Risk Assessment Research Center, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Geoje-shi 53201, South Korea.
Risk Assessment Research Center, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Geoje-shi 53201, South Korea; Department of Ocean Science, Korea University of Science and Technology, Daejeon 34113, South Korea.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2021 Dec;173(Pt B):113101. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113101. Epub 2021 Nov 4.
This study was conducted to establish the best practice for microplastic analysis by reducing the time demand and human bias and comparing the characteristics of μ-FTIR and Raman techniques. A manual analysis, semi-automated method, and fully automatic identification method were compared. Fully automated identification took the shortest time to analyze a whole filter paper (Ø25 mm), but its false positive identification rate was 80 ± 15%. The semi-automated analysis using spectrum profiling was suitable for all aspects of microplastic analysis. It was less time consuming than the manual analysis (manual: 6.1 ± 0.8 h, semi-automated: 4.0 ± 0.6 h), and 22 ± 12% more microplastic particles were detected using the semi-automated method compared to the manual analysis due to the reduction in false negative results. Raman microscopy was suitable for small microplastic (>5 μm) identification, although the Raman analysis took nine times longer than the semi-automated analysis.
本研究旨在通过减少时间需求和人为偏差，并比较 μ-FTIR 和 Raman 技术的特点，确定微塑料分析的最佳实践。比较了手动分析、半自动方法和全自动识别方法。全自动识别分析整个过滤纸（Ø25mm）所需的时间最短，但假阳性识别率为 80±15%。使用光谱分析的半自动分析适用于微塑料分析的各个方面。它比手动分析耗时更少（手动：6.1±0.8h，半自动：4.0±0.6h），并且由于假阴性结果的减少，使用半自动方法检测到的微塑料颗粒比手动分析多 22±12%。拉曼显微镜适用于小尺寸微塑料（>5μm）的鉴定，尽管拉曼分析比半自动分析长九倍。
