contribution towards better understanding of recovery rate in microplastic research

MethodsX 2021 35 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.
Inta Dimante‐Deimantovica, Natalija Suhareva, Marta Barone, Ieva Putna-Nīmane, Juris Aigars

Summary

This study examines how recovery rate methodology in microplastic research affects reported contamination levels, finding that inconsistent use of threshold values and positive controls across studies introduces substantial variability in microplastic concentration estimates and undermines cross-study comparisons.

Polymers
Study Type Environmental

Microplastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues. A fundamental criterion for risk assessment is the concentration of found microplastic that can be altered during microplastic isolating from the sample. Recovery rate (i.e. positive control) is an important feedback component that identifies accuracy, quality and efficiency of sample processing, same as physical and chemical impact. Here, using 100 µm red polystyrene (PS) beads we have tested some methodological steps that can be responsible for the possible microplastic losses during sample treatment and based on that, we provided a recovery rate threshold values. Our results support that the choice of the extraction method (vacuum filtration versus wet sieving) results in lower recoverability when vacuum filtration is used and that used separatory funnels size versus material amount impacts the efficiency or recoverability in density separation. We have also analysed microplastic recovery rate when different samples treatment steps from widely used isolation protocols (sediment and water) were applied and our results suggest that there are a number of factors affecting recovery rates, of which physical effects (loss by consecutive treatment steps due to material transfer) are more important than possible chemical degradation.•Sample filtration method determines recovery rate from < 40 to > 80%.•The number of sample processing steps involving transfer has a direct impact on recovery rate.•As a measure of quality assurance, recovery rate thresholds are introduced.

Share this paper