Research on microplastics in the environment is of high interest to many scientists and industries globally. Key to the success of this research is the accuracy, efficiency, reliability, robustness and repeatability of the method(s) used to isolate the microplastics from environmental media. However, with microplastics now being found in new complex media, many multifaceted methods have been developed to research the quantities of these pollutants. To validate new methods, recovery studies can be undertaken by spiking the test medium with known quantities of plastics. The method is typically run as normal, and the recovered plastics counted to give a recovery rate. A current issue in this field is that methods are rarely or poorly validated in this way. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis on 71 recovery rate studies. We found sediment was the most studied medium and saline solutions were the most used reagents. Polyethylene and polystyrene were the most used spiking polymers, which is relevant to the most common polymers in the environment. We found that recovery rates were highest from plant material, whole organisms and excrement (>88%), and lowest from fishmeal, water and soil (58-71%). Moreover, all reagents but water were able to recover more than 80% of the spiked plastics. We believe we are the first (to our knowledge) to provide an overarching indication for the underestimation of microplastics in the environment of approximately 14% across the studies we reviewed, varying with the methods used. Furthermore, we recommend that the quality, use and reporting of recovery rate studies should be improved to aid the standardisation and replication of microplastic research.
Keywords: Method; Microplastics; Recovery rate; Standardisation; Underestimation; Validation.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.