Instrument-dependent variability affects both microplastic polymer identification and quantification: an inter-laboratory comparison using polymer standards
12 affiliations
- 1School of Environmental & Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW UK
- 2College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, China
- 3State Key Laboratory of Nutrient Use and Management, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions of Ministry of Education, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, National Observation and Research Station of Agriculture Green Development (Quzhou, Hebei), China Agricultural University, Beijing, China
- 4Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
- 5Soils Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
- 6Plant Nutrition Department, National Research Centre, Giza, Egypt
- 7ICAR – Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, India
- 8Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology, Homogama, Sri Lanka
- 9Department of Urban Bioresources, Faculty of Urban and Aquatic Bioresources, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka
- 10Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
- 11Soils and Fertilizers Institute, Ha Noi, Vietnam
- 12Bioplastic Innovation Hub, Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
Abstract
Microplastic analysis is a critical tool for environmental risk assessments and policy development, aligning with several UN Sustainability Goals, however the extent to which analytical outcomes depend on instrument type and spectral reference libraries remains poorly quantified. Here, we present an inter-laboratory comparison study across seven countries evaluating both infrared polymer identification and fluorescent microscopy quantification, using pristine individual polymer standards, mixed polymer standards, and controlled recovery experiments. Participants used standardised protocols and reference materials, differing only in instrument manufacturer, type, reference library, and observer. Our results demonstrate substantial inter-laboratory variability in spectra match quality, polymer identification accuracy, polymer composition in mixed samples, and recovery rates from standardised matrices. Our findings highlight strong instrument- and library-dependent effects on data output despite the implementation of standardised protocols. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that protocol standardisation alone is insufficient to ensure inter-laboratory comparability and that substantial uncertainty persists in reported microplastic composition and abundance. We therefore propose a collaborative approach between researchers and instrument manufacturers encompassing library harmonisation, instrument calibration, and transparent reporting. Without such measures, reported microplastic composition and abundance may continue to reflect laboratory-specific artefacts rather than true environmental variability, ultimately limiting the confidence and policy impact of the reported results.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-64477-w.
Related
- A high-sensitivity and matrix-resistant liquid chromatography - high resolution mass spectrometry method for accurate quantification of adipic acid in fungal microplastic degradation systems
- Laboratory Experiments Identify Meteoritic Organic Precursors for Chlorinated Compounds Detected by the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) Instrument at Gale Crater
- Automated identification, industrial attribution and conditional emission-rate quantification of recurrent CO enhancement source regions from TROPOMI observations
- Reliable VOC Monitoring in Industrial Coastal Areas: Uncertainty Quantification and Variability in the Berre Basin
- Large Seasonal Variation in Microplastic Concentration from the Truckee River, United States
BibTeX
@article{graf2026instrumentdependent,
title = {{Instrument-dependent variability affects both microplastic polymer identification and quantification: an inter-laboratory comparison using polymer standards}},
author = {Martine Graf and David R. Chadwick and Yingming Sun and Fan Ding and Siyang Ren and Kai Wang and Changrong Yan and Shitong Li and Xuejun Liu and Mona Tolba and Ahmed Mosa and Sanjay Singh and Tapan Adhikari and Asit Mandal and Jyoti K. Thakur and Ajay Yadav and Meththa Gimhani and Achini Dias and Surani Chathurika and Mojith Ariyaratne and Hao T. T. Dang and Hien V. Nguyen and Tien T. Minh and Samantha Viljoen and Davey L. Jones},
journal = {Scientific Reports},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1038/s41598-026-64477-w},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-64477-w},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Instrument-dependent variability affects both microplastic polymer identification and quantification: an inter-laboratory comparison using polymer standards
AU - Martine Graf
AU - David R. Chadwick
AU - Yingming Sun
AU - Fan Ding
AU - Siyang Ren
AU - Kai Wang
AU - Changrong Yan
AU - Shitong Li
AU - Xuejun Liu
AU - Mona Tolba
AU - Ahmed Mosa
AU - Sanjay Singh
AU - Tapan Adhikari
AU - Asit Mandal
AU - Jyoti K. Thakur
AU - Ajay Yadav
AU - Meththa Gimhani
AU - Achini Dias
AU - Surani Chathurika
AU - Mojith Ariyaratne
AU - Hao T. T. Dang
AU - Hien V. Nguyen
AU - Tien T. Minh
AU - Samantha Viljoen
AU - Davey L. Jones
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Scientific Reports
DO - 10.1038/s41598-026-64477-w
UR - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-64477-w
AB - Microplastic analysis is a critical tool for environmental risk assessments and policy development, aligning with several UN Sustainability Goals, however the extent to which analytical outcomes depend on instrument type and spectral reference libraries remains poorly quantified. Here, we present an inter-laboratory comparison study across seven countries evaluating both infrared polymer identification and fluorescent microscopy quantification, using pristine individual polymer standards, mixed polymer standards, and controlled recovery experiments. Participants used standardised protocols and reference materials, differing only in instrument manufacturer, type, reference library, and observer. Our results demonstrate substantial inter-laboratory variability in spectra match quality, polymer identification accuracy, polymer composition in mixed samples, and recovery rates from standardised matrices. Our findings highlight strong instrument- and library-dependent effects on data output despite the implementation of standardised protocols. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that protocol standardisation alone is insufficient to ensure inter-laboratory comparability and that substantial uncertainty persists in reported microplastic composition and abundance. We therefore propose a collaborative approach between researchers and instrument manufacturers encompassing library harmonisation, instrument calibration, and transparent reporting. Without such measures, reported microplastic composition and abundance may continue to reflect laboratory-specific artefacts rather than true environmental variability, ultimately limiting the confidence and policy impact of the reported results. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-64477-w.
SN - 2045-2322
ER -