MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01D54741.3CA880E0" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Windows® Internet Explorer®. ------=_NextPart_01D54741.3CA880E0 Content-Location: file:///C:/67132649/57-Published-542-1-6-20190420(1).htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Microplastic=
s, an Emerging
Concern: A Review of Analytical Techniques for Detecting and Quantifying Microplatics
Verla Andrew Wirnkor1=
, Enyoh Christian Ebere1* and Verla
Evelyn Ngozi2
1. Group Research in Analytical Chemistry,
Environment and Climate change (GRACE&CC), Department of Chemistry, Fac=
ulty
of Science, Imo State University, Owerri, Imo S=
tate
Nigeria
2. Department of Environmental Technology,
School of Environmental Technology Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State Nigeria.
*Email:
Cenyoh@gmail.com,
+2347063715081
Abstract
Microplastics
are ubiquitous tiny plastic particles (< 5 mm) nonb=
iodegradable
and have large surface area in the environment or the body of living things=
due
to anthropogenic activities or fragmentation of plastic debris. Though they=
have
been found in sea food and human body, their health implications are still
speculative. Moreover, a major reason for dearth of information on this top=
ical
issue is the lack of standard operating protocol for detecting and quantify=
ing microplastics as a result of their presence in more c=
omplex
environmental matrices. In the present review some methodologies for analyz=
ing microplastics reported in the period 2000 to 2018 hav=
e been
documented with the aim of assessing which methods is most suitable and in =
what
matrix. The following methods have been studied: CHN analyzers, pyrolysis-g=
as
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (PyrGC/MS), op=
tical
microscopy, fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (Micro-FTIR), =
raman
microspectroscopy (RMS) and scanning electron
microscopy with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), effective f=
or
particles <500 μm. However, the quality=
of
result obtained strongly relies on good sampling and sample purification. S=
pecifically,
Micro-Raman spectroscopy is best for particles of <1 μm
while degradation process of plastics is best monitored with SEM-EDS. Gener=
ally,
studies have been conducted with often a combination of two methods; one
separating and the other quantifying which can be problematic moreso in living tissue where there is no harm report=
ed as
at the time of this study. Ultimately based on this study, microplastics
have become a cause for concern and advance studies are required to unravel=
the
potential risk of their presence in our food and environment.
Keywords: Anthropogenic, Fragmentation, Health implicati=
ons,
Hyphenated methods, Matrices, Seafood.&nbs=
p;
1. Introduction
Plastics a=
re
organic polymers, synthesized from the polymerisation<=
/span>
of monomers extracted from oil or gas. Since it first modern development in
1907 called “Bakelite”, it global production rose from 0.3 billion
tons in 2010 [1] to 348
million metric tons in 2017 [2]. Approximately 10 % end up in the marine
environment [3] and only a fraction of about 3 % was recycled in 2016.
The plastics while in the environment breaks down to form debris. Many stud=
ies
have reported that majority (60-80 %) of debris in marine environment are m=
ade
up of plastics [4-6], which are further broken down to tiny particles throu=
gh
weathering processes. The tiny particles are defined as ‘‘microplastics’’ together with primary pla=
stic
particles manufactured at microsize dimensions =
[5,7].
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New =
Roman","serif"'>Microplastics can
simply be defined as small plastic particles in the environment. Term
“micoplastics” was recently coined,
although the occurrence of small plastic particles on beaches and in coastal
waters was first reported in the 1970s [8]. The
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) classified=
microplastics as less than 5 mm in diameter [5]. Howe=
ver,
different authors have given different classifications of microplastics
with numerous size-ranges. Graham and Thompson [9] classified with diameter=
s of
<10 mm, diameter of <5 mm was given by Barnes et al. [5] and Betts [1=
0],
2–6 mm by Derraik [3], <2 mm and <1=
mm
[11-13]. Their sources vary including cosmetics, clothing, and industr=
ial
processes via urban wastewater treatment etc. Micropla=
stics
are classified as primary microplastics and sec=
ondary
microlastics. The primary =
microplastics
are produced from anthropogenic means while secondary =
microplastics
are derived from breakdown of larger plastic debris into microscopic plastic
fragments [14].
Microplastics can be ubiquitous and remain in the environment at high
levels for many years because of their difficulty in breaking down. In the =
last
decade, many researchers have developed interest and conducted studies on <=
span
class=3DSpellE>microplastics due to their massive buildup in the
environment [12,13,15-17].
Currently, their mobility and entire cycle in the environ=
ment
is not yet known. They are more particularly in aquatic and marine
ecosystems. Due to their persistence in the environment, they find their wa=
y and accumulate in
the bodies and tissues of many organisms. When in the host organism they co=
uld
easily undergo chemical exchange due to their large surface area. This may
possibly pose some health issues to the host organisms. In addition, they s=
erve
as vector to pollutants whose health implications are already established;
which include heavy metals (HMs) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (=
i.e polyaromatic hydrocar=
bons,
PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, OCPs and polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs).=
Many
research reports have shown that PCBs are capable of attaching to the surfa=
ce
of plastics [18-21] and become bioavailable when injected by animals [22
Many scientist worldwide have reported on the uptake of <=
span
class=3DSpellE>microplastics by various marine organisms such as fis=
h, sandhoppers, sea turtle, cru=
stacean
and mussel [7,11,28-30].
Due to this, their digestive system may be blocked, thereby leading =
to potentially serious injuries [31]. Furthermore, microplastics have been found in table salts used for
cooking, potable water and human excreta [32]. However, the health implications of microplastics
are still scantly studied with no evidence of impacts on human.
This is an emerging area of
concern. The very scarce available evidence is currently under review by Wo=
rld
Health Organization (WHO). Their objectives are to ind=
entify
gaps in evidence and create an agenda for research, in order to provide
detailed information concerning risk pose to human by =
microplastics
[33].
Researchers argued that the scantly research on microplastics have majorly centered on lack of standa=
rd
operation protocols (SOP) or methodology for sampling, detecting and
quantifying them in the environment [34-38]. Although, different methods ha=
ve
been developed and used by different researchers due to their presence in m=
ore complex
environmental matrices [35,36,39,40]. A review by
Klein et al. [41] summarized poss=
ible
procedure provided by different researchers for analyzing microplastics
in environmental matrix. The review describes the entire study process from
sample collection to reporting of results (presented in Figure 1). O=
ne
key aspect of some of the analytical methods is the extraction of microplastics from dissolving biomass using one or mo=
re
fairly aggressive chemicals such as potassium hydroxide (KOH), hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2), perchloric
acid (HClO4) and nitric acid (HNO3) which can be
destructive to the plastic particles and thus not accurately identifying and
quantifying their presence in a sample. These aggressive chemicals are best
suited for extracting heavy metals from samples of soil [42-44], water [45<=
span
class=3DGramE>,46] and sediment [47].
Microplastics quantification is simply based on differentiating or
separating these particles from other matter whether inorganic (e.g. sedime=
nt)
or organic (e.g. plant material). Density based methods have been applied by
many researchers in order to separate lighter compartments of the sample fr=
om sediment
in a marine environment [35,36,39,48]. Using the
density based method, Song et al.=
i> [49],
explained that interference from other organic particles poses a major prob=
lem
when identifying microplastics as synthetic pol=
ymers.
Other methods involve the use of enzymatic digestion and lipophilic dye Nile Red
(9-diethylamino-5H-benzo[α]phenoxazine-5-one) quantitative differential
staining for small microplastics (1 mm to 20 μ=
m)
in a samples [40, 5=
0-52].
Here, we review common analytic=
al
techniques by which plastic types are identified, which can also be used in=
microplastic detection in the environment. These tech=
niques
are commonly used in analytical and environmental studies. They have been reported to be sens=
itive
and accurate for indentifying and detecting
Fig. 1: Strategies provided by
researchers for microplastics analysis from sam=
pling
to reporting results [41].
2.
Sources of data
Materials =
such
as statistical bulletins, journals articles and conference/workshop/seminar
papers were used for sourcing information. Web of Science and Google Scholar
were two major scientific databases used to search for related articles and=
at
least one of the following the keywords needed to appear in article’s
title or abstract: “Microplastics”,
“Plastics”, “Marine”, “Spectrophotometer̶=
1;,
“Microscopy” and “Spectroscopy” (conducted in May,
August and December 2018). One or more of the aforementioned keywords must =
be
present in an article for the article to be included in the present review.=
All
searches were restricted to peer-reviewed articles written in English that =
were
published after 2000 to ensure review focus on recent literature on microplastics. Additionally, selected article prior t=
o 2000
were included (e.g =
[53] and
[54]) due to
importance in the initial set of empirical studies.
3. Experimental procedure and methods for identifying and quantifyin=
g microplastics in the environment
3.1.
CHN analyzers
CHN
Analyzer is
a scientific instrument which can determine the concentrations of elem=
ents
in a given sample using combustion technique. The analyzer is useful in the
development and production of plastics. It identifies plastic materials and=
quantifies
nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, sulfur and oxygen contents in plastics. No samp=
le
digestion or toxic chemicals is required for it use
Liliana and Guido [56] characterized plasti= cs (pellets, powders and films) by the Thermo Scie= ntific FLASH 2000 Elemental Analyzer. This instrument operates with dynamic flash combustion of the sample. A graphical flow diagram of the instrument is presented in Figure 2. The first thing was to introduce samples into the combustion reactor with oxygen using tin containers. The gases produced aft= er combustion was transported by a helium flow to a layer containing copper, a= nd then passed through a GC column, which separate these gases. The gases will= be finally measured by a thermal conductivity detector (TCD). The measured gas= es revealed acrilonitrile (monomer), a main compon= ent of many types of compounds (polyacrylonitriles) su= ch as plastics. The configuration can be achieved using either sulphur (CHNS) or oxygen (CHNO) respectively [56].
Fig. 2.= span> CHNS/O configuration [56]
In an environment sample, the CHN analyzer will detects microplastics by the abil= ity to identify materials with higher percentage of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen content. The sizes of the samples are very small (a few milligrams), but may differ depending on system. Some samples matrix being = heterogenous in nature and thus larger mass is preferred for their analysis using CHN analyzer.
This method was modified by Morét-Ferguson and coworkers [57], using densi=
ty
separation with subsequent C:H:N analysis to ide=
ntify
the polymer origin of visually sorted microplastics.
They concluded that the approach narrows the search for the potential polym=
er,
thus enabling identification of microplastic
particles by type, which requires no rigorous chemical analysis. However, t=
he
major drawbacks of this technique are (1) the relatively high time effort,
which impede a high sample throughput and (2) not applicable to smaller
particles [38].
3.2.
Pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (PyrGC/MS)
Pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass
spectrometry
(PyrGC/MS) is a chemical analytical technique in
which the sample are decomposed into smaller molecule through heating which=
are
separated by gas chromatography and detected using mass spectrome=
try
[48,58]. It is classified under mass spectrometry. The analytes
for PyrGC/MS includes polymer, biomolecules and
paint. A simple schematic representation of PyrGC/MS process
is presented in Figure 3.
Fig.
3.
A simple schematic representation of PyrGC/MS p=
rocess
The sample=
is
placed in pyrolyzers and rapidly heated to
600–1000 °C (or > 1000 °C, depending on the applicati=
on).
The heating techniques that can be employed include; Isothermal furnace,
inductive heating and resistive heating. Large molecules are decomposed int=
o volatile
fragments through the combustion [59,60]. The
fragments will be separated by gas chromatography (GC), which will provide
characteristic combustion products. These products will then be identified =
by
mass spectroscopy (MS) and structural information elucidated by comparing w=
ith
reference of known pyrograms samples [37,61].Th=
is
method has been used by researchers to identify unknown plastic samples of different polymer types and organic plastic
additives (OPAs) [61,62].
A typical Pyrolysis–GC/MS chromatogram of a plastic sample is present=
ed
in Figure 4.
Fig.
4.
A typical Pyrolysis–GC/MS chromatogram of a plastic sample pyrolyzed at 600 °C, identified as flexible poly =
vinyl
chloride (PVC) [62].
The major
drawback is the manual placing of sample particle into the pyrolyzer.
This limit the size of particle that can be analyzed because only particles=
of
a certain minimum size can be manipulated manually [38]. For this reason,
samples are analyzed in sequence (one particle per run) and thus not suitab=
le
for routine monitoring programs where samples are analyzed in continuous
manner. However, as at 2015 promising pyrolysis-GC/MS approaches for the
qualitative/quantitative analysis of microplastics on
whole environmental sample filters was being developed. This will address t=
he
drawbacks of analyzing a particle per run.
3.3.
Optical Microscopy
Optical
microscopy is the use of opt=
ical
microscope (light microsco=
pe) to
magnify images of small subjects using visible light and a system
of lenses. The image from an optical microscope can be captured by
normal, photosensitive cameras to generate a micrograph. This
method is based on visual identification under a microscope. Visual sorting works =
well
in separating large microplastics as well as
separating potential microplastics from other o=
rganic
or inorganic material in the sample residues [34,57]
whereas dissection microscope is used in sorting smaller microplastic
particles [63].
The use of=
this
method has been reported in literature [40,52,64=
]. Wagner et al. [40] used two
reflected-light stereozoom microscopes (Leica S=
8APO
and S6D) with digital CCD cameras (Leica DFC 420 and 320) for initial
documentation, gut dissection, and pre-screening of any observed particles =
that
visually resembled microplastics in fish sample=
s. The
optical microscopy was conducted at 6.3x – 80x
with a minimum resolution of approximately 10 µm [52]. Wang et al. [6=
7]
also used optical microscope for
analyses of microplastics in ocean trawl and fi=
sh
guts.
This metho=
d can
be aided by staining using dyes such as Nile Red [52,64]. Samples will be treated first wit=
h the
dye solution (often 1 mL) for 48 hours under a fume cupboard until all mois=
ture
evaporated to form a dyed membrane. Subsequently, the dyed membrane filters
were photographed using a camera under Ultra-violet (UV) light. Example of a
useful camera is the Pentax K-30 with resolution 2420x2343 used by Matthias=
and
coworkers [64] in their study.
The dye solution can be prepared using different extraction solvent s=
uch
as acetone, chloroform and n-hexane. Chloroform with recovery rates of 83.3=
%
was reported to be most suitable solvent for the group of high-density and
low-density polyethylene (HDPE, LDPE), polypropylene (PP) and PVC [64,65]. However, the findings of Shim et al. [66] implic=
ated
n-hexane to be most effective for PE and PP, whereas PET and PA were not
detectable. The variation in solvent efficiency in detecting the different =
microplastic type could be due to different surface a=
nd
density properties of the microplastic material=
s. Also,
a
typical visually identified stained microplastics
under an optical microscope is shown in Figure 5.
Fig.
5.
A typical visually identified stained microplastics
under an optical microscope [64].=
It is asse=
rted
by Wang et. al. [67]
that optical microscopy enables morphological classification of particles or
fibers types, quantification of particle size ranges and fiber lengths pres=
ents
in a sample. However, it is suggested by Hidalgo-Ruz=
span> et
al. [34] that for particles < 500 mm ordinary visual sorting with the na=
ked
eye or hand lens should not be applied. This may cause misidentification of
particles with high probability. To sort visually, there are factors that
should be considered generally, which include source, type, shape, degradat=
ion
stage, and color of the particles [34,57], which=
is
extremely time-consuming. Martin and Gunner [38] explained that, “eve=
n an
experienced person cannot discriminate all potential m=
icroplastic
particles unambiguously from sand grains, chitin fragments, diatom frustule
fragments, etc.” Thus the error rate of this method reported ranges f=
rom
20 % [68] to 70 % [34], which increases as particle size decreases. Therefo=
re,
a size limit of 1 mm was recommended for visual sorting [34,57].
3.4.
Fourier Transform InfraRed Microspectroscopy
(Micro-FTIR)
Fourier transform infrared =
(FTIR) microspectroscopy is a technique which produces molec=
ular
microscopic images from samples. The instrument allows observation of spect=
ra
measured from regions as small as 5 microns across because it uses an infra=
red
microscope. The spectra correspond to specific chemical bonds between atoms
which makes it possible to identify the exact composition of the particle [=
69].
In Micro-FTIR, two feasible measu=
ring
modes are used viz reflectance and transmittanc=
e [70].
The former (i.e reflectance mode) handles diffi=
cult
spectra obtained from measurements of irregularly-shaped microplastics
that may not be interpretable due to refractive error [71].The later mode (=
i.e transmittance mode) handles the total absorption
patterns and uses IR transparent filters (e.g. alumini=
um
oxide). Furthermore, it can only be limited by a certain thickness of the <=
span
class=3DSpellE>microplastics sample [38]. In addition, the use of
micro-ATR (Attenuated Total Reflectance) in combination with microscopy enables the direct measurement on the
sample filter without the need for manual handling of particles, when IR
spectra are collected at the surface of a particle [40,70-72].
The micro-FTIR method has been used on biological samples such as
articular cartilage [73] and to track microplastics
in the environment with Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) [40,73,72] and Focal Plane Array=
-Based
Reflectance [38,70,74].Wagner [40] and Bradley et al. [72] both used the Thermo Scientific Nicolet Continuum FTIR Microscope w=
ith
10x optical objective, 15x IR objective, and a Nexus 470 spectrometer with
attenuated total reflectance (ATR) (diamond and Ge-ATR). In the study, majo=
rity
of the particles were analyzed either on glass slides or directly on filter.
All acquired FTIR spectra were compared to quantitative matches from commer=
cial
FTIR libraries. . In addition, in Figure 6, FTIR spectra of a microplastic fiber on filter from a river water sampl=
e are
shown.
Fig. 6: FTIR = spectra of a microplastic fiber on filter from a river wat= er sample. The top spectrum is from Nicolet iN5 microscope fitted with Ge-ATR;= the lower spectrum is a library search result [72].
Kerstin and Federik
[69] screened microplastic particles in and
down-stream a wastewater treatment plant with a Bruker FTIR Tensor in
Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) mode equipped with a diamond crystal.
Different plastic fragments (≥300 μm=
) were
reportedly found in wastewater treatment plant. Alexander et al. [74] used =
the FPA-Based Reflectance Micro-FT-IR Imagi=
ng to
identify and quantify microplastics in wastewat=
er.
The authors concluded that the tool is good for identifying and quantifying=
microplastics in wastewater and also to determine the
abundance of microplastics in other organic-ric=
h environments,
such as peat soils [74]. This FPA based micro-FTIR spectroscopy is a very
promising technique for verifying polymer origin of mi=
croplastic
particles. Martin and Gunner [38] recommended for use in monitoring program=
s on
microplastics.
Micro-FTIR enables identification of repetitive fingerprint-like
molecular composition of plastic polymers for a clear assignment of a sampl=
e to
a certain polymer origin. It offers the possibility of accurate identificat=
ion
of plastic polymer particles according to their characteristic IR spectra
[15-17,48,71,75], si=
multaneously
record several thousand spectra within an area with a single measurement and
thus the generation of chemical images (Figure 7) [38]. In figure 7,=
the
analysis was done by FPA based micro-FTIR spectroscopy. The intensity of the
chosen spectral bands is reflected by the color scale according to peak are=
a (bluish
color scale intensity of the peak 1,931–1,832 cm−1; reddish
color scale intensity of the peak 2981–2780 cm−1=
).
This enabled clear identification of a quartz particles=
in light blue (a) at band of 1931–1832 cm−1 =
and
a polyethylene particle in orange (b) at=
band
of 2981–2780 cm−1 in a sample.
Fig. 7. Chemical imaging of an integration of typical spectral bands =
[38].
The simplicity of this method is in both sampling and analysis. Sampl=
es
are simply filtered and analyzed directly on the dried filter without furth=
er
sample preparation. This enab=
les
the rapid assessment of microplastic encroachme=
nt and
can assist in the development of remediation techniques [72]. However, it is
extremely time-consuming when targeting the whole sample filter surface at a
high spatial resolution because it uses only a single detector element, whi=
ch
happens to be limitation of this technique [15,71].
3.5.
Raman micro-spectroscopy (RMS)
Raman spectroscopy =
is a
“surface technique”, thus large, visually sorted microplastic particles can be analyzed and the techni=
que
can also be coupled with microscopy. Raman micro-spectroscopy is
straightforward and uses a scattering technique. The simple principle of th=
is
technique is measuring the wavelength and intensity of inelastically
scattered light from molecules caused by a monochromatic light. The Raman
scattered light occurs at wavelengths that are shifted from incident light =
by
the energies of molecular vibrations giving out spectra (Figure 8). A very
small volume (< 1 µm in diameter) of the sample can generate =
the
Raman spectra which allow the identification of species present in that vol=
ume
[76].
Fig. 8. Schematic for process involved in collecting Raman spect=
ra.
A Raman spectrum for tetra(4-aminophenyl) porphy=
rin
(TAPP) powder is shown [77].
The instrument cons=
ists
of a standard optical microscope, an excitation laser, a notch filter, a&nb=
sp;monochromator, and a sensitive detector (such as
a charge-coupled device (CCD), or photomultiplier tube
(PMT)). The notch filte=
r is
used to block elastically scattered light which would otherwise overwhelm t=
he
weak signal from the Raman or inelastically sca=
ttered
photons (~ 1/106 scattered photons). The Raman scattered light m=
ay
be dispersed according to wavelength and detected by a CCD as shown in Figu=
re
8. Angel et al.[53] stated
that when a UV laser source is used for Raman microspe=
ctroscopy
(RMS), then Ultraviolet microscopes and UV aided optics must be used.
Earlier studies by Taylor et al.[78] and Adrian =
et al.[79]
have expressed the suitability of RMS for the microscopic examination of
minerals, materials such as polymers and ceramics, cells, proteins and
forensic trace evidence.
RMS
have been used by a lot of researchers for detecting m=
icroplastics
with high reliability in marine
environment [7,16,28,36,80] and for testing simulated =
microplastics
polluted water [81]. Wagner et al. [40] performed the analyses on ocean tra=
wl
and fish using both Renishaw inVia and Bruker <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Senterra dispersive Raman microscopes with 785 nm and=
532
nm lasers. In the study, analytical laser optimization was achieved using
several different objectives (5x, 20x, 50x and 1=
00x).
The author marched the Raman spectra obtained with spectral matching perfor=
med
using GRAMS software, which was equipped with commercially available Raman
spectral libraries. Rocchia et al. [81] simulat=
ed microplastics polluted water. A few milligrams of thr=
ee
different reference materials (irregularly shaped polyethylene particles si=
eved
at 74 microns, polystyrene-divinylbenzene PS-DVB
microspheres sieved between 37 -74 microns and polyethylene-titanium dioxide
PE-TiO2 microspheres with a size range of 27-45 micron) were used to simula=
te microplastic debris with different particle sizes in =
0.5 L
of water. The Raman spectra data were collected using the DXR2xi Raman imag=
ing
microscope and the accompanying ThermoScientific OMNICxi Raman imaging software. The obtained spectra =
are
presented in Figure 9. The author concluded that Raman microscopy allows the
analysis of particles below 1-micron size and the correct identification of
plastic materials as well as inorganic materials such as titanium dioxide or
other additives.
Fig.
9. Raman spectra of PE -
polyethylene; PE-TiO2 polyethylene-titanium dioxide and PS-DVB –
polystyrene-divinylbenzene microplastic
standards [81].
The Raman techniques
have one major advantage over FTIR, which is its ability to identify partic=
les
up to 500 nm in size [80]. By comparison with reference spectra or standard
library spectra (e.g from GRAMS software), spec=
ific
plastic polymers can be identified within minutes. Accordingly, RMS allows
broad range of detection and quantification of very small plastic particles=
of
sizes < 1 µm [7,35] and when combined w=
ith
Raman spectral imaging, spatial chemical images can be produced based on the
Raman spectra of a sample. This was recently demonstrated by [81]. Cole et =
al.
[7] demonstrated that polymer particles within biological tissues with
subcellular precision can be located with Raman technique when coupled with
confocal laser-scanning microscopy. One limitation of this technique is dra=
wn
from its inability to measure laser excited fluorescent samples (e.g. resid=
ues
of biological origin from samples) as they block the generation of
interpretable Raman spectra [38].Generally, lower laser wave lengths transm=
it
high energy result and signal intensity but also in a high fluorescence.
Therefore, higher laser wavelengths greater than 1000 nm will minimize
fluorescence but the lower energy of the laser results in a lower signal of=
the
polymer sample. More study is required to find the optimum wave length of t=
he
laser light which will address this problem of fluorescence and low intensi=
ty
for assessments of microplastics in environment=
al
samples. In line, [38] recommended that fluorescence should be prevented
through a sample pre-purification step prior to measurements for a clear
identification of the polymer type of microplastic
particles
Raman spectroscopy =
and
FTIR are complementary techniques. Molecular vibrations, which are Raman
inactive are IR active and vice versa and can thus provide complementary
information on microplastic samples [38].
3.6.
Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy
(SEM/EDS)
Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) magnifies a specific sample region using a high energy foc=
used
beam of electrons. The analyzed region evaluated with SEM can also be assay=
ed
for specific elements using Energy Dispersion Spectroscopy (EDS). SEM gener=
ates
micrographs while EDS provides concentration of chemical composition of the
sample. Thus the combined technique is referred to as SEM/EDS or SEM/EDX An=
alysis.
The SEM/EDS method enables the detection of microplast=
ics
and its degradation process in a sample due to its micro-scale and nano-scale features with magnification up to 500,000x
[15,36]. The method determines particle sizes and elemental composition of =
microplastics in your test sample. It can only be per=
formed
only on solid samples [82].
A key factor in SEM=
is
the interaction volume, which depends on the accelerating voltage of the
electron beam and other factors including specimen nature, composition and
sample preparation. The higher the accelerating voltage applied, the larger=
the
interaction volume. This is turn determines the emission depth of the diffe=
rent
signals used. The emission of secondary electrons (topography) and backscat=
tered
electrons (atomic number) are used to generate micrographs in SEM. Thereby
providing information on topography, morphology, composition and
crystallographic nature of microplastics in an
environmental sample [83]. This method has been used to detect microplastics particles in sample [15,36].
Vianello [15] analysed
sediments collected from Lagoon of Venice in Italy using SEM to characterize
the surface morphology of the microplastic part=
icles.
Result showed irregular shapes and similar surface textures for several
Fig.
10. Scanning electron microscopy images showing the
surface of several thermoplastics: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),
polystyrene (PS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) [83].
Whilst SEM is effec=
tive
for identification, EDS helps in quantification. In addition, SEM/EDS analy=
ses have
been conducted on ocean trawl and fish gut for micropl=
astics
by [40] and [67]. =
span>Potential
microplastics using particle morphology and ele=
mental
chemistry profiles have been tested by Wagner et al [40]. The analytical
instrument used has been FEI XL30 Environmental SEM and a Thermo
Fisher Scientific Noran System 7 EDS System. Mo=
reover,
samples has been imaged at 50x – 10,000x using an atomic number
sensitive, backscattered electron (BSE) detector with a resolution of
approximately 0.1 µm. [67] reported that SEM/EDS is effective in
identifying chlorinated plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) due to th=
eir
unique elemental signatures. Typical SEM-EDS results for microplastics
in an environmental sample are shown in Figure 11.
Fig.
11. Typical SEM-EDS results for microplastics
in an environmental sample [67].
The technique (SEM/=
EDS)
has been used in identification of plastic additives of inorganic origin
The limitation of
quantitative SEM-EDS is that, this technique should only be carried out in =
flat
polished samples or very thin films with irrelevant topography. Prior to
spectra acquisition for quantification purpose, it is imperative that sever=
al
well-assigned spectra with sufficient X-ray counts have been previously
collected (serving as a reference). Then, the spectra need to be processed =
with
matrix corrections with oxygen calculated by stoichiometry and the appropri=
ate
ZAF (the atomic number-Z, absorption-A and fluorescence-F correction)
procedure. Again, EDS software applies the ZAF
correction and carries out subsequent integration of the peaks to give the
final semiquantification of the elements presen=
t in
the specimen. Nevertheless, the user should be as critical as possible when
accepting each step of the quantification process provided by the software =
[85].
4. Conclusions
This
study reviewed spectroscopic techniques for quantifying and identification =
of microplastics in an environmental sample. Generally, =
for microplastics particles <500 =
μm,
spectroscopic techniques is important for their identification while the
quality of result obtained strongly rely on good sampling and effective sam=
ple
purification. During purification aggressive agents (e.g. strong acidic or
alkaline solutions) should be avoided to conserve the whole plastic spectru=
m and
because aggressive solutions negatively affect certain plastic polymer. Also, ordinary visual inspection of samples alo=
ne is
insufficient but when in tandem with optical microscope it becomes effectiv=
e,
especially, in the case of particles <500 μm=
span>. In addition, C=
HN
analyzer, pyrolysis-GC/MS and
SEM-EDS have been used effectively for sample identification and
quantification. The former which is based on combustion techniques works be=
tter
for larger particle while SEM-EDS techniques is a better update to optical
microscopy by providing infor=
mation
on the degradation process of plastic particles. A spectroscopic verificati=
on
of microplastic particles by micro-FTIR or
micro-Raman spectroscopy is essential and has also been used successfully f=
or
analyzing the particles of microplastics. Micro=
-Raman
spectroscopy is very effective for microplastic
particles of <1 μm. Furthermore, spectroscopic techniques create an added value =
as
they also provide information on the polymer composition. However, some of =
the
discussed methods have its drawbacks in their use which include cost
effectiveness, time consuming and difficulty to use (especially if you are
inexperienced) like pyrolysis-GC/MS where samples have t=
o be
placed manually.
Finally,
microplastics have been studied with non destructive methods often a combination of two me=
thods:
one separating and the other quantifying. It could be observed that since <=
span
class=3DSpellE>microplastics undergo very few reactions, their
identification and quantification can be problematic more so in living tiss=
ue
where there is no harm reported as at the time of this study. However, microplastics have become a cause for concern and adv=
ance
studies are required to unravel the potential risk of their presence in our
food and environment.
Conflicts of interest
The
authors declare no conflicts of interest
Acknowledgement
This
research did not receive any specific funding
Nomenclatures (Abbreviations)
NOAA: National Ocea=
nic
and Atmospheric Administration;
POPs: Persistent
organic pollutants;
PAHs: Polyaromatic hydrocarbons;
OCPs: Organochlorine
pesticides;
PCBs: polychlorinat=
ed
biphenyls;
WHO: World Health
Organization;
SOP: standard opera=
tion
protocols;
FTIR: Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy;
SEM-EDS: scanning electron microscopy energy-dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (SEM-EDS); PyrGC/MS: pyrolysis-
chromatography/mass spectrometry;
TD-GC/MS: thermal desorption-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry;
GC: gas chromatography;
MS: mass spectroscopy;
TCD: thermal conductivity detector; =
OPAs: orga=
nic
plastic additives;
HDPE, LDPE:
high-density and low-density polyethylene;
ATR: Attenuated Total Reflectance (A=
TR);
FPA: Focal Plane
Array-Based Reflectance;
RMS: Raman micro-spectroscopy;
CCD: charge-coupled device;
PMT: photomultiplier tube;
UV: Ultraviolet;
PE: polyethylene;
PE-TiO2: polyethylen-titanium
dioxide;
PS-DVB: polystyrene-divinylbenzene;
SEM: Scanning Electron Microscopy; <= o:p>
EDS: Energy Dispersion Spectroscopy;=
PP: polypropylene;
PS: polystyrene;
PVC: polyvinyl chloride;
ZAF: atomic number-Z, absorption-A a=
nd
fluorescence-F.
=
=
References
[1] R.U. Halden=
,
Plastics and public health. Ann. Rev. Pub. Health 31, (2010) 179–194.
=
[2] Statista, Production of plastics worldwide =
from
1950 to 2017 (in million metric tons), (2018) https://www.statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plas=
tics-since-1950/ [Accessed 27 December 2018].
=
[3]
R.C. Thompson, Plastic debris in the marine environmen=
t:consequences and solution. In: Krause JC, Nordheim H, Brager S(eds) Marine nature conse=
rvation
in Europe. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Stralsund, (2006), 107=
8211;115
[4]
J.G. Derraik The pol=
lution
of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Poll. Bull. 44,=
(2002),
842–852.
[5]
C.J. Moore, G. L. Lattin, A.F. Zellers, Density=
of
plastic particles found in zooplankton trawls from coastal waters of Califo=
rnia
to the North Pacific Central Gyre. The Plastic Debris R=
iver
to Sea Conference, Redondo Beach, California (2005).
[6]
D. Barnes, F. Galgani, R. Thompson, M. Barlaz Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debr=
is in
global environments. Philo. Trans. Royal Soc. B =
364, (2009),
985–998.
[7]
M. Cole, P. Lindeque, C. H=
alsband,
T. S. Galloway, Microplasticsas contaminants in=
the
marine environment: a review. Mar. Poll. Bull. 62, (2011), 2588–2597.=
[8]
Greenfacts, Marine Litter: What are micro-plast=
ics
and how do they enter the marine environment? (2018). <=
span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-seri=
f";
mso-bidi-font-family:SimSun'>https://www.greenfacts.org/en/marine-litter/l-2/=
3-micro-plastics.htm
[Accessed 09 May 2018].
[9]
E.R. Graham, J.T. Thompson, Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea cucumbers
(Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Eco.
368, (2009), 22–29.
[10] K. Betts, Why small plastic particles may p=
ose
a big problem in the oceans.
Env.
Sci. Tech. 42, (2008), 8995-8999.
[11]
M.A. Browne, A. Dissanayake, T.S. Galloway, D.M=
. Lowe,
R.C. Thompson, Ingested microscopic plastic translocat=
es
to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus
edulis (L.). Env. Sci. Tech. 42, (2008). 50=
26–5031
[12]
M.A. Browne, P. Crump, S.J. Niven, E. Teuten, A=
. Tonkin,
T. Galloway, Accumulation of microplastic on
shorelines worldwide: Sources and sinks. Env. Sci. Tech. 45, (2011), 9175–9179.
[13]
M. Claessens, S. De Meeste=
r,
L. Van Landuyt, K. De Cler=
ck,
C. R. Janssen, Occurrence and distribution of micropla=
stics
in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Poll. Bull. 62, (2011), 2199–2204.
[14]
J. Hammer, M.H. Kraak, J.R. Parsons, Plastics in the marine environment: the dark side of a
modern gift". Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. 220, (2012), 1–44.
[15]
A. Vianell, A. Boldrin, P. Guerriero, V. Moschino, R. Rella=
,
A. Sturaro, Microplastic=
span>
particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy: First observations on
occurrence, spatial patterns and identification. Estuarine, Coastal and She=
lf
Sci. 130, (2013), 54–61.
[16]
L. Van Cauwenberghe, A. Va=
nreusel,
J. Mees, C.R. Janssen, Mic=
roplastic
pollution in deep-sea sediments. E=
nv. Poll. 182, (2013), 495=
211;499.
[17]
K.L. Ng, J.P. Obbard, Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s coastal marineenvironment. Mar.
Poll. Bull., 52(7), (2006), 761–767.
=
[18]
T. Bowmer, P. Kershaw, In: ‘Proceedings o=
f the
GESAMP International Workshop on Microplastic
Particles as a Vector in Transporting Persistent, Bioa=
ccumulating
and Toxic Substances in the Oceans, (2010), 92.
=
[19]
S. Endo, R. Takizawa, K. Okuda, H. Takada, K. Chiba, H. Kanehiro,
H. Ogi, R. Yamashita, T. Date, Concentration of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)in beached resin pellets: variability among
individual particles and regional differences. Mar. Poll. Bull. 50, (2005),=
1103-1114.
[20] Y. Mato, T.
=
[21]
L. M. Rios, C. Moore, P.R. Jones, Persistent organic pollutants carried
=
= [22] A.A. Koelmans, = E. Besseling, E.M. Foekema, = Leaching of plastic additives tomarine organisms. Env.= span> Poll. 187, (2014), 49-54.
=
[23]
C. M. Rochman, E. Hoh, T. Kurobe, S.J. Teh, Ingested plastic transfers =
hazardouschemicals
to fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports =
3, (2013),
3263.
[24] L.A. Holmes, A. Turner, R.C. Thompson, Adsorption of trace metals to plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Env. Poll. 160, (2012), 42-48.=
[25]
C.M. Rochman, B.T. Hentsch=
el,
S.J. Teh, Long-term sorption of metals is simil=
ar
among plastic types: implications for plastic debris in aquatic environment=
s. PLoS O=
ne 9, (2014),
85433.
[26]
K. Ashton, L. Holmes, A. Turner, Association of metals with plastic product=
ion
pellets in the marine environment. Mar. Poll. Bull. 60,=
(2010).
2050-2055.
[27]
L.A. Holmes, A. Turner, R.C. Thompson, Interactions between trace metals and
plastic production pellets under estuarine conditions. Marine Chemistry 23,=
(2014),
1-8.
[28]
F. Murray, P.R. Cowie, Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linn=
aeus,
1758). Mar. Pollu. Bull. 62, (2011), 1207–=
;1217.
[29]
A. Ugolini, G. Ungherese=
span>, M.
Ciofini, A. Lapucci=
, M. Camaiti, Microplastic deb=
ris in sandhoppers. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sci. 129, (=
2013),
19–22.
[30]
E.M. Foekema, C. De Gruijt=
er,
M.T. Mergia, J.A. van Fran=
eker,
A.J. Murk, A.A. Koelmans, Plastic in North Sea =
fish. Env.=
span> Sci.
Tech. 47, (2013), 8818–8824.
[31]
S.L. Wright, R.C. Thompson, T.S. Galloway, The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Env.=
span> Poll. 178, (2013), 483–492.
[32]
BBC, Indonesian study into health risks of microplasti=
cs
(2018). http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-4391=
3597 [Accessed 09 May 2018]
[33]
The Guardian WHO launches health review after micropla=
stics
found in 90% of bottled water, (2018) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar=
/15/microplastics-found-in-more-than-90-of-bottled-water-study-says<=
/a> [Accessed 09 May 2018].
[34]
V. Hidalgo-Ruz, L. Gutow=
span>, R.C.
Thompson, M. Thiel, Microplastics in the marine
environment: a review of the methods used for identification and
quantification. Env<=
span
class=3DGramE>. Sci. Tech. 46, (2012), 3060–3075.
[35]
M. Claessens, L. Van Cauwe=
nberghe,
M.B. Vandegehuchte, C.R. Janssen, New technique=
s for
the detection of microplastics in sediments and=
field
collected organisms. Mar. Poll. Bull. 70, (2013), 227–233.
[36]
H.K. Imhof, J. Schmid, R. Niessner, N.P. Ivleva, C.=
Laforsch, A novel, highly efficient method for the
separation and quantification of plastic particles in sediments of aquatic
environments. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 10, (2012), 524–537=
.
[37]
M.T. Nuelle, J. H. Dekiff<=
/span>, D.
Remy, E. Fries, A new analytical approach for monitoring microplastics
in marine sediments. Env. Poll. 184, (2014), 161–169.
[38]
G.J.L. Martin, G. Gunnar, Methodology Used for the Detection and Identifica=
tion
of Microplastics—A Critical Appraisal. M.
Bergmann et al. (eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter Chapter 8 (2015).
[39]
M. Kedzierski, V. Le Tilly, P. Bourseau,
H. Bellegou, G. César, O. Sire, Microplastics elutriation from sandy sediments: A
[40]
J. Wagner, Z. Wang, S. Ghosal, C. M. Rochman, M. Gassel and S.=
Wall,
Novel Method for the Extraction and Identification of =
Microplastics
in Ocean Trawl and Fish Gut Matrices. Anal. Methods, (2016).
=
[41] S. Klein, I.K. Dimzon, T.P. K=
nepper,
Analysis, Occurrence, and Degradation of Microplastics=
in the Aqueous Environment. M. Wagner, S. Lambert
(eds.), Freshwater Microplastics, Hdb
Env Chem 58, (2018)=
51-62.
=
=
[42] E. N.=
Verla, M.J. Horsfall, A.I=
. Spiff,
Physico chemical Characterization of Playgrounds
Soils of public Schools in Owerri Metropolis, I=
mo
State, Nigeria. Int. J. Inn. App. Studies, 13(2)=
, (2015)
472-480.
=
=
[43] E.N. =
Verla, A.W. Verla, C.E. <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Enyoh, Pollution Assessment Models Of Soils In Portharcourt City, Rivers State, Nigeria. Wor N. Nat. Sci., 12, (2017) 1-23.
=
=
[44] C.E. =
Enyoh, E.A. Ihionu, A.W. =
Verla, P. N. Ebosie, Phys=
icochemical
Parameter Of Palm Oil And Soil From Ihube Commu=
nity, Okigwe, Imo State Nigeria. Int. Letters Nat. Sci., 62=
, (2017)
35-43.
=
=
[45] C.E. Enyoh, A.W. Verla, N.J. <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Egejuru, pH variations and chemo=
metric
assessment of borehole water in Orji, Owerri Imo
State, Nigeria. J. Env. Ana=
l.
Chem. 5(2), (2018).
1-9.
=
=
[46] A. W.=
Verla, E. N. Verla, C. E.=
Amaobi, C. E., Enyoh Water
Pollution Scenario at River Uramurukwa Flowing
Through Owerri Metropolis, Imo State, Nigeria. =
Int. J.
App. Sci. Res., 3, (3), (2018) 40-46.
=
=
[47] L. Ji=
ng,
Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Surface Sediments from the Yanghe River, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Hea=
lth,
11, (2014) 12441-12453
=
[48]
R.C. Thompson, Y. Olsen, R.P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S.J. Rowland, A.W. John, Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science, 304, (2004), 838–838.
[49] Y.K. Song, S.H. Hong, M. Jang, G.M. Han, M.=
Rani,
J. Lee, A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic identification methods
for analysis of microplastics in environmental
samples. Mar. Poll. Bull. <=
/span>93, (2015), 202-209.
[50]
J.P.W. Desforges, M. Galbraith, N. Dangerfield,=
P.S. Ross,
Widespread distribution of microplastics in
subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean. Mar. Poll. Bull. 79, (2013) 94=
–99.
[51]
G. Erni-Cassola, M.I. Gibson, R.C. Th=
ompson, J.A.
Christie-Oleza, Lost, but Found with Nile Red: A Novel Method for Detecting and
Quantifying Small Microplastics (1 mm to 20
[52] T. Maes, J. Rebecca, W. N=
ikolaus, H.
Karsten, G.M. Andrew, A rapid-screening approac=
h to
detect and quantify microplastics based on
fluorescent tagging with Nile Red. Scientific Reports=
7,
(2017), 44501.
=
[53]
S.M. Angel, T.J. Kulp, T.M. Vess,
Remote-Raman Spectroscopy at Intermediate Ranges Using Low-Power cw Lasers. Applied Spectroscopy 46,
(1992), 1085–1091.
=
[54] R. Goodacre, D=
.B. Kell, Pyrolysis mass spectrometry and its application=
s in
biotechnology. Curr. Op. Biotech. 7, (1996) 20–28.
[55]
G. Guido, Characterization of Polymers and Plastics Using an Elemental
Analyzer, (2016), https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/polymers2plast=
ics/characterization-of-polymers-and-plastics-using-an-elemental-analyzer/<=
/span> [Accessed 10 May 2018].
[56] K. Liliana, G. Guido, Characterization of
Polymers and Plastics (pellets, powders and films) by the Thermo
Scientific FLASH 2000 Elemental Analyzer.
Application note 42230, (2016), 1-5.
[57] S. Mor&eac=
ute;t-Ferguson,
K.L. Law, G. Proskurowski, E.K. Murphy, E.E. Pe=
acock,
C.M. Reddy, The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the Western
North Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Poll. Bull. 6=
0,
(2010), 1873–1878.
[58]
P.M. Peacock, C.N. McEwen, Mass
Spectrometry of Synthetic Polymers. Anal. Chem. =
78, (2006), 3957–3964.&nbs=
p;
[59] R. K. Erwin, K. Mitsuhiro, G. Margit, J. H=
ans-Gerd, Hyphenation of aqueous liquid chromatography to
pyrolysis-gas chromatography and mass spectrometry for the comprehensive
characterization of water-soluble polymers. J. Ch=
rom.
A 1186,
(2008), 222–227.
=
[60] P. Eckerle, M. Pursch, H.J. =
Cortes, K.
Sun, B. Winniford, J. Luong, Determination of
short-chain branching content in polyethylene by pyrolysis comprehensive
multidimensional gas chromatography using low thermal mass column
technology. J. Sep. Sci. 1, (2008), 3416–3422.
=
=
[61] E. Fries, J.H. De=
kiff, J.
Willmeyer, M.T. Nuell=
e, Ebert M., D. Remy, Identification of polym=
er
types and additives in marine microplastic part=
icles
using pyrolysis-GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environ. Sci. Proce=
ss
Impacts 15, (2013) 1949-1956.
=
[62] P. Kusch, Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry of Polymeric Materials.
Advanced Gas Chromatography-Progress in Agricultural, Biomedical and Indust=
rial
Applications, Dr. Mustafa Ali Mohd (Ed.), InTech, (2012), 21-24.
[63]
A.J. Underwood, M.G. Chapman, M.A. Browne, Some problems and practicalities=
in
design and interpretation of samples of microplastic=
span>
waste. Anal. Methods 9, (2017), 1332–1345.=
=
[64] T. Matthias, H. Elena, K.F. Elke, Nile Red
Staining as a Subsidiary Method for Microplastic Quantification:
A Comparison of Three Solvents and Factors Influencing Application Reliabil=
ity.
DRP J. Earth Sci. Env. Studies
2, 2, (2017) 1-8.
=
=
[65] Plastics Europe. Plastics – The facts.
Available from: http://www.plasticseurope.org/cust/documentrequest.aspx?DocID=3D65435=
. [Accessed 6 August 2018].<=
/span>
=
=
[66]
W. J. Shim, Y.K. Song, S.H. Hong, M. Jang, Identification and quantificatio=
n of
microplastics using Nile Red staining. Mar. Pol=
l.
Bull. 104, (2016) 109-117.
=
=
[67]
Z.M. Wang, J. Wagner, S. Ghosal, =
;G. Bedi, S. Wall, SEM/EDS
and optical microscopy analyses of microplastics in
ocean trawl and fish guts. Sci. Total Envi. 603-604, (2017) 616-626.
=
= [68] M. Eriksen, S. = Mason, S. Wilson, C. Box, A. Zellers, W. Edwards, Microplasti= c pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Poll. Bull. 77, (2013) 177–182.<= o:p>
=
=
[69]
M. Kerstin, N. Fredrik Screening Of Microplastic
Particles In And Down-Stream A Wastewater Treatm=
ent
Plant. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm (2014), 1-22=
.
[70] I. W. Levin, R. Bharga= va Fourier transform infrared vibrational spectroscopicim= aging: Integrating microscopy and molecular recognition. Annual Rev. Phy. Chem. 56, (2005= ) 429–474.
[71] J. P. Harrison, J.J. O= jeda, M.E. Romero-Gonzalez, The applicability of reflectance micro- Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for the detection of synthetic m= icroplastics in marine sediments. Sci Total Environ 416, (20= 12) 455–463.
[72] M. Bradley, S. Suja, L. Steven, W. Stephan, Tracking Microplastics in the Environment via FT-IR Microscopy=
. Spectroscopy
32, (2017) 17–23.
[73] S. Saarakkala, L. Rieppo, J. Rieppo, J. S. Jurvelin, Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Microspectros= copy of Immature, Mature and Degenerated Articular Cartilag= e.Microscopy: Science, Technology, Applications and Education, A. Méndez-Vilas and= J. Díaz (Eds.), Formatex (2010).
[74] S. T. Alexander, S. Melanie, P.H. Jesse, J.O. Jesús, Identification and quantification of microplastics in wastewater using focal plane array-b=
ased
reflectance micro-FTIR imaging. Anal. Chem=
. 87, (2015)
6032-6040.
=
=
[75] M. M. Reddy, M. Deighton, R.K. Gupta, S.N. =
Bhattacharya,
R. Parthasarathy, Biodegradation of oxo-biodegradable polyethylene. J=
Appl. Polym. Sci 111(3),=
(2009) 1426–1432.
=
=
[76]
S. Schlücker, Design and synthesis of Raman
reporter molecules for tissue imaging by immuno-SERS microscopy. Journal of Biopho=
tonics
4, (2011) 453–463.
=
=
[77] The Prashant Kamat
Laboratory. Raman Spectroscopy. (2015)
https://www3.nd.edu/~kamatlab/facilities_spectroscopy.html.
[Accessed 9 August 2018].
=
=
[78]
P.D. Taylor, O. Vinn, A. K=
udryavtsev,
J.W. Schopf, Raman spectroscopic study of the m=
ineral
composition of cirratulid tubes (Annelida,
Polychaeta). J. Struc. Bio. 171, (2010) 402–405.
=
=
[79] G. Ad=
rian, C.P.
flavius, S. Virginie<=
/span>, S. Chris,
N. Ioan,Applications=
of
Raman micro-spectroscopy to stem cell technology: label-free molecular
discrimination and monitoring cell differentiation. EPJ Tech Instrument 2, (2015) 6-9.
=
=
[80]
D. Fischer, K. Andrea, E. Klaus-Jochen,
Identification of Microplastics in the Marine
Environment by Raman Microspectroscopy and Imag=
ing. (2015) https://ww=
w.americanlaboratory.com/914-Application-Notes/173574-Identifi-cation-of-Mi=
croplastics-in-the-Marine-Environment-by-Raman-Microspectroscopy-and-Imagin=
g/.
[Accessed 11
May 2018].
=
=
[81]
M. Rocchia, I. Ruff, A. Vi=
anello,
Microplastic identification and characterizatio=
n by
Raman imaging spectroscopy. Thermo Fisher Scien=
tific
Inc. (2017) 1-5.
=
=
[82]
Polymer Solutions, SEM Analysis | SEM-EDS Analysis. (20=
17), Available
on https://ww=
w.polymersolutions.com/capabilities/scanning-electron-microscopy-with-energ=
y-dispersive-spectroscopy/.
[Acessed 12
May 2018].
=
= [83] Ana VG, Gianvito C, Marta CF (2017). Application of Scanning Electron Microscopy –Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS). Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry= , 75. 10= -19.
=
=
[84]
L.M.R. Mendoza, P.R. Jones, Characterisation of=
microplastics and toxic chemicals extracted from microplastic samples from the North Pacific Gyre.
=
=
[85]
A.J. Garratt-Reed, D.C. Bell, Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis in the Elect=
ron
Microscope, BIOS Scientific Publishers Limited, Oxford (2003).