Author:
Birkenhead Joshua,Radford Freya,Stead Jessica L.,Cundy Andrew B.,Hudson Malcolm D.
Abstract
AbstractMany of the methods for microplastics quantification in the environment are criticised creating problems with data validity. Quantification of microplastics in the surface microlayer of aquatic environments using glass plate dipping holds promise as a simple field method, but its efficiency has yet to be validated. We tested a standard glass plate dipping method to assess recovery of four common polymer microfibres and two common natural fibres, under three different salinities (freshwater, brackish water, saltwater). Overall recovery rates were low (26.8 ± 1.54%) but higher recoveries were observed under saltwater treatments (36.5 ± 3.01%) than brackish water (24.5 ± 1.92%) or freshwater (19.3 ± 1.92%). The fibre types showed different recovery rates, with acrylic yielding significantly higher recovery rates (37.0 ± 2.71%) than other fibres across treatments. No clear relationship between the density of the fibres and the recovery efficiency was seen. We suggest that, where this method is used for monitoring microplastics, the results will typically underestimate the total amount present, but that recovery is sufficiently consistent to allow comparison of differences between sampling locations. When comparing data across river-estuarine or similar transects salinity should be monitored to account for salinity-induced differences in sampling recovery.
Funder
School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton
University of Southampton Sustainable Infrastructure Systems Centre For Doctoral Trainin
Leverhulme Understanding Marine Futures Doctoral Scholarship
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Arthur, C., Baker, J., & Bamford, H. Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Sept 9–11, 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS-OR&R-30 (2009).
2. Frias, J. P. G. L. & Nash, R. Microplastics: finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138, 145–147 (2019).
3. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C. & Galloway, T. S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588–2597 (2011).
4. Allen, S. et al. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12, 339–344 (2019).
5. Underwood, A. J., Chapman, M. G. & Browne, M. A. Some problems and practicalities in design and interpretation of samples of microplastic waste. Anal. Methods 9, 1332 (2017).
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献