Author:
Beckingham Barbara,Apintiloaiei Adriana,Moore Caroline,Brandes Jay
Abstract
AbstractMicroplastics are small (< 5 mm) synthetic polymers that are a contaminant of emerging concern and can be difficult to identify due to their diversity in size, shape and composition. The hot needle test, or hot point test, helps researchers identify suspected microplastics under optical microscopy by probing their physical melt or deformation behavior, and is a low-cost and practical method for widespread use. However, to our knowledge the accuracy of this test has not been fully evaluated. We noted that articles commonly referenced by researchers for the hot needle method do not have a detailed description nor evaluation of the method accuracy. To address this knowledge gap, we took a mixed methods approach to describe the conditions under which the hot point test performs accurately, including a systematic literature review, reporting of the response of known fibers to a hot point, and evaluation of method performance by researchers in both controlled and environmental samples. In a single-blind trial of researchers applying different hot point conditions to a set of synthetic, semi-synthetic and natural fibers, synthetic and some natural fibers were correctly identified > 70% of the time. While cotton and semi-synthetic fiber results were less consistently identified (< 65% correct), this was improved (82–100% correct) in a second trial when clearer, updated guidance was given regarding the difference between a “pass” and “fail” response, showing the potential for the hot needle test to help analysts avoid false positives. Cellulose acetate from cigarette filters was the most challenging to identify because although this material may melt, response of individual fibers to heat varies and can be difficult to observe for smaller microfibers. Reported confirmation rates by spectroscopy of suspected microplastics that pass the hot needle test vary widely in the literature. Using detailed hot needle test criteria, > 90% of microplastics that we selected from environmental samples (water, sediment) were confirmed by Raman microscopy. It is recommended that researchers assess their hot needle test methods against known standards of both target microplastics and background materials like natural fibers, report the response criteria used in their studies and optimally include spectroscopic verification of results for higher confidence.
Funder
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Environmental Engineering
Reference74 articles.
1. Al Hammadi M, Knuteson S, Kanan S, Samara F. Microplastic pollution in oyster bed ecosystems: An assessment of the northern shores of the United Arab Emirates. Environ Adv. 2022;8:100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2022.100214.
2. Athey SN, Erdle LM. Are we underestimating anthropogenic microfiber pollution? A critical review of occurrence, methods, and reporting. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2021;41(4):822–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5173.
3. Barrows AP, Neumann CA, Pieper C, Berger ML, Shaw SD. Guide to Microplastics Identification, a Comprehensive Methods Guide for Microplastics Identification and Quantification in the Laboratory. Marine & Environmental Research Institute, Blue Hill, ME. 2017. Accessed online: https://www.ccb.se/documents/Postkod2017/Mtg050317/Guide%20to%20Microplastic%20Identification_MERI.pdf.
4. Battaglia FM, Beckingham BA, McFee WE. First report from North America of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of stranded bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Mar Pollut Bull. 2020;160:111677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111677.
5. Bao CY, Long DR, Vergelati C. Miscibility and dynamical properties of cellulose acetate/plasticizer systems. Carbohyd Polym. 2015;116:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.07.078.
Cited by
18 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