Microplastic analysis in soils: A comparative assessment

Microplastic (MiP) contamination poses environmental risks, but harmonizing data from different quantification methods and sample matrices remains challenging. We compared analytical protocols for MiP quantification in soil, consisting of Digital, Fluorescence, Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR), and Raman Microscopy as well as quantitative Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (Py-GC-MS) and 1-proton nuclear magnetic resonance (<sup>1</sup>H NMR) spectroscopy as detection techniques. Each technique was coupled with a specific extraction procedure and evaluated for three soils with different textures and organic carbon contents, amended with eight types of large MiPs (0.5-1 mm) - high- and low-density polyethylene (HDPE and LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and a biodegradable mulch film product composed of polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate/ polylactic acid (PBAT/ PLA). In addition, we included two types of small MiPs (20-250 µm) composed of either LDPE or PBAT/ PLA in the tests. The results showed that protocols for Digital, Fluorescence, and ATR-FTIR microscopy recovered 74-98 % of the large MiPs, with fluorescence yielding the highest recoveries. Raman spectroscopy was most sensitive to soil organic matter residues, requiring more sophisticated sample pretreatment. Fluorescence staining with subsequent Fluorescence microscopy detection effectively recovered most small-sized LDPE-MiP but missed 56-93 % of small PBAT/ PLA particles. For the latter, reliable quantification was achieved only using Soxhlet extraction combined with <sup>1</sup>H NMR spectroscopic quantification. Pyrolysis-GC-MS showed intermediate results, displaying low sensitivity to plastic type and lower recoveries as soil clay content increased. We conclude that different methods have different sensitivities for different MiP materials in different soils, i.e. comparisons of MiP loads and threshold settings for MiP loads across methodologies require careful consideration. Yet, our data indicate that adding stained large MiP as an internal standard could enhance extraction control, while Soxhlet-extraction with subsequent <sup>1</sup>H NMR analysis is most powerful for controlling future thresholds of small MiP from biodegradable materials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
Published
2024-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.117428
Citations
20
Primary Topic
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.66

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Microplastic analysis in soils: A comparative assessment

Flora Wille, Heidi Doose, Melanie Braun, Michael Sander et al.
20 citations
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
2.66
article

Microplastic analysis in soils: A comparative assessment

Flora Wille, Heidi Doose, Melanie Braun, Michael Sander, Wulf Amelung, Crispin Halsall, Quynh Nhu Phan Le, Davi R. Munhoz, Paula Harkes, Stoyana Peneva, Olivia Wrigley
article en
20 citations

Abstract

Microplastic (MiP) contamination poses environmental risks, but harmonizing data from different quantification methods and sample matrices remains challenging. We compared analytical protocols for MiP quantification in soil, consisting of Digital, Fluorescence, Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR), and Raman Microscopy as well as quantitative Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (Py-GC-MS) and 1-proton nuclear magnetic resonance (<sup>1</sup>H NMR) spectroscopy as detection techniques. Each technique was coupled with a specific extraction procedure and evaluated for three soils with different textures and organic carbon contents, amended with eight types of large MiPs (0.5-1 mm) - high- and low-density polyethylene (HDPE and LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and a biodegradable mulch film product composed of polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate/ polylactic acid (PBAT/ PLA). In addition, we included two types of small MiPs (20-250 µm) composed of either LDPE or PBAT/ PLA in the tests. The results showed that protocols for Digital, Fluorescence, and ATR-FTIR microscopy recovered 74-98 % of the large MiPs, with fluorescence yielding the highest recoveries. Raman spectroscopy was most sensitive to soil organic matter residues, requiring more sophisticated sample pretreatment. Fluorescence staining with subsequent Fluorescence microscopy detection effectively recovered most small-sized LDPE-MiP but missed 56-93 % of small PBAT/ PLA particles. For the latter, reliable quantification was achieved only using Soxhlet extraction combined with <sup>1</sup>H NMR spectroscopic quantification. Pyrolysis-GC-MS showed intermediate results, displaying low sensitivity to plastic type and lower recoveries as soil clay content increased. We conclude that different methods have different sensitivities for different MiP materials in different soils, i.e. comparisons of MiP loads and threshold settings for MiP loads across methodologies require careful consideration. Yet, our data indicate that adding stained large MiP as an internal standard could enhance extraction control, while Soxhlet-extraction with subsequent <sup>1</sup>H NMR analysis is most powerful for controlling future thresholds of small MiP from biodegradable materials.

Ecotoxicology and Environmental SafetyVol. 289
University of Bonn (DE), Lancaster University (GB)
European Commission, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
2.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.