A review of methods for measuring microplastics in aquatic environments
An increasing number of reports have been published concerning microplastic (MP) pollution in aquatic environments. Methods used in these studies continue to be updated and lack standardization, so that an up-to-date review pertaining methods for MP research is needed. This critical review examines the analytical methods, including sampling, identification, and quantitation, for MP research. Samples are generally collected from water, sediment, and biota gastrointestinal tract. Manta nets or trawls are prevalently used in surface water sampling, while direct shoveling or box-corer grab are commonly applied in sediment sampling. Microplastics in biota are generally obtained by dissecting organisms and separating livers, gills, and guts. Density separation is frequently chosen to separate MPs from sample matrices. Chemical digestion can dissolve other organic materials and isolate MPs for further identification. Visual sorting should be combined with chemical composition analysis to better identify the polymer type. Pyrolysis or thermal decomposition gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy are currently the main technologies for MP identification. Units prevalently used to express MP abundance in water, sediment, and biota are “particles per m3,” “particles per m2,” and “particles per individual,” respectively. As MP abundances often varied with the methods used, we recommend that analytical protocols of MPs should better be standardized and optimized. Despite the important progress in analysis of MPs, detection technologies for identifying nano-sized plastic particles are still lacking, and therefore should be developed swiftly.
KeywordsMicroplastics Analytical method Sampling Identification Quantitation Aquatic environment
We would like to thank W. Tyler Mehler for assistance with editing the manuscript.
- Ballent A, Purser A, Mendes PDJ, Pando S (2012) Physical transport properties of marine microplastic pollution. Biogeosci Discuss 4:54–56Google Scholar
- Cole M, Webb H, Lindeque PK, Fileman ES, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2014) Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Sci Rep 4:2231–2236Google Scholar
- Edson EC, Patterson MR (2015) MantaRay: a novel autonomous sampling instrument for in situ measurements of environmental microplastic particle concentrations, OCEANS 2015 - MTS/IEEE Washington, pp 1–6Google Scholar
- Frère L, Paulpont I, Rinnert E, Petton S, Jaffré J, Bihannic I, Soudant P, Lambert C, Huvet A (2017) Influence of environmental and anthropogenic factors on the composition, concentration and spatial distribution of microplastics: a case study of the Bay of Brest (Brittany, France). Environ Pollut 225:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Galgani F, Hanke G, Werner S, Oosterbaan L, Nilsson P, Fleet D (2013) Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in European seas. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
- Maes T, Jessop R, Wellner N, Haupt K, Mayes AG (2017) A rapid-screening approach to detect and quantify microplastics based on fluorescent tagging with Nile Red. Sci Rep 7:44501Google Scholar
- Masura J, Baker J, Foster G, Arthur C (2015) Laboratory methods for the analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: recommendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. NOAA Techical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-48Google Scholar
- Norén F (2007) Small plastic particles in coastal Swedish waters. Sweden, KIMOGoogle Scholar
- van Franeker JA, Blaize C, Danielsen J, Fairclough K, Gollan J, Guse N, Hansen P-L, Heubeck M, Jensen J-K, Le Guillou G, Olsen B, Olsen K-O, Pedersen J, Stienen EWM, Turner DM (2011) Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environ Pollut 159:2609–2615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhao S, Zhu L, Li D (2015) Characterization of small plastic debris on tourism beaches around the South China Sea. Reg Stu Mar Sci 62:55–62Google Scholar