Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36513195›Full record

ArticleChemosphere2023

Comparison of two procedures for microplastics analysis in sediments based on an interlaboratory exercise.

Troy Langknecht, Wenjian Lao, Charles S Wong, Syd Kotar, Dounia El Khatib, Sandra Robinson, Robert M Burgess, Kay T Ho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Troy LangknechtOak Ridge Institute of Science Education, C/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA. Electronic address: langknecht.troy@epa.gov.
Wenjian LaoSouthern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, 3535 Harbor Blvd., Suite 110, Costa Mesa, CA, 92626, USA.
Charles S WongSouthern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, 3535 Harbor Blvd., Suite 110, Costa Mesa, CA, 92626, USA.
Syd KotarSouthern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, 3535 Harbor Blvd., Suite 110, Costa Mesa, CA, 92626, USA.
Dounia El KhatibOak Ridge Institute of Science Education, C/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA.
Sandra RobinsonU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA.
Robert M BurgessU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA.
Kay T HoU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

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

Water Pollutants, ChemicalEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringGeologic SedimentsMicroplasticsPlasticsMicroplasticsPlasticsWater Pollutants, ChemicalMethod comparisonMicroplasticsSedimentsSpectroscopyVisual microscopy

Identifiers

PMID36513195
PMCPMC9839611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.