Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36939884›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2023

Comparison of two rapid automated analysis tools for large FTIR microplastic datasets.

Sonya R Moses, Lisa Roscher, Sebastian Primpke, Benedikt Hufnagl, Martin G J Löder, Gunnar Gerdts, Christian Laforsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Sonya R MosesDepartment of Animal Ecology I and BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany.
Lisa RoscherAlfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Kurpromenade 201, 27498, Helgoland, Germany.
Sebastian PrimpkeAlfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Kurpromenade 201, 27498, Helgoland, Germany. sebastian.primpke@awi.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-8524
Benedikt HufnaglInstitute of Chemical Technologies and Analytics, Vienna University of Technology, A 1060, Vienna, Austria.
Martin G J LöderDepartment of Animal Ecology I and BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany. martin.loeder@uni-bayreuth.de.
Gunnar GerdtsAlfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Kurpromenade 201, 27498, Helgoland, Germany. gunnar.gerdts@awi.de.
Christian LaforschDepartment of Animal Ecology I and BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany. christian.laforsch@uni-bayreuth.de.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 03F0789ABundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 03F0789B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the biggest issues in microplastic (MP, plastic items  <5 mm) research is the lack of standardisation and harmonisation in all fields, reaching from sampling methodology to sample purification, analytical methods and data analysis. This hampers comparability as well as reproducibility among studies. Concerning chemical analysis of MPs, Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscocopy is one of the most powerful tools. Here, focal plane array (FPA) based micro-FTIR (µFTIR) imaging allows for rapid measurement and identification without manual preselection of putative MP and therefore enables large sample throughputs with high spatial resolution. The resulting huge datasets necessitate automated algorithms for data analysis in a reasonable time frame. Although solutions are available, little is known about the comparability or the level of reliability of their output. For the first time, within our study, we compare two well-established and frequently applied data analysis algorithms in regard to results in abundance, polymer composition and size distributions of MP (11-500 µm) derived from selected environmental water samples: (a) the siMPle analysis tool (systematic identification of MicroPlastics in the environment) in combination with MPAPP (MicroPlastic Automated Particle/fibre analysis Pipeline) and (b) the BPF (Bayreuth Particle Finder). The results of our comparison show an overall good accordance but also indicate discrepancies concerning certain polymer types/clusters as well as the smallest MP size classes. Our study further demonstrates that a detailed comparison of MP algorithms is an essential prerequisite for a better comparability of MP data.

Indexed as

Automated microplastic analysisBayreuth Particle Finder (BPF)Freshwater samplesFTIRSeawater samplessiMPle

Identifiers

PMID36939884
PMCPMC10284987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.