Comparison and uncertainty evaluation of two centrifugal separators for microplastic sampling

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage125482eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleJournal of hazardous materials : environmental control, risk assessment, impact and managementeng
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume414eng
dc.contributor.authorHildebrandt, Lars
dc.contributor.authorZimmermann, Tristan
dc.contributor.authorPrimpke, Sebastian
dc.contributor.authorFischer, Dieter
dc.contributor.authorGerdts, Gunnar
dc.contributor.authorPröfrock, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-22T08:55:31Z
dc.date.available2022-03-22T08:55:31Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractFor commonly applied microplastic sampling approaches based on filtration, high throughput and no size-discrimination are conflicting goals. Therefore, we propose two efficient centrifugal separators for small microplastic sampling, namely the utilization of a hydrocyclone as well as a continuous flow centrifuge. Thorough method optimization was followed by application in an extensive sampling study to investigate the separators' retention behavior for particulate plastics from estuarine waters. Microplastic concentrations ranged from 193 to 2072 particles m-3. The most dominant identified polymer types were polypropylene, acrylates, polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene. More than 95% of particles were < 100 µm. For the first time in microplastic research, an expanded uncertainty was calculated according to the "Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement" (JCGM 100:2008). Bottom-up uncertainty evaluation revealed the different sampling methods (~ 44%), sample replicates (~ 26%) and the different detection techniques (~ 16%) as the major sources of uncertainty. Depending on the number of particles detected in the samples, the relative expanded uncertainty (Urel (k = 2)) ranged from 24% up to > 200% underpinning tremendous importance of sound uncertainty evaluation. Our results indicate that scientist should rethink many "observed patterns" in the literature due to being insignificant and herewith not real.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/8302
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.34657/7340
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherNew York, NY [u.a.] : Science Directeng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125482
dc.relation.essn1873-3336
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 4.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/eng
dc.subject.ddc530eng
dc.subject.otherContinuous flow centrifugationeng
dc.subject.otherEstuarine microplastic pollutioneng
dc.subject.otherFTIR Imagingeng
dc.subject.otherHydrocycloneeng
dc.subject.otherMeasurement uncertaintyeng
dc.subject.otherMicroplastic monitoringeng
dc.subject.otherQA/QCeng
dc.subject.otherRaman Imagingeng
dc.titleComparison and uncertainty evaluation of two centrifugal separators for microplastic samplingeng
dc.typeArticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorIPFeng
wgl.subjectPhysikeng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison_and_uncertainty_evaluation.pdf
Size:
1.25 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections