We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Hide-and-seek: Threshold values and contribution towards better understanding of recovery rate in microplastic research
AI summary Read the abstract
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.
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.
More Papers Like This
Framework to Quantify Uncertainty in Microplastic Concentrations in Wastewaters and Sludges Incorporating Analytical Recovery Information into Data Analysis
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers developed a probabilistic framework for quantifying uncertainty in microplastic concentration estimates from wastewater sampling, accounting for variability in sampling protocols, analytical methods, and particle definition thresholds. Applying the framework revealed that reported concentrations can vary by orders of magnitude depending on methodological choices, underscoring the need for standardization.
Evidence of underestimation in microplastic research: A meta-analysis of recovery rate studies
AI summary Read the abstract
Across 71 recovery rate studies, microplastic extraction methods recovered only about 86% of spiked particles on average, meaning environmental microplastic concentrations are likely underestimated by approximately 14%, with recovery rates lowest from fishmeal, water, and soil matrices (58-71%).
Questions of size and numbers in environmental research on microplastics: methodological and conceptual aspects
AI summary Read the abstract
This methods paper critically examines how choices about the lower size limit and counting method for microplastics affect reported concentrations, arguing that different research questions require different approaches. The authors call for transparency in reporting methodological choices so that studies using different size thresholds can still be meaningfully compared.
Standardizing microplastics used for establishing recovery efficiency when assessing microplastics in environmental samples
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers evaluated recovery efficiency practices in microplastic environmental assessment studies published in 2020, finding appreciable variability in the density and size of microplastic particles used across investigations, which undermines the ability to compare results between studies. The authors call for standardized recovery efficiency protocols using realistic microplastic mixtures that better reflect environmental sample conditions.
Difficulties in Comparison Among Different Microplastic Studies: The Inconsistency of Results and Lack of Guide Values
AI summary Read the abstract
This commentary examines the inconsistency of results across microplastic studies, arguing that differences in sampling methods, size thresholds, polymer identification protocols, and reporting formats make it nearly impossible to compare findings across studies or establish guide values for environmental management.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.