Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigating the correlation between morphological features of microplastics (5–500 µm) and their analytical recovery

Hagelskjær, O., Crézé, A., Le Roux, G., Sonke, J. E.·2023·Microplastics and Nanoplastics
DOI 10.1186/s43591-023-00071-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a direct result of laboratory sample manipulation required to identify microplastics (MPs) within a given matrix, some MPs are inevitably lost. The extent of this loss can be quite significant and varies greatly depending on the sample matrix, choice of protocol and target MPs in question. Defining analytical MP recovery is therefore a critical component in ensuring the quality of MP protocols. The potential relationship between particle size and recovery rate has been widely discussed but remains uncertain. To determine whether MP loss correlated with particle size, three aliquots of polyethylene fragments in the 5–50 µm size range and three aliquots of polypropylene fragments in the 50–500 µm size range, were consecutively transferred back and forth from filter to liquid. After each individual transfer the analytical recovery within specified size groups, was evaluated by applying high-resolution darkfield microscopy. Average recovery across the entire size range was estimated at 80% with a standard deviation (std. dev.) of 26%. Notably, particle coverage on filters (A%) showed a more significant impact on recovery than particle size. Maintaining A% below 5% on filters for microscopic analysis is advised to prevent excessive loss due to particle agglomeration. To determine whether the use of red polyethylene fragments in the 5–50 µm size range in combination with darkfield microscopy could potentially improve MP recovery evaluation in environmental samples, three aliquots of 0.5 g of dry brown trout muscle tissue were spiked and treated according to a relevant protocol. This size-discriminating approach accurately determined average recovery at 52% with a std. dev. of 4% and demonstrated the potential for correction of the concentration enhancement of smaller MPs resulting from particle breakup during sample pre-treatment, which would otherwise lead to overestimation of smaller size fractions.

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 · 10.1186/s43591-023-00071-5

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Dellisanti W, Leung MM-L, Lam KW-K, Wang Y, Hu M, Lo HS, et al. A short review on the recent method development for extraction and identification of microplastics in mussels and fish, two major groups of seafood. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023;186:114221. · DOI
  2. Radford F, Zapata-Restrepo LM, Horton AA, Hudson MD, Shaw PJ, Williams ID. Developing a systematic method for extraction of microplastics in soils. Anal Methods. 2021;13:1695–705. · DOI
  3. Rist S, Vianello A, Winding MHS, Nielsen TG, Almeda R, Torres RR, et al. Quantification of plankton-sized microplastics in a productive coastal Arctic marine ecosystem. Environ Pollut. 2020;266:115248. · DOI
  4. Dimante-Deimantovica I, Suhareva N, Barone M, Putna-Nimane I, Aigars J. Hide-and-seek: Threshold values and contribution towards better understanding of recovery rate in microplastic research. MethodsX. 2022;9:101603. · DOI
  5. Way C, Hudson MD, Williams ID, Langley GJ. Evidence of underestimation in microplastic research: A meta-analysis of recovery rate studies. Sci Total Environ. 2022;805:150227. · DOI
  6. Primpke S, Booth A, Gerdts G, Gomiero A, Kögel T, Lusher A, et al. Monitoring of microplastic pollution in the Arctic: Recent developments in polymer identification, quality assurance and control (QA/QC), and data reporting. Arctic Science. 2022;9(1):176–97. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2022-0006. · DOI
  7. Shruti VC, Kutralam-Muniasamy G. Blanks and bias in microplastic research: Implications for future quality assurance. Trends Environ Anal Chem. 2023;38:e00203. · DOI
  8. Thiele CJ, Hudson MD, Russell AE. Evaluation of existing methods to extract microplastics from bivalve tissue: Adapted KOH digestion protocol improves filtration at single-digit pore size. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;142:384–93. · DOI
  9. Miller ME, Kroon FJ, Motti CA. Recovering microplastics from marine samples: A review of current practices. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;123:6–18. · DOI
  10. Weber F, Kerpen J. Underestimating microplastics? Quantification of the recovery rate of microplastic particles including sampling, sample preparation, subsampling, and detection using µ-Ramanspectroscopy. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2022; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-022-04447-z. · DOI
  11. Hagelskjær O, Le Roux G, Liu R, Dubreuil B, Behra P, Sonke JE. The recovery of aerosol-sized microplastics in highly refractory vegetal matrices for identification by automated Raman microspectroscopy. Chemosphere. 2023;328:138487. · DOI
  12. Nuelle M-T, Dekiff JH, Remy D, Fries E. A new analytical approach for monitoring microplastics in marine sediments. Environ Pollut. 2014;184:161–9. · DOI
  13. Pagter E, Frias J, Nash R. Microplastics in Galway Bay: A comparison of sampling and separation methods. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:932–40. · DOI
  14. Zhu X. Optimization of elutriation device for filtration of microplastic particles from sediment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;92:69–72. · DOI
  15. Hurley RR, Lusher AL, Olsen M, Nizzetto L. Validation of a Method for Extracting Microplastics from Complex, Organic-Rich Environmental Matrices. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:7409–17. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Weber F, Kerpen J, Wolff S, Langer R, Eschweiler V. Investigation of microplastics contamination in drinking water of a German city. Sci Total Environ. 2021;755:143421. · DOI
  17. Miller ME, Motti CA, Menendez P, Kroon FJ. Efficacy of Microplastic Separation Techniques on Seawater Samples: Testing Accuracy Using High-Density Polyethylene. Biol Bull. 2021;240:52–66. · DOI
  18. Fuller S, Gautam A. A Procedure for Measuring Microplastics using Pressurized Fluid Extraction. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:5774–80. · DOI
  19. Boettcher H, Kukulka T, Cohen JH. Methods for controlled preparation and dosing of microplastic fragments in bioassays. Sci Rep. 2023;13:5195. · DOI
  20. Bottone A, Boily J-F, Shchukarev A, Andersson PL, Klaminder J. Sodium hypochlorite as an oxidizing agent for removal of soil organic matter before microplastics analyses. J Environ Qual. 2022;51:112–22. · DOI
  21. Estahbanati S, Fahrenfeld NL. Influence of wastewater treatment plant discharges on microplastic concentrations in surface water. Chemosphere. 2016;162:277–84. · DOI
  22. Liu M, Song Y, Lu S, Qiu R, Hu J, Li X, et al. A method for extracting soil microplastics through circulation of sodium bromide solutions. Sci Total Environ. 2019;691:341–7. · DOI
  23. Quinn B, Murphy F, Ewins C. Validation of density separation for the rapid recovery of microplastics from sediment. Anal Methods. 2017;9:1491–8. · DOI
  24. Wang Z, Taylor SE, Sharma P, Flury M. Poor extraction efficiencies of polystyrene nano- and microplastics from biosolids and soil. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0208009. · DOI
  25. Alfaro-Núñez A, Astorga D, Cáceres-Farías L, Bastidas L, Soto Villegas C, Macay K, et al. Microplastic pollution in seawater and marine organisms across the Tropical Eastern Pacific and Galápagos. Sci Rep. 2021;11:6424. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Crawford CB, Quinn B. 9 - Microplastic separation techniques. In: Crawford CB, Quinn B, editors. Microplastic Pollutants. Elsevier; 2017. 203–18. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128094068000098. · DOI
  27. Dong M, Luo Z, Jiang Q, Xing X, Zhang Q, Sun Y. The rapid increases in microplastics in urban lake sediments. Sci Rep. 2020;10:848. · DOI
  28. Gaston E, Woo M, Steele C, Sukumaran S, Anderson S. Microplastics Differ Between Indoor and Outdoor Air Masses: Insights from Multiple Microscopy Methodologies. Appl Spectrosc. 2020;74:1079–98. · DOI
  29. Nel HA, Chetwynd AJ, Kelleher L, Lynch I, Mansfield I, Margenat H, et al. Detection limits are central to improve reporting standards when using Nile red for microplastic quantification. Chemosphere. 2021;263:127953. · DOI
  30. Stanton T, Johnson M, Nathanail P, Gomes RL, Needham T, Burson A. Exploring the Efficacy of Nile Red in Microplastic Quantification: A Costaining Approach. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2019;6:606–11. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Xu Q, Gao Y, Xu L, Shi W, Wang F, LeBlanc GA, et al. Investigation of the microplastics profile in sludge from China’s largest Water reclamation plant using a feasible isolation device. J Hazard Mater. 2020;388:122067. · DOI
  32. Yang J, Monnot M, Sun Y, Asia L, Wong-Wah-Chung P, Doumenq P, et al. Microplastics in different water samples (seawater, freshwater, and wastewater): Methodology approach for characterization using micro-FTIR spectroscopy. Water Res. 2023;232:119711. · DOI
  33. Hale RC, Seeley ME, Guardia MJL, Mai L, Zeng EY. A Global Perspective on Microplastics. J Geophys Res. 2020;125:e2018JC014719. · DOI
  34. Preibisch S, Saalfeld S, Tomancak P. Globally optimal stitching of tiled 3D microscopic image acquisitions. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1463–5. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Benesty J, Chen J, Huang Y, Cohen I. Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Noise Reduction in Speech Processing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009. p. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5. · DOI
  36. Wolff S, Weber F, Kerpen J, Winklhofer M, Engelhart M, Barkmann L. Elimination of Microplastics by Downstream Sand Filters in Wastewater Treatment. Water. 2021;13. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/1/33. · DOI
  37. Vollertsen J, Hansen AA, editors. Microplastic in Danish wastewater: Sources, occurrences and fate. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. p. 55. (Environmental Project, Vol. 1906).
  38. Liu B, Jiang Q, Qiu Z, Liu L, Wei R, Zhang X, et al. Process analysis of microplastic degradation using activated PMS and Fenton reagents. Chemosphere. 2022;298:134220. · DOI
  39. Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo CK, Romano N, Ho YB, Salamatinia B. A high-performance protocol for extraction of microplastics in fish. Sci Total Environ. 2017;578:485–94. · DOI
  40. Pfeiffer F, Fischer EK. Various Digestion Protocols Within Microplastic Sample Processing—Evaluating the Resistance of Different Synthetic Polymers and the Efficiency of Biogenic Organic Matter Destruction. Front Environ Sci. 2020;8:263. · DOI
  41. Qiu Q, Tan Z, Wang J, Peng J, Li M, Zhan Z. Extraction, enumeration and identification methods for monitoring microplastics in the environment. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2016;176:102–9. · DOI
  42. F.M, Santana M, Kroon FJ, van Herwerden L, Vamvounis G, Motti CA. An assessment workflow to recover microplastics from complex biological matrices. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;179:113676. · DOI
  43. PlasticsEurope. Plastic - the facts 2021. 2021.
  44. Li C, Gan Y, Zhang C, He H, Fang J, Wang L, et al. “Microplastic communities” in different environments: Differences, links, and role of diversity index in source analysis. Water Res. 2021;188:116574. · DOI
  45. Bergmann M, Mützel S, Primpke S, Tekman MB, Trachsel J, Gerdts G. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Science Advances. 2019;5:eaax1157. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Bergmann M, Wirzberger V, Krumpen T, Lorenz C, Primpke S, Tekman MB, et al. High Quantities of Microplastic in Arctic Deep-Sea Sediments from the HAUSGARTEN Observatory. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:11000–10. · DOI
  47. Ba geri BS, Al-Mutairi SH, Mahmoud MA. Different Techniques for Characterizing the Filter Cake. 2013 [cited 2023 Feb 15]. p. SPE-163960-MS. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2118/163960-MS. · DOI
  48. Ochoa George PA, Eras JJC, Gutierrez AS, Hens L, Vandecasteele C. Residue from Sugarcane Juice Filtration (Filter Cake): Energy Use at the Sugar Factory. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2010;1:407–13. · DOI
  49. Cabernard L, Roscher L, Lorenz C, Gerdts G, Primpke S. Comparison of Raman and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy for the Quantification of Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:13279–88. · DOI
  50. Rout S, Yadav S, Joshi V, Karpe R, Pulhani V, Kumar AV. Microplastics as vectors of radioiodine in the marine environment: A study on sorption and interaction mechanism. Environ Pollut. 2022;307:119432. · DOI
  51. Sobhani Z, Lei Y, Tang Y, Wu L, Zhang X, Naidu R, et al. Microplastics generated when opening plastic packaging. Sci Rep. 2020;10:4841. · DOI
  52. Allen D, Allen S, Le Roux G, Simonneau A, Galop D, Phoenix VR. Temporal Archive of Atmospheric Microplastic Deposition Presented in Ombrotrophic Peat. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2021;8:954–60. · DOI
  53. Negrete Velasco A de J, Rard L, Blois W, Lebrun D, Lebrun F, Pothe F, et al. Microplastic and Fibre Contamination in a Remote Mountain Lake in Switzerland. Water. 2020;12. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/9/2410. · DOI
  54. Stefánsson H, Peternell M, Konrad-Schmolke M, Hannesdóttir H, Ásbjörnsson EJ, Sturkell E. Microplastics in Glaciers: First Results from the Vatnajökull Ice Cap. Sustainability. 2021;13. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4183. · DOI
  55. Rozman U, Kalčíková G. Seeking for a perfect (non-spherical) microplastic particle – The most comprehensive review on microplastic laboratory research. J Hazard Mater. 2022;424:127529. · DOI
  56. Hildebrandt L, Zimmermann T, Pröfrock D. Laser microdissection pressure catapulting (LMPC): a new technique to handle single microplastic particles for number-based validation strategies. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2023;415:3041–9. · DOI
  57. Mitrano DM, Beltzung A, Frehland S, Schmiedgruber M, Cingolani A, Schmidt F. Synthesis of metal-doped nanoplastics and their utility to investigate fate and behaviour in complex environmental systems. Nat Nanotechnol. 2019;14:362–8. · DOI
  58. Ruggero F, Gori R, Lubello C. Methodologies for Microplastics Recovery and Identification in Heterogeneous Solid Matrices: A Review. J Polym Environ. 2020;28:739–48. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Hagelskjær, O., Crézé, A., Le Roux, G., & Sonke, J. E.
Venue
Microplastics and Nanoplastics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-09-26
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
2662-4966
DOI
10.1186/s43591-023-00071-5
Cited by
27
References
2
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2023-11-27)
Licence
Funders
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (4DµPlast)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-20-CE34-0014 ATMO-PLASTIC)
  • Interreg (Plasticopyr, Interreg V-A Spain-France-Andorra program)
  • observatoire Homme-Milieu Pyrénées Haut Vicdessos (LABEX DRIIHM ANR-11-LABX0010)

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: Investigating the correlation between morphological features of microplastics (5–500 µm) and their analytical recovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s43591-023-00071-5
The paper
Hagelskjær, O., Crézé, A., Le Roux, G., & Sonke, J. E. (2023). Investigating the correlation between morphological features of microplastics (5–500 µm) and their analytical recovery. Microplastics and Nanoplastics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00071-5

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.