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
From sieve to microscope: An efficient technique for sample transfer in the process of microplastics’ quantification
MethodsX2021
44 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.
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Felix Gorka,
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Julia Prume,
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Martin G. J. Löder
Summary
Researchers developed a four-step sample transfer technique using a sieve-to-microscope approach to improve the reproducibility of microplastic quantification, addressing particle loss and inconsistent fractionation that are common sources of error in microplastic sample processing workflows.
In the field of microplastics' quantification, efficient and reproducible methodology is still needed. Procedures of sample fractionation and transfer are often insufficiently reported, although fractionating a sample in similarly sized particles is a crucial prerequisite for the subsequent detection and identification process. At the same time, fractionation is error-prone as particles can be lost during transfer between different vessels. This article presents a four-step technique of sample preparation and microscopic examination, suited for different kind of environmental samples (e.g., water, sediment, soil): The sample is size-fractionated in a sieve cascade (I), rinsed from the sieve and vacuum-filtrated onto a filter (II), rinsed from the filter into a glass petri dish with a low amount of water (III), and examined under the microscope in wet or dry condition (IV). The technique manages on standard laboratory equipment and is reliable for fragments > 300 µm: In a validation experiment with polypropylene, the average recovery was 94 ± 13.5% (arithmetic mean ± standard deviation) and 100% (median), respectively.•Reliable sample transfer after wet-sieving.•Concentration of the pretreated sample in a very small amount of water.•Usage of transmitted light in microscopy.