A comparison of spectroscopic analysis methods for microplastics: Manual, semi-automated, and automated Fourier transform infrared and Raman techniques.
A comparison of spectroscopic analysis methods for microplastics: Manual, semi-automated, and automated Fourier transform infrared and Raman techniques.
复制标题
微塑料光谱分析方法的比较：手动、半自动和自动傅里叶变换红外和拉曼技术。
DOI：
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113101
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
5.8
通讯作者：
W. Shim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Young Kyoung Song;S. Hong;Soeun Eo;W. Shim
本研究旨在通过减少时间需求和人为偏差，并比较μ-FTIR和拉曼技术的特性，建立微塑性分析的最佳实践。人工分析、半自动化方法和全自动鉴定方法进行了比较。全自动鉴定分析整张滤纸所需时间最短（Ø25 mm），但其误报率为80±15%。使用光谱分析的半自动分析适用于微塑性分析的各个方面。该方法比人工分析（人工：6.1±0.8 h，半自动：4.0±0.6 h）耗时短，由于假阴性结果的减少，半自动方法比人工分析多检测出22±12%的微塑料颗粒。拉曼显微镜适用于小微塑料（bbb50 μm）的鉴定，尽管拉曼分析的时间是半自动分析的9倍。
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.
影响因子：
12.8
作者：
Imhof, Hannes K.;Laforsch, Christian;Ivleva, Natalia P.
通讯作者：
Ivleva, Natalia P.