A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic identification methods for microplastic analysis

Title
A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic identification methods for microplastic analysis
Author(s)
송영경; 심원준; 홍상희; 장미; 한기명; Manviri
KIOST Author(s)
Song, Young Kyoung(송영경)Shim, Won Joon(심원준)Hong, Sang Hee(홍상희)Jang, Mi(장미)Han, Gi Myung(한기명)
Publication Year
2015-05-05
Abstract
The analysis of microplastics in various environmental samples requires the identification of microplastics from natural materials. The identification technique lacks a standardized protocol. Herein, stereomicroscope and Fourier transform infrared spectroscope (FT-IR) identification methods for microplastics (< 1 mm) were compared using the same samples from the sea surface microlayer (SML) and beach sediment. Fragmented microplastics were significantly (p < 0.05) underestimated and fiber was significantly overestimated using the stereomicroscope both in the SML and beach samples. In the fragment, many transparent or white fragments were identified as synthetic polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) by FT-IR, but were not counted as microplastics using the microscope. And less than 1 mm sized fragment had a limitation of identification by microscope. In the fiber, plastic-like fibers such as sea grass and cotton were apparently miscounted as microplastics. The total abundance by FT-IR was higher than by microscope both in the SML and beach samples, but they were not significantly different because of the offset of the fragments and fiber in abundance. Depending on the number of samples and the microplastic size range of interest, the appropriate identification method should be determined selecting a suitable identification method for microplastics is crucial for evaluating microplastic pollution.nfrared spectroscope (FT-IR) identification methods for microplastics (< 1 mm) were compared using the same samples from the sea surface microlayer (SML) and beach sediment. Fragmented microplastics were significantly (p < 0.05) underestimated and fiber was significantly overestimated using the stereomicroscope both in the SML and beach samples. In the fragment, many transparent or white fragments were identified as synthetic polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) by FT-IR, but were not counted as microplastics using the microscope. And less than 1 mm sized fragment had a limitation of identification by microscope. In the fiber, plastic-like fibers such as sea grass and cotton were apparently miscounted as microplastics. The total abundance by FT-IR was higher than by microscope both in the SML and beach samples, but they were not significantly different because of the offset of the fragments and fiber in abundance. Depending on the number of samples and the microplastic size range of interest, the appropriate identification method should be determined selecting a suitable identification method for microplastics is crucial for evaluating microplastic pollution.
URI
https://sciwatch.kiost.ac.kr/handle/2020.kiost/25592
Bibliographic Citation
Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC), pp.TU052, 2015
Publisher
Society
Type
Conference
Language
English
Publisher
Society
Related Researcher
Research Interests

Microplastic pollution,Persistent Organic Pollutants,Oil Pollution,미세플라스틱 오염,잔류성 유기오염물질,유류오염

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

qrcode

Items in ScienceWatch@KIOST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse