Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and hyperspectral FTIR imaging spectroscopy for the analysis of microplastics

Open access
Primpke, Sebastian, Fischer, Marten, Lorenz, Claudia, Gerdts, Gunnar, Scholz-Böttcher, Barbara M.·2020·Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

Abstract

Analysis of microplastics (MP) in environmental samples is an emerging field, which is performed with various methods and instruments based either on spectroscopy or thermoanalytical methods. In general, both approaches result in two different types of data sets that are either mass or particle number related. Depending on detection limits of the respective method and instrumentation the derived polymer composition trends may vary. In this study, we compare the results of hyperspectral Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) imaging analysis and pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS) analysis performed on a set of environmental samples that differ in complexity and degree of microplastic contamination. The measurements were conducted consecutively, and on exactly the same sample. First, the samples were investigated with FTIR using aluminum oxide filters; subsequently, these were crushed, transferred to glass fiber filters, in pyrolysis cups, and measured via Py-GC/MS. After a general data harmonization step, the trends in MP contamination were thoroughly investigated with regard to the respective sample set and the derived polymer compositions. While the overall trends in MP contamination were very similar, differences were observed in the polymer compositions. Furthermore, polymer masses were empirically calculated from FTIR data and compared with the Py-GC/MS results. Here, a most plausible shape-related overestimation of the calculated polymer masses was observed in samples with larger particles and increased particle numbers. Taking into account the different measurement principles of both methods, all results were examined and discussed, and future needs for harmonization of intermethodological results were identified and highlighted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00216-020-02979-w

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Primpke, S., Fischer, M., Lorenz, C., Gerdts, G., & Scholz-Böttcher, B. M.
Venue
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
Published
2020-10-26
Volume
412
Issue
30
Pages
8283-8298
ISSN
  • 1618-2642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-2650
OpenAlex
W3094015452
Cited by
268
References
5
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and hyperspectral FTIR imaging spectroscopy for the analysis of microplastics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00216-020-02979-w
The paper
Primpke, S., Fischer, M., Lorenz, C., Gerdts, G., & Scholz-Böttcher, B. M. (2020). Comparison of pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and hyperspectral FTIR imaging spectroscopy for the analysis of microplastics. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-020-02979-w

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.