4.8 Article

Nanoplastics Identification in Complex Environmental Matrices: Strategies for Polystyrene and Polypropylene

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 55, 期 13, 页码 8753-8759

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01351

关键词

Nanoplastics; polypropylene; Py-GCMS; identification; OM interference; complex matrices

资金

  1. ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) PRC program through the PEPSEA project [ANR17-CE34-0008-05]
  2. Nouvelle-Aquitaine Region (En-Pi project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification of nanoplastics in complex environmental matrices remains a challenge, but researchers have found a reliable analytical method by using pyrolysis coupled to a GCMS instrumental setup. By selecting and validating specific pyrolysis markers and fragment ions, polypropylene and polystyrene nanoplastics were successfully identified.
Identification of nanoplastics in complex environmental matrices remains a challenge. Despite the increase in nanoplastics studies, there is a lack of studies dedicated to nanoplastics detection, partially explained by their carbon-based structure, their wide variety of composition, and their low environmental concentrations compared to the natural organic matter. Here, pyrolysis coupled to a GCMS instrumental setup provided a relevant analytical response for polypropylene and polystyrene nanoplastic suspensions. Specific pyrolysis markers and their indicative fragment ions were selected and validated. Possible interferences with environmental matrices were explored by spiking nanoplastics in various organic matter suspensions (i.e., algae, soil natural organic matter, and soil humic acid) and analyzing an environmental suspension of nanoplastics. While a rapid polypropylene nanoplastics identification was validated, polystyrene nanoplastics require preliminary treatment. The strategies presented herein open new possibilities for the detection/identification of nanoplastics in environmental matrices such as soil, dust, and biota.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据