Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of Deposition Sampling Methods to Collect Airborne Microplastics in Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Published:
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Airborne microplastics have been identified throughout the Northern Hemisphere in several studies. Synthesising measurements from multiple studies to derive a global distribution of airborne microplastics is difficult because no standard sampling protocol currently exists. Furthermore, measurements from the Southern Hemisphere are largely absent. We undertook a pilot study to test four different deposition samplers and their efficacy in collecting microplastics: a bottle with a funnel attached, an open beaker, a petri dish covered in double-sided adhesive tape and an automatic wet deposition collector. The four samplers were deployed to a suburban site in Christchurch, New Zealand, for four 6-day sampling periods. It was originally hypothesised that the funnel would improve sample retention by limiting resuspension; however, the open beaker was found to be similarly effective. We were unable to assess the effectiveness of the automatic wet deposition collector robustly due to low rainfall during the sampling periods. The adhesive tape sampler proved impractical. Particles collected from all samplers were inspected and classified as microplastics according to a visual screening criteria. Fibres, films, fragments and beads were identified, with fibres being the dominant morphotype (90%); however, only 10% of suspected microplastics were confirmed as plastic following μFTIR spectroscopy. Overall, we recommend the use of a funnel sampler or open beaker for future deposition studies. This is the first study of airborne microplastics in New Zealand and adds to a growing body of evidence as to the widespread nature of microplastics in the atmosphere.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Aude Thierry, Peter McGuigan, Tom Cochrane, Dongqi Lin and Nathan Alexander.

Availability of Data and Material

Available by contacting the corresponding author.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (Contract MFP-UOC1903) and the University of Canterbury Research Seed Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura E. Revell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 22 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 211 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knobloch, E., Ruffell, H., Aves, A. et al. Comparison of Deposition Sampling Methods to Collect Airborne Microplastics in Christchurch, New Zealand. Water Air Soil Pollut 232, 133 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05080-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05080-9

Keywords

Navigation