Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 410, Issue 22, pp 5603–5615 | Cite as

Detection of nanoplastics in food by asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation coupled to multi-angle light scattering: possibilities, challenges and analytical limitations

  • Manuel Correia
  • Katrin Loeschner
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Food Safety Analysis

Abstract

We tested the suitability of asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) coupled to multi-angle light scattering (MALS) for detection of nanoplastics in fish. A homogenized fish sample was spiked with 100 nm polystyrene nanoparticles (PSNPs) (1.3 mg/g fish). Two sample preparation strategies were tested: acid digestion and enzymatic digestion with proteinase K. Both procedures were found suitable for degradation of the organic matrix. However, acid digestion resulted in large PSNPs aggregates/agglomerates (> 1 μm). The presence of large particulates was not observed after enzymatic digestion, and consequently it was chosen as a sample preparation method. The results demonstrated that it was possible to use AF4 for separating the PSNPs from the digested fish and to determine their size by MALS. The PSNPs could be easily detected by following their light scattering (LS) signal with a limit of detection of 52 μg/g fish. The AF4-MALS method could also be exploited for another type of nanoplastics in solution, namely polyethylene (PE). However, it was not possible to detect the PE particles in fish, due to the presence of an elevated LS background. Our results demonstrate that an analytical method developed for a certain type of nanoplastics may not be directly applicable to other types of nanoplastics and may require further adjustment. This work describes for the first time the detection of nanoplastics in a food matrix by AF4-MALS. Despite the current limitations, this is a promising methodology for detecting nanoplastics in food and in experimental studies (e.g., toxicity tests, uptake studies).

Graphical abstract

Basic concept for the detection of nanoplastics in fish by asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation coupled to multi-angle light scattering

Keywords

Nanoplastics Asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation Nanoparticles Multi-angle light scattering Enzymatic digestion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The seabass sample was kindly provided by the ECsafeSEAFOOD project (n° 311820) granted by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013). The authors would like to thank the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration for financial support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2018_919_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1060 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hollman PCH, Bouwmeester H, Peters RJB (2013) Microplastics in aquatic food chain: sources, measurement, occurrence and potential health risks. Wageningen, RIKILT Wageningen UR (University and Research centre), RIKILT report.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain). Statement on the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA J. 2016;14:4501–31.  https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouwmeester H, Hollman PCH, Peters RJB. Potential health impact of environmentally released micro- and nanoplastics in the human food production chain: experiences from nanotoxicology. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:8932–47.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01090.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Shim WJ. Nanoplastics in the aquatic environment. Critical review. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, editors. Mar. Anthropog. Litter. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sundt P, Schulze P-E, Syversen F (2015) Sources of microplastic-pollution to the marine environment (Mepex report to the Norwegian Environment Agency/Miljødirektoratet, report number M-321). 86.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rist S, Hartmann NB. Aquatic ecotoxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics: lessons learned from engineered nanomaterials. In: Wagner M, Lambert S, editors. Freshw. Microplastics. Handb. Environ. Chem. Vol 58. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gigault J, Pedrono B, Maxit B, Ter Halle A. Marine plastic litter: the unanalyzed nano-fraction. Environ Sci Nano. 2016;3:346–50.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EN00008H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mattsson K, Johnson EV, Malmendal A, Linse S, Hansson L-A, Cedervall T. Brain damage and behavioural disorders in fish induced by plastic nanoparticles delivered through the food chain. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11452.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iñiguez ME, Conesa JA, Fullana A. Microplastics in Spanish table salt. Sci Rep. 2017;7:8620.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09128-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang D, Shi H, Li L, Li J, Jabeen K, Kolandhasamy P. Microplastic pollution in table salts from China. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:13622–7.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liebezeit G, Liebezeit E. Synthetic particles as contaminants in German beers. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2014;31:1574–8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2014.945099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liebezeit G, Liebezeit E. Origin of synthetic particles in honeys. Polish J Food Nutr Sci. 2015;65:143–7.  https://doi.org/10.1515/pjfns-2015-0025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mühlschlegel P, Hauk A, Walter U, Sieber R. Lack of evidence for microplastic contamination in honey. Food Addit Contam - Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2017;34:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2017.1347281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michler GH. Electron microscopy of polymers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lambert S, Wagner M. Characterisation of nanoplastics during the degradation of polystyrene. Chemosphere. 2016;145:265–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.078.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schimpf M, Caldwell K, Giddings JC. Field-flow fractionation handbook. New York: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gigault J, El Hadri H, Reynaud S, Deniau E, Grassl B. Asymmetrical flow field flow fractionation methods to characterize submicron particles: application to carbon-based aggregates and nanoplastics. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-017-0629-7.
  18. 18.
    Bernhardt C. Particle size analysis: classification and sedimentation methods. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loeschner K, Navratilova J, Købler C, Mølhave K, Wagner S, von der Kammer F, et al. Detection and characterization of silver nanoparticles in chicken meat by asymmetric flow field flow fractionation with detection by conventional or single particle ICP-MS. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2013;405:8185–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7228-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loeschner K, Navratilova J, Legros S, Wagner S, Grombe R, Snell J, et al. Optimization and evaluation of asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation of silver nanoparticles. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1272:116–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagner S, Legros S, Loeschner K, Liu J, Navratilova J, Grombe R, et al. First steps towards a generic sample preparation scheme for inorganic engineered nanoparticles in a complex matrix for detection, characterization, and quantification by asymmetric flow-field flow fractionation coupled to multi-angle light scattering and. J Anal At Spectrom. 2015;30:1286–96.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4JA00471J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environ Pollut. 2014;193:65–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vandermeersch G, Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR, Marques A, Granby K, Fait G, et al. A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms. Environ Res. 2015;143:46–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pereira JSF, Knorr CL, Pereira LSF, Moraes DP, Paniz JNG, Flores EMM, et al. Evaluation of sample preparation methods for polymer digestion and trace elements determination by ICPMS and ICPOES. J Anal At Spectrom. 2011;26:1849–57.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C1JA10050E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bendixen N, Losert S, Adlhart C, Lattuada M, Ulrich A. Membrane–particle interactions in an asymmetric flow field flow fractionation channel studied with titanium dioxide nanoparticles. J Chromatogr A. 2014;1334:92–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2014.01.066.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li J, Yang D, Li L, Jabeen K, Shi H. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China. Environ Pollut. 2015;207:190–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, Miller JT, et al. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci Rep. 2015;5:14340.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Cauwenberghe L, Claessens M, Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen CR. Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lugworms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats. Environ Pollut. 2015;199:10–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Witte B, Devriese L, Bekaert K, Hoffman S, Vandermeersch G, Cooreman K, et al. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): comparison between commercial and wild types. Mar Pollut Bull. 2014;85:146–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division for Food Technology, National Food InstituteTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations