ArticleChemosphere2023
Comparison of two procedures for microplastics analysis in sediments based on an interlaboratory exercise.
Article in Chemosphere, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- PlasticAnalytics: A Deep Learning-Powered Spectral Library and Analytical Suite.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Micro- and Nanoplastics in the Human Brain: Mechanistic Plausibility, Translational Challenges, and Links to Neurological Disease Trends.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- What Goes Around Should Not Move Around: Immobilizing Microplastics as a New Approach for Analytical Ring Trials.Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
- The distribution of sediment microplastics assemblages is driven by location and hydrodynamics, not sediment characteristics, in the Gulf of Maine, USA.Marine pollution bulletin · 2024Article
- The influence of complex matrices on method performance in extracting and monitoring for microplastics.Chemosphere · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microplastics (MP) are distributed throughout ecosystems and settle into sediments where they may threaten benthic communities; however, methods for quantifying MP in sediments have not been standardized. This study compares two methods for analyzing MP in sediments, including extraction and identification, and provides recommendations for improvement. Two laboratories processed sediment samples using two methods, referred to as "core" and "augmentation", and identified particles with visual microscopy and spectroscopy. Using visual microscopy, the augmentation method yielded mean recoveries (78%) significantly greater than the core (47%) (p = 0.03), likely due to the use of separatory funnels in the former. Spectroscopic recovery of particles was lower at 42 and 54% for the core and augmentation methods, respectively. We suspect the visual identification recoveries are overestimations from erroneous identification of non-plastic materials persisting post-extraction, indicating visual identification alone is not an accurate method to identify MP, particularly in complex matrices like sediment. However, both Raman and FTIR proved highly accurate at identifying recovered MP, with 96.7% and 99.8% accuracy, respectively. Low spectroscopic recovery of spiked particles indicates that MP recovery from sediments is lower than previously assumed, and MP may be more abundant in sediments than current analyses suggest. To our knowledge, likely due to the excessive time/labor-intensity associated with MP analyses, this is the first interlaboratory study to quantify complete method performance (extraction, identification) for sediments, with regards to capabilities and limitations. This is essential as regulatory bodies move toward long-term environmental MP monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.