Evidence of underestimation in microplastic research: A meta-analysis of recovery rate studies
Evidence of underestimation in microplastic research: A meta-analysis of recovery rate studies
Research on microplastics in the environment is of high interest to many scientists and industries globally. Key to the success of this research is the accuracy, efficiency, reliability, robustness and repeatability of the method (s) used to isolate the microplastics from environmental media. However, with microplastics now being found in new complex media, many multifaceted methods have been developed to research the quantities of these pollutants. To validate new methods, recovery studies can be undertaken by spiking the test medium with known quantities of plastics. The method is typically run as normal, and the recovered plastics counted to give a recovery rate. A current issue in this field is that methods are rarely or poorly validated in this way. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis on 71 recovery rate studies. We found sediment was the most studied medium and saline solutions were the most used reagents. Polyethylene and polystyrene were the most used spiking polymers, which is relevant to the most common polymers in the environment. We found that recovery rates were highest from plant material, whole organisms and excrement (>88%), and lowest from fishmeal, water and soil (58–71%). Moreover, all reagents but water were able to recover more than 80% of the spiked plastics. We believe we are the first (to our knowledge) to provide an overarching indication for the underestimation of microplastics in the environment of approximately 14% across the studies we reviewed, varying with the methods used. Furthermore, we recommend that the quality, use and reporting of recovery rate studies should be improved to aid the standardisation and replication of microplastic research.
Method, Microplastics, Recovery rate, Standardisation, Underestimation, Validation
Way, Chloe Jane
249b08f3-cd8a-4169-b5c0-7e860637c3f5
Hudson, Malcolm
1ae18506-6f2a-48af-8c72-83ab28679f55
Williams, Ian
c9d674ac-ee69-4937-ab43-17e716266e22
Langley, G. John
7ac80d61-b91d-4261-ad17-255f94ea21ea
20 January 2022
Way, Chloe Jane
249b08f3-cd8a-4169-b5c0-7e860637c3f5
Hudson, Malcolm
1ae18506-6f2a-48af-8c72-83ab28679f55
Williams, Ian
c9d674ac-ee69-4937-ab43-17e716266e22
Langley, G. John
7ac80d61-b91d-4261-ad17-255f94ea21ea
Way, Chloe Jane, Hudson, Malcolm, Williams, Ian and Langley, G. John
(2022)
Evidence of underestimation in microplastic research: A meta-analysis of recovery rate studies.
Science of the Total Environment, 805, [150227].
(doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150227).
Abstract
Research on microplastics in the environment is of high interest to many scientists and industries globally. Key to the success of this research is the accuracy, efficiency, reliability, robustness and repeatability of the method (s) used to isolate the microplastics from environmental media. However, with microplastics now being found in new complex media, many multifaceted methods have been developed to research the quantities of these pollutants. To validate new methods, recovery studies can be undertaken by spiking the test medium with known quantities of plastics. The method is typically run as normal, and the recovered plastics counted to give a recovery rate. A current issue in this field is that methods are rarely or poorly validated in this way. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis on 71 recovery rate studies. We found sediment was the most studied medium and saline solutions were the most used reagents. Polyethylene and polystyrene were the most used spiking polymers, which is relevant to the most common polymers in the environment. We found that recovery rates were highest from plant material, whole organisms and excrement (>88%), and lowest from fishmeal, water and soil (58–71%). Moreover, all reagents but water were able to recover more than 80% of the spiked plastics. We believe we are the first (to our knowledge) to provide an overarching indication for the underestimation of microplastics in the environment of approximately 14% across the studies we reviewed, varying with the methods used. Furthermore, we recommend that the quality, use and reporting of recovery rate studies should be improved to aid the standardisation and replication of microplastic research.
Text
Accepted Manuscript CHLOEWAY
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
Evidence of underestimation ...
Text
Revised Manuscript with changes marked
Available under License Other.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 4 September 2021
e-pub ahead of print date: 9 September 2021
Published date: 20 January 2022
Additional Information:
Funding Information:
This work was funded by the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Southampton ; and a Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute Leverhulme Trust Doctoral Scholarship. We would like to thank Philip Wells for his help with underestimation equations and calculations.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Method, Microplastics, Recovery rate, Standardisation, Underestimation, Validation
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 451988
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/451988
ISSN: 0048-9697
PURE UUID: 5ffbe7f1-7ec1-4c2f-adba-6618dae74006
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 08 Nov 2021 17:30
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 06:49
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
