Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026
09:10
Multimodal Analysis of Microplastics in Drinking Water using a Silicon Nanomembrane Analysis Pipeline
Published on: June 13, 2025
1.2K
Microplastic analysis-are we measuring the same? Results on the first global comparative study for microplastic
Yanina K Müller1, Theo Wernicke1,2, Marco Pittroff1
1TZW: DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser (German Water Centre), Karlsruher Str. 84, 76139, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
|December 19, 2019
Summary
This study compared microplastic analysis methods across 17 labs. Raman microspectroscopy (μ-Raman) and GC/MS excelled at polymer identification, but quantification varied widely, stressing the need for standardized microplastic analysis methods.
Area of Science:
- Environmental Science
- Analytical Chemistry
- Materials Science
Background:
- Microplastic analysis comparability is limited.
- Standardization efforts are underway.
- Suitability of current methods needs assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- Assess suitability of common microplastic analytical methods.
- Identify obstacles in comparative microplastic studies.
- Compare results from 17 international laboratories.
Main Methods:
- Compared microscopy, μ-FTIR, μ-Raman, Σ-GC/MS, SEM, and particle counters.
- Used microplastic reference particles (8–140 µm) in ultrapure water.
- Evaluated methods for particle number, polymer type, and mass quantification.
Main Results:
- μ-Raman and Σ-GC/MS showed best polymer identification.
- Quantification of polymer mass was questionable for Σ-GC/MS.
- μ-FTIR was successful for particle number per polymer type; microscopy for total particle numbers.
- Significant variance observed within and between methods.
Conclusions:
- Results highlight the urgent need for standardized and validated analytical methods for microplastics.
- Method interpretation and blank value handling impact results.
- Global and laboratory-specific standardization is crucial for reliable microplastic research.
