What You Net Depends on if You Grab: A Meta-analysis of Sampling Method’s Impact on Measured Aquatic Microplastic Concentration

Microplastic pollution is measured with a variety of sampling methods. Field experiments indicate that commonly used sampling methods, including net, pump, and grab samples, do not always result in equivalent measured concentration. We investigate the comparability of these methods through a meta-an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental science & technology 2021-10, Vol.55 (19), p.12930-12942, Article acs.est.1c03019
Hauptverfasser: Watkins, Lisa, Sullivan, Patrick J, Walter, M. Todd
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 12942
container_issue 19
container_start_page 12930
container_title Environmental science & technology
container_volume 55
creator Watkins, Lisa
Sullivan, Patrick J
Walter, M. Todd
description Microplastic pollution is measured with a variety of sampling methods. Field experiments indicate that commonly used sampling methods, including net, pump, and grab samples, do not always result in equivalent measured concentration. We investigate the comparability of these methods through a meta-analysis of 121 surface water microplastic studies. We find systematic relationships between measured concentration and sampled volume, method of collection, mesh size used for filtration, and waterbody sampled. Most significantly, a strong log–linear relationship exists between sample volume and measured concentration, with small-volume grab samples measuring up to 104 particles/L higher concentrations than larger volume net samples, even when sampled concurrently. Potential biasing factors explored included filtration size (±102 particles/L), net volume overestimation (±101 particles/L), fiber loss through net mesh (unknown magnitude), intersample variability (±101 particles/L), and contamination, the potential factor with an effect large enough (±103 particles/L) to explain the observed differences. On the basis of these results, we caution against comparing concentrations across multiple studies or combining multiple study results to identify regional patterns. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of contamination reduction and quantification strategies, namely that blank samples from all stages of field sampling be collected and reported as a matter of course for all studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/acs.est.1c03019
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2580353047</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2580353047</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a338t-7b17d11fca1e00fc73aec7128b344de7b0f1754e80b444b7a7596c5adec751803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLFOwzAQhi0EEqUws1piRGnPcVynbFWBUqmFARAwRRfHoanaJLWdoRs8Bq_Hk-DQio3pdPf9_-nuJ-ScQY9ByPqobE9b12MKOLDhAekwEUIgYsEOSQeA8WDIB6_H5MTaJQCEHOIO-XxZoKNvVUPvtaPXutZlZmlV0iL_nU4Mpld0ROfaYYAlrra28Dynj7iuV0X53pJFlX1_fFk6XdeoXOuea7SN0RkdbRp0haLzQpmqXqFtm3FVKl0640lVnpKjHFdWn-1rlzzf3jyN74LZw2Q6Hs0C5Dx2gUyZzBjLFTINkCvJUSvJwjjlUZRpmULOpIh0DGkURalEKYYDJTDzKsFi4F1ysdtbm2rT-KSSZdUY_5FNQuG54BBJr-rvVP5ca43Ok9oUazTbhEHS5pz4nJPWvc_ZOy53jhb8rfxP_QNPnIHg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2580353047</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What You Net Depends on if You Grab: A Meta-analysis of Sampling Method’s Impact on Measured Aquatic Microplastic Concentration</title><source>ACS Publications</source><creator>Watkins, Lisa ; Sullivan, Patrick J ; Walter, M. Todd</creator><creatorcontrib>Watkins, Lisa ; Sullivan, Patrick J ; Walter, M. Todd</creatorcontrib><description>Microplastic pollution is measured with a variety of sampling methods. Field experiments indicate that commonly used sampling methods, including net, pump, and grab samples, do not always result in equivalent measured concentration. We investigate the comparability of these methods through a meta-analysis of 121 surface water microplastic studies. We find systematic relationships between measured concentration and sampled volume, method of collection, mesh size used for filtration, and waterbody sampled. Most significantly, a strong log–linear relationship exists between sample volume and measured concentration, with small-volume grab samples measuring up to 104 particles/L higher concentrations than larger volume net samples, even when sampled concurrently. Potential biasing factors explored included filtration size (±102 particles/L), net volume overestimation (±101 particles/L), fiber loss through net mesh (unknown magnitude), intersample variability (±101 particles/L), and contamination, the potential factor with an effect large enough (±103 particles/L) to explain the observed differences. On the basis of these results, we caution against comparing concentrations across multiple studies or combining multiple study results to identify regional patterns. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of contamination reduction and quantification strategies, namely that blank samples from all stages of field sampling be collected and reported as a matter of course for all studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0013-936X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-5851</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Easton: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Contaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments ; Contamination ; Field tests ; Filtration ; Meta-analysis ; Microplastics ; Plastic debris ; Plastic pollution ; Sampling ; Sampling methods ; Surface water</subject><ispartof>Environmental science &amp; technology, 2021-10, Vol.55 (19), p.12930-12942, Article acs.est.1c03019</ispartof><rights>2021 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>Copyright American Chemical Society Oct 5, 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a338t-7b17d11fca1e00fc73aec7128b344de7b0f1754e80b444b7a7596c5adec751803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a338t-7b17d11fca1e00fc73aec7128b344de7b0f1754e80b444b7a7596c5adec751803</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2831-0583</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c03019$$EPDF$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03019$$EHTML$$P50$$Gacs$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2752,27053,27901,27902,56713,56763</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Watkins, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Patrick J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walter, M. Todd</creatorcontrib><title>What You Net Depends on if You Grab: A Meta-analysis of Sampling Method’s Impact on Measured Aquatic Microplastic Concentration</title><title>Environmental science &amp; technology</title><addtitle>Environ. Sci. Technol</addtitle><description>Microplastic pollution is measured with a variety of sampling methods. Field experiments indicate that commonly used sampling methods, including net, pump, and grab samples, do not always result in equivalent measured concentration. We investigate the comparability of these methods through a meta-analysis of 121 surface water microplastic studies. We find systematic relationships between measured concentration and sampled volume, method of collection, mesh size used for filtration, and waterbody sampled. Most significantly, a strong log–linear relationship exists between sample volume and measured concentration, with small-volume grab samples measuring up to 104 particles/L higher concentrations than larger volume net samples, even when sampled concurrently. Potential biasing factors explored included filtration size (±102 particles/L), net volume overestimation (±101 particles/L), fiber loss through net mesh (unknown magnitude), intersample variability (±101 particles/L), and contamination, the potential factor with an effect large enough (±103 particles/L) to explain the observed differences. On the basis of these results, we caution against comparing concentrations across multiple studies or combining multiple study results to identify regional patterns. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of contamination reduction and quantification strategies, namely that blank samples from all stages of field sampling be collected and reported as a matter of course for all studies.</description><subject>Contaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Field tests</subject><subject>Filtration</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Microplastics</subject><subject>Plastic debris</subject><subject>Plastic pollution</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Surface water</subject><issn>0013-936X</issn><issn>1520-5851</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kLFOwzAQhi0EEqUws1piRGnPcVynbFWBUqmFARAwRRfHoanaJLWdoRs8Bq_Hk-DQio3pdPf9_-nuJ-ScQY9ByPqobE9b12MKOLDhAekwEUIgYsEOSQeA8WDIB6_H5MTaJQCEHOIO-XxZoKNvVUPvtaPXutZlZmlV0iL_nU4Mpld0ROfaYYAlrra28Dynj7iuV0X53pJFlX1_fFk6XdeoXOuea7SN0RkdbRp0haLzQpmqXqFtm3FVKl0640lVnpKjHFdWn-1rlzzf3jyN74LZw2Q6Hs0C5Dx2gUyZzBjLFTINkCvJUSvJwjjlUZRpmULOpIh0DGkURalEKYYDJTDzKsFi4F1ysdtbm2rT-KSSZdUY_5FNQuG54BBJr-rvVP5ca43Ok9oUazTbhEHS5pz4nJPWvc_ZOy53jhb8rfxP_QNPnIHg</recordid><startdate>20211005</startdate><enddate>20211005</enddate><creator>Watkins, Lisa</creator><creator>Sullivan, Patrick J</creator><creator>Walter, M. Todd</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2831-0583</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211005</creationdate><title>What You Net Depends on if You Grab: A Meta-analysis of Sampling Method’s Impact on Measured Aquatic Microplastic Concentration</title><author>Watkins, Lisa ; Sullivan, Patrick J ; Walter, M. Todd</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a338t-7b17d11fca1e00fc73aec7128b344de7b0f1754e80b444b7a7596c5adec751803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Contaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Field tests</topic><topic>Filtration</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Microplastics</topic><topic>Plastic debris</topic><topic>Plastic pollution</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Surface water</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Watkins, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, Patrick J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walter, M. Todd</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environmental science &amp; technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Watkins, Lisa</au><au>Sullivan, Patrick J</au><au>Walter, M. Todd</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What You Net Depends on if You Grab: A Meta-analysis of Sampling Method’s Impact on Measured Aquatic Microplastic Concentration</atitle><jtitle>Environmental science &amp; technology</jtitle><addtitle>Environ. Sci. Technol</addtitle><date>2021-10-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>19</issue><spage>12930</spage><epage>12942</epage><pages>12930-12942</pages><artnum>acs.est.1c03019</artnum><issn>0013-936X</issn><eissn>1520-5851</eissn><abstract>Microplastic pollution is measured with a variety of sampling methods. Field experiments indicate that commonly used sampling methods, including net, pump, and grab samples, do not always result in equivalent measured concentration. We investigate the comparability of these methods through a meta-analysis of 121 surface water microplastic studies. We find systematic relationships between measured concentration and sampled volume, method of collection, mesh size used for filtration, and waterbody sampled. Most significantly, a strong log–linear relationship exists between sample volume and measured concentration, with small-volume grab samples measuring up to 104 particles/L higher concentrations than larger volume net samples, even when sampled concurrently. Potential biasing factors explored included filtration size (±102 particles/L), net volume overestimation (±101 particles/L), fiber loss through net mesh (unknown magnitude), intersample variability (±101 particles/L), and contamination, the potential factor with an effect large enough (±103 particles/L) to explain the observed differences. On the basis of these results, we caution against comparing concentrations across multiple studies or combining multiple study results to identify regional patterns. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of contamination reduction and quantification strategies, namely that blank samples from all stages of field sampling be collected and reported as a matter of course for all studies.</abstract><cop>Easton</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><doi>10.1021/acs.est.1c03019</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2831-0583</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0013-936X
ispartof Environmental science & technology, 2021-10, Vol.55 (19), p.12930-12942, Article acs.est.1c03019
issn 0013-936X
1520-5851
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2580353047
source ACS Publications
subjects Contaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments
Contamination
Field tests
Filtration
Meta-analysis
Microplastics
Plastic debris
Plastic pollution
Sampling
Sampling methods
Surface water
title What You Net Depends on if You Grab: A Meta-analysis of Sampling Method’s Impact on Measured Aquatic Microplastic Concentration
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T05%3A13%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20You%20Net%20Depends%20on%20if%20You%20Grab:%20A%20Meta-analysis%20of%20Sampling%20Method%E2%80%99s%20Impact%20on%20Measured%20Aquatic%20Microplastic%20Concentration&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20science%20&%20technology&rft.au=Watkins,%20Lisa&rft.date=2021-10-05&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=12930&rft.epage=12942&rft.pages=12930-12942&rft.artnum=acs.est.1c03019&rft.issn=0013-936X&rft.eissn=1520-5851&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2580353047%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2580353047&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true