Measures to prevent cross-contamination in the analysis of microplastics: A short literature review

Pub Date : 2023-06-21 DOI:10.20937/rica.54740
Arely Areanely Cruz-Salas, J. C. Alvarez-Zeferino, Jocelyn Tapia-Fuentes, B. Pérez-Aragón, Carolina Martínez-Salvador, A. Vázquez-Morillas, S. Ojeda-Benítez
{"title":"Measures to prevent cross-contamination in the analysis of microplastics: A short literature review","authors":"Arely Areanely Cruz-Salas, J. C. Alvarez-Zeferino, Jocelyn Tapia-Fuentes, B. Pérez-Aragón, Carolina Martínez-Salvador, A. Vázquez-Morillas, S. Ojeda-Benítez","doi":"10.20937/rica.54740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Marine environments are the most studied habitats when addressing microplastic pollution. However, there are no standardized methodologies for this analysis, so methodologies are often adapted by researchers. This situation has raised doubts concerning the reliability and reproducibility of results that are related to the null or little use of measures to avoid cross-contamination. The objective of this work was to carry out a short review and analyze the different measures that have been reported in research articles for different marine habitats, published in the ScienceDirect database in 2020, to avoid cross-contamination during fieldwork and laboratory work. From the 115 analyzed articles, eight did not report measures at any stage, 61 took measures during sampling, and 98 did it in the processing stage. Even though most studies take steps to prevent cross-contamination, they do not specify the percentage of contamination avoided. However, from the concentrations of microplastics in the blanks and the total microplastic concentrations in the samples, we estimate that between 4.8 and 69 % of contamination is avoided in sampling and between 0.1 and 48.8 % in the laboratory. This shows the need to establish standards for sampling and sample processing, which must include measures regarding the marine environment studied and the stage addressed, as well as the minimum percentages that should be met for the data to be considered valid and reliable.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20937/rica.54740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Marine environments are the most studied habitats when addressing microplastic pollution. However, there are no standardized methodologies for this analysis, so methodologies are often adapted by researchers. This situation has raised doubts concerning the reliability and reproducibility of results that are related to the null or little use of measures to avoid cross-contamination. The objective of this work was to carry out a short review and analyze the different measures that have been reported in research articles for different marine habitats, published in the ScienceDirect database in 2020, to avoid cross-contamination during fieldwork and laboratory work. From the 115 analyzed articles, eight did not report measures at any stage, 61 took measures during sampling, and 98 did it in the processing stage. Even though most studies take steps to prevent cross-contamination, they do not specify the percentage of contamination avoided. However, from the concentrations of microplastics in the blanks and the total microplastic concentrations in the samples, we estimate that between 4.8 and 69 % of contamination is avoided in sampling and between 0.1 and 48.8 % in the laboratory. This shows the need to establish standards for sampling and sample processing, which must include measures regarding the marine environment studied and the stage addressed, as well as the minimum percentages that should be met for the data to be considered valid and reliable.
分享
查看原文
防止微塑料分析中交叉污染的措施:简短的文献综述
在处理微塑料污染时,海洋环境是研究最多的栖息地。然而,这种分析没有标准化的方法,因此研究人员经常对方法进行调整。这种情况引起了人们对结果的可靠性和再现性的怀疑,这些结果与避免交叉污染的措施无效或很少使用有关。这项工作的目的是对2020年发表在ScienceDirect数据库中的针对不同海洋栖息地的研究文章中报告的不同措施进行简短回顾和分析,以避免实地调查和实验室工作中的交叉污染。在115篇分析文章中,8篇在任何阶段都没有报告措施,61篇在采样期间采取了措施,98篇在处理阶段采取了措施。尽管大多数研究都采取措施防止交叉污染,但它们并没有具体说明避免污染的百分比。然而,根据空白中微塑料的浓度和样品中微塑料总浓度,我们估计在采样中避免了4.8%至69%的污染,在实验室中避免了0.1%至48.8%的污染。这表明有必要制定采样和样品处理标准,其中必须包括与所研究的海洋环境和所处理的阶段有关的措施,以及认为数据有效和可靠所应达到的最低百分比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信