2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anthropogenic microfibres pollution in marine biota. A new and simple methodology to minimize airborne contamination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
74
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 143 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
74
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Airborne fibres contamination of field samples is a challenge in MP studies and this can take place any time during collection, processing and/or microscopic observation, with sample dissection and digestion of mussels being the most vulnerable steps to contamination . Contamination is extremely hard to eliminate, even in highly controlled and/or forensic conditions (Torre et al, 2016;Woodall et al, 2015). So it is essential to systematically use procedural blanks to quantify it , to apply good laboratorial practices (GLP) for quality assurance (Torre et al, 2016) and to report openly real levels of contamination, so that appropriate data analysis, interpretation and inter-studies comparisons can be done.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Airborne fibres contamination of field samples is a challenge in MP studies and this can take place any time during collection, processing and/or microscopic observation, with sample dissection and digestion of mussels being the most vulnerable steps to contamination . Contamination is extremely hard to eliminate, even in highly controlled and/or forensic conditions (Torre et al, 2016;Woodall et al, 2015). So it is essential to systematically use procedural blanks to quantify it , to apply good laboratorial practices (GLP) for quality assurance (Torre et al, 2016) and to report openly real levels of contamination, so that appropriate data analysis, interpretation and inter-studies comparisons can be done.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contamination is extremely hard to eliminate, even in highly controlled and/or forensic conditions (Torre et al, 2016;Woodall et al, 2015). So it is essential to systematically use procedural blanks to quantify it , to apply good laboratorial practices (GLP) for quality assurance (Torre et al, 2016) and to report openly real levels of contamination, so that appropriate data analysis, interpretation and inter-studies comparisons can be done. Even though we applied GLP (see , we observed contamination in our procedural blanks, which, if not taken into consideration in particle counts, influenced data analysis results and therefore interpretation (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These include density separations with varying types and concentrations of salts, sieving, removal of organic matter with acids, bases, peroxide and enzymes (or combinations thereof) and drying or decomposing samples at different temperatures (Hermsen et al, 2017;Hidalgo-Ruz, Gutow, Thompson, & Thiel, 2012;K€ uhn et al, 2017;Lusher, Welden, Sobral, & Cole, 2017;Rocha-Santos & Duarte, 2015;Song et al, 2015;Van Cauwenberghe, Devriese, Galgani, Robbens, & Janssen, 2015). These methods differ in the extent to which particles other than plastic are removed, the likelihood of contamination of the samples with procedural plastic particles from materials used or the work space (Foekema et al, 2013;Torre, Digka, Anastasopoulou, Tsangaris, & Mytilineou, 2016), but also in the extent to which plastic particles that are present in the environmental samples are retained in the samples. Losses of plastic particles occur during these procedures, depending on the number of extraction cycles involved and the aggressiveness of the chemicals used.…”
Section: Challenges In Defining Micro-and Nanoplastic Concentrationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clothing and laboratory coats were 100% cotton for the duration of the study. The microscope cover was used whenever the microscope was not in use, and gloves were always worn (Torre et al, 2016). The lab area was cleaned with an IMS solution three times prior to beginning any analysis.…”
Section: Microparticle Laboratory Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A control petri dish with damp filter paper was placed on the lab bench and analysed at the end of the study to identify any potential air contamination (Courtene-Jones et al, 2017a). Protocols to ensure a clean laboratory environment are more effective than excluding certain microparticles in analysis (Torre et al, 2016). Therefore, no particles were excluded in the analysis.…”
Section: Microparticle Laboratory Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%