Quantifying the uncertainty and errors between common analytical methods for measuring airborne microplastics
- 1School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (laura.revell@canterbury.ac.nz)
- 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
- 3School of Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- 4Ocean Frontiers Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
- 5Department of Analytical Chemistry, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany
- 6GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
In recent years airborne microplastics have emerged as a ubiquitous pollutant worldwide, with negative implications for ecosystems, climate and human health. The differing sampling and analysis techniques used amongst micro- and nanoplastic research groups limits our understanding of the global distribution of airborne microplastics and nanoplastics. We present plans and progress for an ongoing coordinated inter-laboratory experiment, designed to elucidate strengths and weaknesses of individual analysis methods. Daily active pumped air samples were collected in a controlled manner at a remote site in Canterbury, New Zealand, alongside weekly deposition samples. All samples were divided evenly, using specific contamination controls, into four sample sets for interlaboratory method comparisons, and distributed to participating research groups in New Zealand, Germany and the UK. Samples will be analysed using common microplastic analysis techniques: micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR), micro-Raman spectroscopy (µRaman), fluorescence microscopy, pyrolysis – gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS), and thermal desorption – proton transfer reaction – mass spectrometry (TD-PTR-MS). The results will allow quantification of the relative uncertainties and biases associated with each individual method, and inform how future airborne microplastics studies performed with different analytical methods should be interpreted.
How to cite: Revell, L., Aves, A., MacDonald, A., Allen, D., Allen, S., Materic, D., Gaw, S., Davy, P., and Naeher, S.: Quantifying the uncertainty and errors between common analytical methods for measuring airborne microplastics, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-1144, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1144, 2023.